Richard Spring MP
Member of Parliament for West Suffolk

It was very interesting to be in the Chamber yesterday to witness Gordon Brown’s attempt to defend his stance on the EU Reform Treaty. We heard a lot of waffle about competitiveness, prosperity, climate change and jobs as if it were these issues that were at the forefront of the agenda discussed in Portugal last weekend. They were clearly not.

What was extraordinary was the relative silence in which Gordon Brown was heard. The problem is that successive Governments have not been truthful with the British people on the subject of Europe. There is nothing wrong in comprehensively debating the right and wrongs of the EU but it must be based on truth. Time and time again, we have been told of triumphal negotiations that will defend British national interests yet this is in total contrast to the views of our European neighbours about the very same meeting!

I saw this problem highlighted yesterday. Nobody believes the so called red lines will hold given the opinions of most EU leaders and the way in which the red lines will inevitably be contested in the courts. It will  be some time before we see how the courts will judge these red lines but history shows us that they are unlikely to be sustained.

That is why Gordon Brown’s statement had such an unenthusiastic reaction from his own side in the Chamber yesterday. We have been here so often before. 

Whatever one’s view is of the European Union, it is regrettable that successive British governments have not told the truth about treaties, inter-governmental conferences and the like.  At least if there was an honest debate, it would dispel any false impressions, whether one favours these developments or not.

It is truly incredible that by excising the word constitution, somehow the essential elements of the constitution are meant to disappear.  It was Giscard d’Estaing who drove on the process towards a constitutional treaty.  He has now confirmed, along with virtually every other European leader, that the old constitution is alive and well, and simply re-phrased.  It is real Alice in Wonderland stuff.  Once again a British Government has failed to set out its stall, or a clear vision of the future architecture of the EU, and then fought for it.

Yet, so far at least, the public appear not to be too passionate, on this occasion, about what has happened.  At best, the constitution is a voyage into irrelevance as the EU grapples with problems which pale into insignificance compared with the huge challenge Europe faces in the 21^st Century.  All very strange indeed.
 

Willy Brandt once observed that politicians come into politics to resolve a given set of problems, and once resolved, they cannot move on.

So the EU, for all its success in helping to achieve peace and stability, has indeed also failed to move on. As David Cameron said, in a speech at the Movement for European Reform launch in Brussels, it “needs to change if it is to be fit for the challenges of the new century, not stuck haggling over the debris of the last.”

There are indeed huge challenges such as the economic problems and opportunities of globalisation; the environmental impact of climate change and the issue of world poverty.

All of this is true. However there remains the question of the actual architecture of the EU, in the face of the revived and revised constitution.

Let us step back a bit. The Laeken Declaration, signed in 2001, in response to the expansion of the EU, pointed out that the EU was at a crossroads, and actually asked many of the right questions on how best to proceed.

It sought to highlight the so-called democratic deficit, calling for European institutions to be brought closer to its citizens by their becoming more democratic, more transparent and more efficient.  It called for the clarification and simplification of the division of competences between the EU and its Member States.  It asked how to ensure that a redefined division of competences does not lead to a creeping expansion of the competence of the Union or to encroachment upon the exclusive areas of competence of Member States.  It called for a simplification of the EU’s legislative instruments, and the restoration of tasks to member states.

The creation of a constitution was not a clearly expressed instruction. However, under the strong personality of the chairman, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the Convention on the Future of Europe was driven on to draw up a constitution which effectively undermined the basic premises of the Laeken Declaration.

Since then nothing has been done on the declaration’s commitments to reassess the distribution of powers between the member states and the EU.

As we saw again yesterday, the Blair government has never laid out a clear vision of how the EU should work, or defined the structure of the EU in the spirit of Laeken. Yet again, it has been carried along in the slipstream of others, and then tried with mixed success to reverse the momentum. It has been a huge failure of leadership. Unless and until we find a structure which will give the people of Europe some sense of ownership and control, dissatisfaction with the EU will continue to grow.

The constitutional agreements agreed at the weekend do not remotely begin to address this.

If London has a reputation for fog (it isn’t true) then Brussels has a reputation for rain (it is). Yesterday in Brussels David Cameron and the Czech Prime Minister launched the Movement for European Reform. We cheerfully filled a Eurostar carriage with business people, academics and politicians.

David cited two huge challenges for Europe – what global competition is doing to the long term prosperity of Europe; environment and climate change, and global poverty – all of which interconnect. He also talked about reversing and bringing back powers to member states, as in social and employment legislation. Meanwhile, some European politicians are still trying to create a constitutional structure which really has nothing to do with these issues.

