Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)
RT HON
MARGARET BECKETT,
PATRICK REILLY
AND ANTHONY
SMITH
19 JUNE 2007
Q120 Andrew Mackinlay: Okay. You
have indicated that nothing much has been going on. I have seen
quotes from some stage in which you have said that nothing has
been going on, but we have heard what you have said on that.
Margaret Beckett: A bit more has
gone on since then.
Q121 Andrew Mackinlay: Sure, but
the statement in the President's report to the European Council
says that there have been "very extensive consultations"
on the treaty reform process and possible ways forward. They are
bragging that there have been "very extensive consultations".
Margaret Beckett: They are free
to call them consultations, and they are consultations in the
sense that they have had people in and said, "What's your
general approach?" I guess that most people have done what
we have done, which is indicate our general approach and our concern
that this should be an amending treaty. What the Prime Minister
said to the Liaison Committee on whatever day it was is the closest
that we have come to spelling out some of the detail on our red
lines. We have been keeping our negotiating powder dry and so
has everybody else.
Q122 Chairman: Before I bring in
Richard Younger-Ross, can you clarify the role in the preparation
process of the Berlin declaration, on which there were negotiations
in March? Has that played any role?
Margaret Beckett: I do not think
that the Berlin declaration was ever intended to play a role.
By the way, the process of preparing the Berlin declaration was
quite similar to the process we are having now in that, as Mr
Mackinlay called it, there was a process of consultation. Everybody
was asked for their opinion and lots of people gave their opinions,
but we did not see a draft until 23 March and it was published
on 25 March. It was published, of course, as a three-presidency
statement—the presidency of the European Parliament, the
presidency of the Council, and the presidency of the Commission.
It was published as a presidency statement, not as an agreed Council
statement.
Q123 Chairman: Was there a change?
Was the original intention that it should be a Council statement?
Margaret Beckett: I think that
perhaps there was a hope that it might be a Council statement,
but during the process of consultation there were quite differing
views as to how the Berlin declaration should be approached. There
were some who felt that there ought to be an intergovernmental
conference and that a declaration on behalf of the whole of the
European Union could not be produced through a relatively informal
process. There were some people who would have liked it to have
been a very extensive document, but the great majority of member
states wanted something short, succinct and, hopefully, somewhat
visionary.
The only way that the declaration touched on
this process is that there was a reference in it—I cannot
remember the exact words, although no doubt somebody has got them—to
a common desire to achieve reform in the European Union, which
some people read as meaning that we will go ahead with the constitutional
treaty unchanged. I do not think that that was what it was intended
to say, but that is how some people read it, so there was a degree
of sensitivity about that wording. That is the nearest it got
to being related to this matter.
Q124 Richard Younger-Ross: I wonder
whether you could explain the logic behind your negotiating stance
on this, Foreign Secretary. It strikes me that the Government
have either been complacent or incompetent. Quite clearly there
have been negotiations going on among other countries to prepare
the ground for the summit and the IGC ahead of us. Why have the
Government taken the stance that they will keep their powder dry?
Why have they not engaged in the process, so that we would have
some influence over what the German's will tell us tomorrow, rather
than having to stamp our feet like a petulant child and say, "No,
we're not going to do that."?
Margaret Beckett: I am afraid
that the description that you give, Mr Younger-Ross, is not an
accurate description of what has happened. First of all, in so
far as the opportunity has been offered, we have engaged with
the German Government. We have set out very plainly our approach
and that we believe the treaty that is required is one that has
a different approach from the constitutional treaty. Whenever
the opportunity has been offered, we have engaged in dialogue.
You say that there have been negotiations among
other countries, but I do not believe that that is so. I think
that what has happened is a version of what I described to Mr
Mackinlay as a dialogue. We have had discussions with other member
states in which we have said, "Broadly speaking, we are here.
This is our approach; we need an amending treaty. There are areas
where we have concerns." We have all had those discussions,
but they are not negotiations.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I explain what
I mean. To my mind the process of actual negotiation begins when
you are invited to set out your core demands to a partner with
whom you are negotiating, who also has a set of core demands.
The exchange perhaps then begins by them saying, "You cannot
possibly have that, but perhaps we could give ground on this or
help you with that bit there." You may then say, "This
is completely unsatisfactory and, what is more, we cannot accept
that under any circumstances." That is a process that then
goes on. It is a detailed process of assessment and, if you like,
trading. To the best of my knowledge and understanding—and
I have talked and, more to the point, listened to all my Foreign
Minister colleagues over the months—no such process has
taken place.
