Government may adopt EU constitution without vote

• Straw reluctant to agree rejected document should be killed off

• Anger over hints that elements of treaty might still be implemented

• Luxembourg will debate union's future budget at Brussels summit next week

Key quote

"It is not for any one country to make a decision about the future of Europe" - Jack Straw

Story in full PARTS of the European Union constitution could still be implemented, even though there will be no British referendum on the treaty, the government conceded yesterday.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, made the revelation as he confirmed to MPs that the government believes the rejection by French and Dutch voters last week effectively renders the treaty defunct, although he stopped short of saying so explicitly.

But, at the same time as insisting that there was now "no point" in proceeding with the promised British referendum, Mr Straw risked fresh controversy by arguing that some elements of the constitution could - and should - be implemented anyway.

The Conservatives, who had hoped a referendum would give them a chance to inflict a heavy defeat on Labour, are arguing that if any part of the 500-page treaty is to be enacted, British voters must be given their say at the polls.

Some EU leaders have called for selected aspects of the constitution to be implemented through simple modifications to existing European rules. That would avoid the legal need for referendums or parliamentary votes to ratify a new treaty, but would expose the European establishment to accusations of ignoring the will of the electorate.

Liam Fox, the shadow foreign secretary, sought to put Mr Straw on the spot in the Commons yesterday.

"Will the Foreign Secretary give the House an assurance that there will be no attempt to introduce any part of this constitution by the back door, and that any further transfer of power away from the British people will result in a referendum?" he asked.

Mr Straw's answer was equivocal. "No, we are not, but there is a question here," he replied, drawing jeers from the Conservative benches, and from some Labour Eurosceptics, too.

"There are many parts of the constitutional treaty which were reforms which were widely welcomed in all parts of the house," Mr Straw said.

"If the European Commission were to introduce these by other means, we ought to agree them straight away."

There had been suggestions that proposals such as creating an EU foreign minister and a permanent presidency could live on, despite the damage done to the constitution.

Mr Straw insisted that those moves could be implemented only after a referendum.

However, there was a set of proposals in the treaty that would devolve more power down from the Brussels institutions to national parliaments in accordance with the so-called "subsidiarity principle". Those arrangements, Mr Straw said, were uncontentious and ought to be adopted.

That drew a pointed response from Frank Field, a former Labour minister who opposes greater EU integration. He challenged Mr Straw to provide a list of all those parts of the treaty on which the entire Commons agreed.

Mr Straw, thrown by the challenge, could only joke that he would "require a period of reflection" before providing such a list.

Mr Field is not the only figure on Labour's side opposed to moves to introduce parts of the treaty piecemeal.

Derek Scott, Tony Blair's former adviser on the European economy, insisted that ministers must not seek to implement the new rules by the back door.

"The worrying thing is that we have had two very big votes against it in Holland and France and, despite that, some people in Brussels are arguing that bits of the constitution can be picked out and implemented without consultation," Mr Scott said on BBC Radio 4.

"We need assurances from the government that, if any of these proposals in the constitution are re-introduced, they will be put to the British people in a referendum so that they can have their say."

Ian Davidson, the MP for Glasgow South West and a leading Labour Eurosceptic suggested to Mr Straw that he was attempting to "slip through a number of items from the constitution without the promised referendum".

Mr Straw denied that, saying: "I was making a separate and prosaic point about the fact that there are some things, for example to do with strengthening the role of national parliaments, which could be done separately."

As well as declining to give an unequivocal answer on the "backdoor" option, Mr Straw also steered well clear of openly declaring the constitution is now dead.

Under European rules, only a unanimous decision by the 25 EU heads of government can end the constitution process. And those leaders are still far from reaching such an agreement.

Germany's Gerhard Schrder and France's Jacques Chirac will use next week's Brussels summit to press other leaders to declare that the constitution, though wounded, must live on, an outcome that would force Britain's referendum back on to the agenda.

Britain, by contrast, will argue for the lid of the treaty's coffin to be nailed down for good.

UK diplomats have conceded that they will struggle to win support for their position if they are seen to be leading a charge against the constitution.