It was an upbeat and optimistic occasion, with some excellent panel discussions. Everybody talks of the need for reform, at least now the stepping stones to this have been clearly laid out. We cannot simply wish the European Union away, as some would do. We can however, begin to talk about the real problems and opportunities which challenge us in Europe in the twenty first century, and show the leadership which has been sorely lacking from this Government.

Vulpine, serpentine, duplicitous….these are just some of the adjectives which have been applied to the Prince of Darkness, Peter Mandelson. What an enigmatic figures he is, so brilliant at analysing problems and issues other than those which apply to himself.

Yet, even if not amongst Labour MPs, he is regarded with some admiration in political terms by many Conservatives on the grounds that he was central in making the Labour Party electable, a remarkable feat after so many years in the political wilderness. Personally he is charming, funny and clever.

Peter Mandelson is an enthusiastic Europhile, and in The Guardian yesterday effectively attacks Gordon Brown for his rather less fulsome views on the European Union. The Brown camp is constantly throwing out hints about the Chancellor’s dissatisfaction with much about the EU.

I am convinced that Mandy would do anything to stop Gordon from succeeding Tony and that Gordon knows this. Until Gordon, as is now very likely, succeeds this summer, the heavy hints and spats will continue, not even in code.

Unless something seismic happens to Gordon, he will in due course either seek to marginalise or decapitate Peter. Knowing this, Peter may feel he has nothing to lose. It will make for great entertainment.

The latest polls put the Conservatives clearly in the lead. It is hardly surprising. As I have seen for myself, once a Government gets into trouble, the problems  usually begin to accelerate – the Ruth Kelly saga seems to underline this point……….and it is Governments that lose elections. It is Oppositions that make that process even faster, particularly when the Leader of the Opposition is doing so well.

This morning two members of the House of Lords joined UKIP, just at a time when a Conservative government looks an increasing possibility. What is new in European affairs is that public opinion across the EU is becoming more hostile, whether to the EU itself or the Euro. The utterances of some European politicians reflect such an absurdly outdated and narrow view of the world that their views are increasingly irrelevant. So we can foresee fresh opportunities to build relationships amongst European countries, not frozen in the 1950s and 1960s mindset in which the EU has evolved.

There is a real opportunity now for a British Government to fill this intellectual and functional void, and forge something different. It will require leadership that has been wholly lacking by the Labour Government.

As ever in politics, when the wheels begin to come off for a Government, the process only speeds up.

Whilst it is true that events abroad do not normally intrude into the thinking of British voters, the shambles of Tony Blair’s visit to the Middle East are symptomatic of exhaustion and dysfunctionality. The British people have formed a judgment about Iraq and our relationship with the United States which is contributing to their negative view of the Prime Minister. It is the main reason for his departure.

But perhaps more significantly for the future has been the media mood change in respect of Gordon Brown. The days that he can re-hash, re-announce and hide spending figures are now over. He has been universally criticised by  financial and economic commentators including those who have always supported him! Can it really be true that the weight of taxation in this country is about to overtake Germany’s? What a squandered legacy.

For them will it ever be glad confident morning again? If things continue as they are now, I doubt it. 

For me personally, I am taking my family away on holiday. The blog will be up and running again on 8^th January. Thank you to all those who have contacted me about it.

May I wish you a happy Christmas and New Year. 

The European Union is hitting some major problems. Despite the rejection of the EU constitution by the French and the Dutch, there are those who believe that it has to be revived. A number of member states have approved the constitution. Putting aside whether a constitutional treaty is a good or bad thing (I think it is the latter) what we have to accept is that the passion for closer political integration still exists strongly within parts of the EU.

Ironically there is something of an inverse relationship between those who are most committed to a European political entity and their being the least willing to spend money on defence. It makes a nonsense of a common European foreign and defence policy.

However, we are now at risk of turning away Turkey from the reform process which EU accession has stimulated.

This would be a mistake of horrific geopolitical proportions, unrecognised by some European politicians looking selfishly at their domestic electorates.

At least the dangers are recognised in this country. We had a debate about European affairs in the Commons yesterday, where I made a short speech. Additionally we  have to deal constructively with the countries that border Europe, but are not in the accession process. Of these, Ukraine is the most important.

You can read the full text of my speech on my parliamentary website by clicking on the link below:

http://www.richardspringmp.com/