Let me give you an example involving a statement
that was made the other day. President Sarkozy is clearly anxious
to build good relationships with his new partners and with as
many member states as he can. He has undertaken a process of discussion
with our Prime Minister and has said that we have reached common
ground on the fact that we both think, from our different points
of view, that there should be an amending treaty. He has had other
discussions with the Spanish Government, whereby they have clearly
identified areas of common ground. Part of the reason why I say
this process is challenging is that, as far as I can see, probably
no one member state is in exactly the same position as, and has
a negotiated agreement with, any other member state.
Q125 Richard Younger-Ross: Really?
Margaret Beckett: I may be exaggerating,
but only very slightly.
Q126 Richard Younger-Ross: You have
used the word "discussion", and I fear that you might
have misled the European Scrutiny Committee in your evidence on
7 June.
Margaret Beckett: Very unlikely,
if I may say so.
Q127 Richard Younger-Ross: I asked
you specifically then, "Can you confirm whether there have
been discussions about these matters, although they might not
be negotiations?" You did not expand at that time to say
that there had been meetings with the Germans or that there had
been discussions and dialogue with our Prime Minister.
Margaret Beckett: Again, I think
that we are at cross-purposes. I am trying to remember what you
asked me. If I recall it correctly, you asked whether there had
been specific discussions about treaty content. There had not
been in the way that I consider to form part of a negotiating
preparation and a discussion leading up to that. As I said to
you in the European Scrutiny Committee, it was very much the case
that that was so. By the way, I was also talking about collective
discussion round the Council table.
Q128 Richard Younger-Ross: That was
not the question that I put to you. I shall again put to you the
full question: "The Foreign Secretary very carefully used
the words `meaningful negotiations'. I am wondering if you used
the words twice whether negotiations preclude discussions"—that
is, did you mean negotiate and not discussions? I continued: "Can
you confirm whether there have been discussions about these matters,
although they might not be negotiations?" You did not answer
that there had been any discussions or dialogue.
Margaret Beckett: Perhaps we were
at cross-purposes then, because I meant that there had not been—indeed,
you could probably say that there still have not been—discussions
in Council, around the Council table, about the approach on the
treaty or its content. No such discussions have taken place.
Q129 Chairman: May I ask you about
the process that we are engaged in within our own role here? This
negotiation comes at an interesting time, because there is to
be a change of Prime Minister. How closely has the Prime Minister-elect
been involved in this discussion? We know that he will not be
there at the weekend either, but if this process leads to an IGC
under the Portuguese presidency, clearly it will be for the new
Prime Minister to take that forward.
Margaret Beckett: Indeed.
Q130 Chairman: If it does not lead
to that, he will have to deal with the mess that comes out of
the weekend. Could you give us an insight into how this has been
co-ordinated?
Margaret Beckett: I would simply
say that, as I think the Committee would expect, once it became
clear that the Chancellor would become the Prime Minister—if
there had been a contest, that would have been at least nominally
in question and a slightly different constitutional situation
would have been created—a greater exchange of dialogue and
discussion took place, which has been an ongoing process.
Q131 Andrew Mackinlay: Can you tell
us more? We are entitled to know about the machinery of government.
Margaret Beckett: There is nothing
exciting about this in terms of the machinery of government. This
is just not an area that he has been engaged in, and he has now
received the kind of briefings that we have had.
Q132 Ms Stuart: I know how painful
the negotiations are and I still occasionally break out in a cold
sweat when I think back to the days when I was involved, but the
problem with negotiations as you describe them is that the typical
scenario, in my experience, is that the others have a list of
things they want and we have a list of things we do not want.
So far as all these negotiations are concerned, the only time
we ever really wanted something was when we wanted the European
President—the creation of that post. Can I have just one
nugget of concrete information? As that was at one stage our key
priority, do we still think that it is something that we should
be fighting for and still want?
Margaret Beckett: We certainly
think that that is a rule change that would substantially improve
the efficiency of the way the European Union works, but I would
say that our main negotiating goal in this particular process,
which is of course quite different—I genuinely sympathise
with the ordeal that those of you who were involved in the treaty
negotiations went through—has been to get acceptance that
the treaty that is put forward should be an amending treaty and
should have the characteristics and the likely content of an amending
treaty. It remains to be seen, but I would anticipate it may well
be that the position of President will be there.
Q133 Ms Stuart: With the indulgence
of the Chair, may I ask another question? If it is an amending
treaty, would an amending treaty, according to your definition,
be the appropriate vehicle for something such as giving the European
Union a single legal personality, and are we for or against that?
