Brussels row a mixed blessing for Blair

Published on Sunday 14 December 2003 00:00

AS TONY Blair reflects on yesterday’s debacle in Brussels he will probably conclude that the outcome was a domestic blessing but an international nightmare.

Salvaging good news from such a disaster may be akin to pulling a shopping trolley out of a canal - what exactly do you gain? A free ride round Sainsbury’s? - but Blair could claim that no deal is better than a flawed deal.

The Eurosceptics will be able to complain that Europe is incapable of serious institutional reform but they cannot argue that Blair has destroyed 1,000 years of British history by signing a treaty which would have ceded a swathe of sovereign powers to Brussels.

He has also pushed into the margins, for the time being, the vexed question of a referendum on the constitution. The issue was threatening to dominate a January calendar already containing the top-up fees denouement and the publication of the Hutton Inquiry.

Losing the referendum issue will make for a slightly easier life. It was no accident that Blair suggested for the first time yesterday afternoon he was prepared to consider such a poll. With the constitution in a terminal condition, saying he might be in favour of plebiscite was similar to a turkey voting for Christmas on Boxing Day.

But this is the limit of the good news to be dredged from a dismal couple of days in Brussels. Nobody could leave the Belgium capital able to argue that the pro-European case was stronger as a result.

The prize on offer was an enlarged Europe governed by a set of rules supposed to last the EU for the next half century. Instead, the very problem the constitution was designed to rectify - how to ensure an organisation representing 25 individual states can operate effectively - proved the summit’s undoing.

The constitution required unanimity, but it was clear from the moment the representatives arrived at Brussels airport on Thursday evening that there was absolutely no consensus.

The stumbling block was voting rights - how much power the member states had on the power-deciding council of ministers.

Poland and Spain, who were unwilling to relinquish their over-generous allotment of votes, were pitted against a Franco-German axis no longer willing to tolerate a situation where they funded the EU (the union would be unable to function without the funds from the recession-hit German economy) without the proportionate amount of power.

The truth is this impasse could easily have been resolved if it had not become symbolic of a deeper battle at the heart of Europe.

At stake was not just the amount of votes on the council (did Poland and Spain really care if a decision was made on 60%, as the document envisaged, or the 65% proposed by the Italians?) but the future direction of the EU.

The terms of engagement were defined by Donald Rumsfeld, the American Defence Secretary, shortly before the Iraq war: this is Old Europe versus New Europe.

On one side lie the founding fathers of France, Germany and the Benelux countries that believe the security of the last 50 years can only be cemented if the member countries continue down a federalist path. On the other are the new Europeans of Spain, Poland and the other former Soviet states who want a looser coalition which recognises the importance of national sovereignty and the benefits of deregulation, the transatlantic relationship and economic liberalism.

In Brussels yesterday, President Jacques Chirac decided to force the pace. France wrecked yesterday’s deal because it believes Europe needs to decide ultimately which path it should take.

His comments immediately after the talks collapsed were the equivalent of throwing down the gauntlet: the pioneer group of France and Germany have decided to set down the path towards further integration and it is now for the rest of the 25 to decide whether they wish to follow.

This is an invidious situation for Blair. The British Prime Minister was barely at the Brussels summit. He left at 9pm on Friday night and returned for only four hours of talks yesterday.

The strategy in the Blair camp was that if they could avoid turning up for meetings they could avoid having to make a choice between siding with the traditional allies of France and Germany or the new friends of Poland and Spain, both of whose leaders wagered considerable political capital on supporting Britain and America over Iraq.

The difficulty for Blair and his New Labour colleagues is that while new Europe is ideologically attractive, being in the same camp as France and Germany is diplomatically alluring.

This is a dire predicament for a man who frequently boasts Britain under his leadership is now at the heart of Europe.

The preferred solution being touted by Downing Street is that of a multi-speed Europe where countries progress on issues at the politically most convenient speed. Britain, for instance, is at the vanguard on European defence policy but lags behind, perhaps permanently, on the single currency.

This is a pragmatic solution but full of pitfalls. The success of the EU has been its ability to find cohesion on even the most divisive of issues.

A multi-speed Europe could result in a ramshackle, fragmented organisation which invites little confidence from the people it is supposed to represent.

If yesterday’s summit was the start of this process, then its significance should not be underestimated.