With that in mind, Mr Straw walked a particularly fine line yesterday, as he announced that the European Union Bill allowing a referendum was not being suspended or dropped, merely parked for the time being.

"We see no point in proceeding at this moment," the Foreign Secretary told MPs.

Dr Fox lampooned Mr Straw for not having the "courage" to declare the treaty dead. "The niceties of EU diplomatic etiquette are being put before sound reason," he said.

Labour MPs, too, appealed to Mr Straw to flatly state that the treaty ought to be scrapped outright.

Jimmy Hood, the Labour MP for Lanark and Hamilton East who chairs the Commons European scrutiny committee, told Mr Straw to show more clarity.

The constitution was "a French idea, led by a French president, now summarily dismissed by the people of France," he said. "The treaty is dead. Let us move on."

Dennis Skinner, the veteran Labour left-winger, drew loud laughter from all sides of the House of Commons when he likened the treaty to Monty Python's dead parrot. "It's deceased. It's kaput. It's no more," he said.

Mr Straw came close to agreeing with that analysis, but not in such stark terms. "Everyone knows what the reality is following the French and Dutch referendums, but it is not for any one country to make a decision about the future of Europe," he told MPs.

Despite Poland's decision yesterday to press ahead with its referendum on the constitution, British officials are still confident that the current EU crisis will reach a conclusion favourable to Britain's interests.

Embedded within the treaty is the legal requirement for every one of the 25 member states to ratify it - either in a referendum or in parliament - by the end of October next year. The longer the impasse over the controversial charter continues, the less likely it is that the document will be adopted in its current form.

With that in mind, British officials say they are quite happy for next week's Brussels summit to break up without a unanimous agreement on the treaty.

"There's every chance we will leave Brussels next week without a comprehensive agreement on this - that's fine by us," one UK official said yesterday. "The more time people have to stop and think about this, the better it is for our case."

BLAIR FACES A DAY ON THE DEFENSIVE

EUROPEAN leaders are planning a long bad Friday for Tony Blair over Britain's 3billion EU budget rebate, writes James Kirkup.

Luxembourg, which holds the European Union presidency, has set aside an entire day at next week's Brussels summit to debate the union's future budget.

Since the UK rebate - which British ministers have vowed to defend - is the main point of contention in the budget debate, the timetable means the Prime Minister will face a day-long ordeal at the hands of other EU leaders.

Germany's chancellor, Gerhard Schrder, and France's president, Jacques Chirac, are planning to use the summit to insist that the EU constitution must be saved, something Britain will oppose.

In Brussels, the constitution's defenders will try to increase the pressure on the "British cheque", which was first won by Margaret Thatcher to compensate Britain for receiving much less in farm subsidies than France, which makes a similar contribution to the EU budget.

British officials were insisting yesterday that the UK is willing to see the summit end without a budget deal, ignoring Luxembourg's warning of a crisis if the issue is not resolved. "The world won't end if we don't agree a budget next week," said one UK diplomat.

And if Mr Blair can run out the clock in Brussels, the balance of power will tip in his direction. The UK takes up the presidency on 1 July, and with it the ability to set the EU's agenda for six months.

Britain's priorities are unlikely to create a climate conducive to greater French acceptance of the constitution and the wider EU project.

Mr Blair has made no secret of his desire to kick-start the stalled process of economic reform, a policy many in France see as an Anglo-Saxon plot to prise open its well-protected markets.

Instead of seeking direct confrontation with France over its markets, though, the UK will focus on curbing the growth of European red-tape.

The "better regulation" drive will see current business rules re-examined to see if they are still justified. And the European Commission will come under pressure to assess the impact of planned regulations before putting new rules in place.

Another thrust of British policy will be to advance EU membership for Turkey.

Many French voters oppose Turkish membership and voted against the constitution because of this, even though the treaty does not explicitly mention Turkey.

Formal entry negotiations between Turkey and the European Commission are due to begin 3 October, under a decision made unanimously by EU leaders last year.

British diplomats say the UK will use the presidency to lean on other EU members - and France in particular - not to try to reverse that decision.