Margaret Beckett: If I recall
correctly—Patrick will kick me or correct me if I am wrong—there
was an extension of the use of single legal personality in the
Treaty of Amsterdam.
Patrick Reilly: Not exactly, Foreign
Secretary.
Margaret Beckett: No, partly.
Remind me.
Patrick Reilly: We have had legal
personality in the European Community since 1957.
Margaret Beckett: I am well aware
of that, but there was some extension to the European Union at
some point—in an amending treaty anyway if it is not Amsterdam.
As Patrick points out to the Committee, the European Community
had a single legal personality from 1957, and there has been some
sort of functional exercise of that kind of personality in the
European Union, exercised normally, I think I am right in saying,
by the Presidents of the Council of the day, so it may sound a
big deal, but as this kind of thing has been dealt with in the
past in an amending treaty, it no doubt could be dealt with in
an amending treaty on this occasion.
Q134 Ms Stuart: It is a big deal.
The fully fledged single personality is one of the main things
most European integrationists seek, and by that I mean the full
single legal personality that will allow the EU to enter into
treaty negotiations across the whole range, not just where it
has sole competence. That is what was in the original document.
Is that something that we think is acceptable, and is acceptable
for an amending treaty?
Margaret Beckett: I can only repeat
that we will have to see what is put forward, but the fact that
the European Community has had a single legal personality from
the beginning and had it before there was a European Union puts
it in a somewhat different context. I accept your point entirely
that there are people with particular ambitions for the development
of the European Union who would choose to construe such a step
in a particular way. That is quite another matter from saying
that it is an inevitable consequence.
Q135 Sir John Stanley: The Chancellor
of the Exchequer, as he will be for another week or so, said this
morning that he would hold a referendum if it was necessary. You,
in answer to an earlier question from the Committee this afternoon,
very carefully did not rule out the possibility of a referendum.
The question, therefore, that I put to you is this: what are the
circumstances in which the Government would judge it right and
appropriate to hold a referendum?
Margaret Beckett: First of all,
I am afraid I did not hear what the Chancellor said this morning,
but I accept what you say, Sir John, and as you say, not only
today but at all times I have been careful not to say—in
fact, I do not think that any of us have said—there will
not be a referendum. What we have always said is it would depend
on the content of any treaty that was agreed whether or not the
Government judged that that was something that required a referendum.
Of course, other people will have their views, and I shall be
astonished if there are not large numbers of people who demand
a referendum no matter what is in the treaty.
Q136 Sir John Stanley: Are you saying
that there will be a considerable period before the Government
are able to tell the Committee and the House whether they accept
that there should be a referendum, or not, or are you saying that
by the end of the summit process this weekend, you will be in
a position to tell the House next week whether you believe there
should be a referendum or not?
Margaret Beckett: One must not
prejudge the matter, but if there is agreement on a mandate this
weekend, I would have thought that it would be possible to say
then whether or not, in the Government's judgment, it was sufficient
to require a referendum. That is my expectation, Sir John. I cannot,
of course, give an assurance that that will be so, but that is
my expectation.
Q137 Sir John Stanley: So we can
expect that by next Monday the Government will have been able
to form a judgment on whether the mandate is such that they believe
that there should be a referendum or not.
Margaret Beckett: Yes. I certainly
hope so.
Q138 Mr Horam: May we return to a
statement you made a few moments ago? You said that your main
aim in the discussions was to achieve something that had the characteristics
of an amending treaty. Is that a fair summary of your objective?
Margaret Beckett: Yes—one
that lacks the characteristics of a constitution.
Q139 Mr Horam: May we drill down
on that a little? When you refer to the characteristics of an
amending treaty, what would be the content of that? As I understand
it—I am focusing on what has been said in the past few weeks—we
would be prepared to accept as characteristics of an amending
treaty, first, a single Foreign Secretary for the European Union,
secondly, a presidency that lasted three years rather than six
months, and, thirdly, changes to the voting weights in the Council
to reflect greater power for the major countries. Would that be
a reasonable discussion?
Margaret Beckett: No, I am not
saying that, and I shall explain why. I have never said that this
and this would be characteristics of an amending treaty. We approach
the issue from the opposite direction. There are things that would
give a treaty the characteristics of a constitution, and we have
set our face against having a treaty with the characteristics
of a constitution. If it is not a constitution, to my mind it
is an amending treaty, which is what we are seeking, and there
will then be discussion about the content of that. If the content
of a proposed treaty included something that we believed gave
it the characteristics of a constitution, that would make it something
of a constitutional treaty rather than an amending treaty.
| 
