Press briefing from the Prime Ministers Official Spokesman on: EU Rebate, Turner Report, Flights and Norman Kember
EU Rebate
Asked if the EU rebate was an "indivisible whole", the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that as the Prime Minister had said to Digby Jones yesterday, the position on the rebate was in line with what he had said in the summer and in various speeches to the EU Parliament, Mansion House speech etc. The PMOS said he was not going to give any more details as he did not want to give a running commentary on the negotiations. What we had said, and believed was important was that the recognised that the Accession countries wanted to have access to the additional and substantial money that they would receive under any deal as quickly as possible. That was why we believed that a deal was necessary, but it would be difficult.
Asked if the rebate could be split into two parts, with one part on the CAP and the other on developing poorer countries, as the language used implies that it would be possible, the PMOS said: no, what he was reflecting was what the Accession countries had said to us. What was as important to the Accessions countries was getting access to the money now, rather than waiting for some deal in the future. That was why, if possible, we would like to do a deal now, but everyone knew the difficulties of doing that, hence not giving a running commentary.
Asked if "no" was also the answer to the question of whether the rebate could be split in two, the PMOS said it was simply reasking the same question that he had already answered. He said again that he was not going to get into the details of the discussions, as the Prime Minister gave his answer yesterday, and that was consistent with what he had said all the way through.
Asked if it would be fair to say that the French appeared to be "digging in their heels" with regards to the CAP, therefore were there any circumstances in which we would be prepared to give up half the rebate, even if there was not a big change on the CAP, the PMOS replied that not only was the journalist building in presumptions about the French position, but also he could not answer the question without going into the detail, and he was not going to do that. The simple fact was that giving a running commentary in the middle of negotiations could only harm the prospect of agreement. What people should not do was to take what the PMOS had said as either agreeing with assertions that were made, or in some way acquiescence. The PMOS said he was simply not going to comment.
Asked to clarify that a deal on the budget could be done without the various issues being solved at this time, the PMOS replied that we were determined to try and do everything we could to get a deal, not least because we recognised the position of the Accession countries. However, it was difficult, and everyone knew what those difficulties were.
Asked whether one was not dependent on the other, however, the PMOS said again the position was as the Prime Minister had set out.
Turner Report
Asked what the Prime Minster’s take on the Turner Report was, the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister had said at the weekend, we would welcome the Turner Report, and we had. The Prime Minister had also said that nothing should be ruled in or out, and that was the position. We believed that this was a very serious report, and as Lord Turner had said, it was 400 pages long, and he was not expecting a "yes" or a "no" today, which was the right approach. We now had the substance, and a serious analysis and a series of proposals. Therefore, the important thing was that we now had a serious debate which would do justice to the seriousness of the report. As John Hutton would make clear in his detailed statement today, we would work towards publishing proposals next year.
Flights
Asked if the Government was co-operating into the investigation about extraordinary rendition flights coming through British airports, the PMOS replied that he had not yet seen anything other than assertion in terms of the story. We had made clear that we had no evidence to corroborate allegations. However, the Foreign Secretary had written to the US, and therefore people should wait for the reply.
Put that Liberty were investigating it, and they had a short deadline, would that happen before a reply came from the US, the PMOS said that Liberty’s deadline was one that had been set only by them, and not anyone else. What was important was that we sorted out fact from speculation, and that was more important than any deadline.
Asked if the investigation would do that, rather than waiting for a letter back from the UN, the PMOS replied that what was important was that people who made allegations should produce some facts to support them.
Norman Kember
Asked if the Prime Minister was being kept informed of the situation with Mr. Kember, the PMOS said he had to be very careful about what he said about Mr. Kember. It was better to leave it to the Foreign Office (FCO), and people knew the reasons why we had to be very careful and why it should be left to the FCO to comment.
delicious
digg
facebook
