Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: European Constitution and PM Juncker.
European Constitution
Asked if the Foreign Secretary would make an announcement about a referendum on the EU Constitution in his Statement to the House tomorrow, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that Mr Straw would provide an update on the EU Constitution. Questioned as to whether the Cabinet would need to discuss the proposal to hold a referendum before a final decision was made, the PMOS said that he had no intention of pre-empting what Mr Straw might say in his Statement tomorrow in the House, which was obviously the appropriate place for any comments to be made. That said, as we had made clear at the end of the last Brussels Summit in March, people could judge for themselves the reality of a new Constitution that was agreed - if it was agreed - in June. The sooner that reality was held up to the light of the scrutiny of Parliament, the better. In the Government’s view, the Parliamentary process was the right place to go, and the sooner people could deal with the reality of the situation, rather than myths or scare stories, the better. Put to him that the Prime Minister had told journalists at the end of the Brussels Summit in March that there would not be a referendum, the PMOS repeated that he had no intention of pre-empting the Foreign Secretary’s Statement tomorrow. However, he would draw journalists’ attention to the Prime Minister’s words on the Today Programme on Saturday when he had said that nothing had changed, but that if anything did, then the Government would obviously tell the people. Asked if anything had changed since Saturday, the PMOS said that the position remained as set out by the Prime Minister on the Today Programme. He had nothing further to add.
Asked the Prime Minister’s view on whether referendums should be held as a matter of principle, the PMOS said that each case would vary according to the circumstances. He was not in the business of dealing with hypothetical scenarios. Asked if a referendum on the EU Constitution would be held, the PMOS repeated that he was not going to pre-empt the Foreign Secretary’s Statement tomorrow. Asked when Cabinet had last discussed the referendum issue, the PMOS said that the EU Constitution was frequently discussed at Cabinet meetings and between Cabinet colleagues. Asked if there had been any sort of Cabinet discussion over the weekend, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister remained in regular contact with his Cabinet colleagues, as you would expect, and discussed issues with them in a variety of formats.
Asked how soon people would be able to judge the new Constitution for themselves, the PMOS repeated that he had no intention of pre-empting Mr Straw’s Statement. He had simply been underlining the point that the Government believed people should judge the reality of any Constitution for themselves - a Constitution which, it should be noted, had yet to be agreed - and see it held up to the light of Parliamentary scrutiny. He pointed out that, were a Constitution to be agreed in June, it would take time for any EU legislation to emerge. That would push us into the autumn. However, these were matters which the Foreign Secretary would no doubt deal with tomorrow.
Asked if the Government continued to believe that an EU Constitution would not undermine British sovereignty, the PMOS said that any Constitution to which we would agree would not cross our red lines and ipso facto would not undermine our position. Asked why, if that was the case, the Government had decided to hold a referendum, the PMOS repeated that he was not going to pre-empt Mr Straw’s Statement. As we had said at the end of the last Brussels Summit, the sooner people saw the Constitution for themselves set out in back and white, rather than rely on myths and scare stories, the better.
Asked if the best - and first - place for public scrutiny of the Constitution was through all stages of the Parliamentary process, the PMOS said that the Parliamentary process was the best way to examine the details of any emerging Constitution. That was the way things had been done in the past. Asked if a Bill would be introduced in the autumn, the PMOS pointed out that by the time the Constitution was translated and turned into a legal document, it would probably be around October/November time. Put to him that the document would go before Parliament as an EU Treaty which could not be amended in any event, which would mean that a referendum could easily be held at the start of the Parliamentary process rather than at its end, the PMOS said that Parliamentary scrutiny of any treaty was important, particularly anything which might emerge in June.
Asked to explain why a referendum could not be held on the basis of the Constitution agreed in June, the PMOS said that in the Government’s view, Parliamentary scrutiny - and therefore the role of Parliament - was important. Asked if there was an established precedent to support the Government’s view, the PMOS said that the Government’s overall approach was to give Parliament its due rights and due responsibilities.
Asked if the Prime Minister continued to believe that the draft Constitution was simply a ‘tidying up exercise’, the PMOS said the Prime Minister continued to believe that the draft Constitution was an essential part of the enlargement process for Europe which did not threaten this country’s basic position. In fact, it was an advantage inasmuch as it would open up Europe, bring in more members and also mean that it would be able to operate more effectively at twenty-five than it was currently able to do.
Questioned as to whether the Government would dismiss any arguments against the Constitution as ‘myths’ and ’scare stories’ ‘based on untruths’, the PMOS said no. He was simply making the point that the sooner an agreement on the Constitution was reached, the sooner it could be set out in black and white so as to allow people to view it on a purely factual basis. At the moment, we had to deal with generalisations. We wanted to deal with the specifics. Asked if he was suggesting that no factual or rational arguments had been put forward in opposition to the Constitution, the PMOS said that that was a sweeping generalisation in itself. It was clear that we needed an agreement on the Constitution to be reached sooner rather than later.
Asked if the Prime Minister would accept the fact that a rejection of the Constitution either by Parliament or in a referendum would essentially mean having to withdraw from the EU, the PMOS said that it wasn’t his policy to answer hypothetical questions. Journalists should exercise a little patience and wait for Jack Straw’s Statement tomorrow.
Asked how much work the EU still needed to do on the EU Constitution, how open to negotiation our red lines were and whether agreement on the Constitution could indeed be reached by June, the PMOS said that we took our lead from the Irish Presidency’s assessment of the situation because they were the ones in the driving seat. We had emerged from the last European Summit in Brussels with a new sense of momentum and a recognition that there was a desire to try to agree a Constitution by June. Of course, the Irish Government themselves would freely admit that that did not, of itself, guarantee success. There were still difficult issues to be resolved, such as the issue of majority voting. In our view, however, there was a new drive, a new momentum and a new wish to achieve a Constitution. The Irish Prime Minister, Bertie Ahern, was a very experienced negotiator who knew his way around the European scene. He had been talking to European leaders about this matter and we would await the outcome of those discussions.
Asked if the Government still believed that life would go on without a European Constitution, the PMOS said that both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary had underlined that while life would indeed go on, a Europe at twenty-five needed more coherence. The Prime Minister himself had spoken of the difficulty of making decisions in a Europe at twenty-five which continued to operate under the old system. That was why it was imperative to reach agreement - and in this country’s interests to do so.
Asked to explain why Jack Straw was making a Statement on the EU White Paper, the PMOS said that he would set out our coherent approach to the EU in general. He pointed out that this was the second EU White Paper. Asked why the Prime Minister would not be making the Statement, the PMOS pointed out that it was the Foreign Secretary who was responsible for seeing through the detail of the EU Constitution, both in terms of the negotiation and in terms of the Parliamentary process. He was therefore the obvious person to provide an update to Parliament tomorrow. However, things had still to be finalised.
Asked for a reaction to reports that the Prime Minister had discussed the issue of a referendum with Rupert Murdoch, the PMOS said that he was not aware of any such discussions having taken place.
PM Juncker
Asked if was correct to say that the British Government did not support the candidacy of Prime Minister Juncker of Luxembourg as President of the EU Commission, the PMOS said that we had not commented on any candidacies and he was not going to start doing so today.
delicious
digg
facebook
