Posted 6:01 AM by Dil
¡Viva el Daily Mail!

They are our natural partners in Europe. If only they'd buy our tabloids

Timothy Garton Ash in Madrid
Thursday May 22, 2003
The Guardian

While the Sun and the Daily Mail rant against the proposed European constitution as if it were written by Napoleon and illustrated by Adolf Hitler; while New Labour begins to tear itself apart over Europe just as the old Conservatives did under Margaret Thatcher; while much of the political nation indulges in yet another orgy of ideological, petty, misinformed and fundamentally un-British controversy about this phantasm we call "Europe"; while, in short, Britain continues to cut off its nose to spite its face, the real Europe marches on.
The real Europe as seen, for example, in Spain - now a dynamic, increasingly self-confident European power. Here is a country that is going places. Where exactly it's going is the subject of domestic political controversy, especially in the run-up to important regional and local elections this Sunday. But the general direction in which Spain is heading is, for the most part, deeply compatible with what most British people would like for Europe.

We're just too ignorant - and too misinformed by our own press - to see it. Not that ignorance of the workings of the EU is confined to Britain. In a recent poll conducted by the Real Instituto Elcano, Madrid's lively new foreign policy thinktank, only 1% of a representative sample of Spaniards thought that Valery Giscard d'Estaing's convention on the future of Europe is there to write a constitution for Europe. Ninety per cent of those asked had not heard of the convention at all. I'm not sure which is worse: to be vaguely in favour of the EU but know very little about it, which seems to be the condition of most Spaniards, or to be vaguely against it because the little you know is mostly lies, which is the case of most Britons.

As the Daily Mail has not failed to spot, Spain will actually be having a referendum on the constitutional treaty, when that document finally emerges from the maw of an intergovernmental conference next spring. For one of the many things the Daily Mail is in no hurry to tell its readers is that the convention's draft constitutional treaty will be reshaped by 25 national governments, each effectively armed with a veto, and then has to be ratified by 25 national democracies, after the enlargement of the EU on May 1 2004.

The Spanish referendum, which is only consultative, will be timed to coincide with the European elections in June next year, but there is no question that it will be won. All the main parties will urge people to vote yes, which is what most of them would do anyway, even if they have little idea what the constitution says.

However, among the 1% of Spaniards who do know what the convention is, there is some incisive thinking. The prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar, has a European vision that is in many respects close to that of Tony Blair.

As he explained to me in a long conversation earlier this week, he is convinced that Europe must not define itself in opposition to the US. A close transatlantic relationship is vital for our security, especially in the face of the terrorist threat that last week struck on Spain's very doorstep, in Morocco. In this sense, his vision, like Blair's, is diametrically opposed to the Gaullism of Jacques Chirac, who seeks a French-led Europe with close ties to Russia and distant ones to the US. In another sense, however, Aznar is himself, like Blair, a kind of Gaullist. He firmly believes that Europe, before and after the new constitution, will be made up of nation states - de Gaulle's Europe des patries or, as de Gaulle himself also put it, des états .

Both Aznar's pro-Americanism and his constitutional Gaullism are controversial in Spain. During the Iraq war he had less than 20% of public opinion behind him. Still deeply scarred by memories of the Spanish civil war, most Spaniards did not want their troops to go and fight anywhere. Peacekeeping, yes, but not fighting. They certainly did not want them to go and fight for President George Bush and the United States, which some of the Spanish right still cannot quite forgive for depriving Spain of the last of its empire a century ago, and much of the Spanish left still cannot forgive for its tacit support of Franco. Aznar wants to change these deep-seated Spanish attitudes to the US and to the use of hard power, which he regards as essential in a world redefined by the "war against terrorism". During the war, his models were Churchill and Lincoln. (Was there any leader in the pro-war camp who did not take inspiration from Churchill?)

For Spanish socialists, by contrast, the return to democracy after the Franco dictatorship and the return to Europe were two sides of the same coin. By implication, to be against further steps of European integration is to be against democracy. The left is, broadly speaking, federalist. But federalism, for them, means opposing Aznar's constitutionally Gaullist idea of a strong, united Spanish nation-state, a vision of a highly decentralised federal Spain, a "nation of nations" with far-reaching autonomy for historic regions like Catalonia and the terrorist-plagued Basque country. European federalism would be the framework in which Spanish federalism could work most comfortably. In other words, their federalism is the precise opposite of the f-word nightmare of the Daily Mail. For them it means devolution and decentralisation; for the Daily Mail, Napoleonic centralisation in a Brussels superstate.

These two Spanish visions of Europe, the Aznarite Atlanticist-Gaullist and the socialist federalist, are very different. But both see a positive role for Spain in Europe and Europe in Spain. Each is compatible with a British pro-Europeanism of, respectively, the centre-right and centre-left. The list of Hispano-British compatibilities can be continued. Spain wants a stronger European defence identity, especially for peacekeeping missions around the frayed edges of the continent, but it wants this to be closely coordinated with the transatlantic alliance. Britain's position exactly. Spain wants a stronger European economy, and sees the key to this as lying in liberalising economic reform. Britain's position precisely.

Of course there are differences too. Gibraltar is a permanent landmine waiting to blow up in the face of British-Spanish relations. I have been warned here that the issue may come up again in connection with the definition of the external frontiers of the European Union in the new constitutional treaty. Traditionally, Spain has also been much keener on big handouts from Brussels, through the cohesion funds, structural funds and the common agricultural policy. But as it gets richer, that difference will slowly diminish. Spain's GDP per capita is already 86% of the EU average; next May, when the EU takes in 10 mainly poorer countries, it will jump to over 90%. Larger Spanish firms are now major investors abroad.

As I sat in the Madrid sunshine, pondering this unrealised partnership between a sunny country that knows what it wants in Europe but doesn't quite have the power to get it and a cloudy country that has the power but doesn't know what it wants, the solution came to me in a flash. One of the dynamic Spanish media conglomerates should buy the Daily Mail. Then Spain would have a larger direct stake in Britain, and Daily Mail readers might begin to learn what is really happening in Europe.

Posted 4:50 AM by Dil
Robin Cook: Don't attack Gordon Brown - let's convince him
Europhiles would be doomed to lose a referendum secured by bludgeoning the Chancellor
22 May 2003


I feel for Peter Mandelson. The lunch club of women political correspondents is notorious for its enthusiasm to provide wider currency for remarks that were made over the chardonnay.

I was fortunate in that my own rendezvous with them fell on the day when Iain Duncan Smith had called his celebrated press conference to demand that the Conservative Party unite or die. Thereafter I was in little danger that any incautious remark by me could compete for the front pages. But on a slack news day, it is not a forum in which to place too much trust that respect for the anonymity of comments made off the record will weigh more heavily than the news value of a good story.

On the substance of his arguments for the euro, I am in agreement with Peter.

The economic case for joining continues to strengthen. Since the euro was launched, Britain's share of European trade relative to members of the eurozone has faltered and our share of inward investment has plummeted. Every marginal decline in our trade means a loss of jobs in Britain. Every drop in inward investment means a loss of transfer of new technology and modern management to Britain.

Meantime the euro has established a credibility for itself on the international market. Since its launch almost as many corporate bonds have been issued in euros as in dollars, more than doubling the proportion that used to be issued in all the previous European currencies added together.

The political case against delay is equally compelling. At the last general election the fiercest dispute between the two main parties was over William Hague's pledge to rule out joining the euro for the whole of the current parliament. He even roamed Britain with a magnified digital calendar warning of the number of days left in which to save the pound.

Perversely, if the Labour Government fails to hold a referendum on the euro in this parliament, we will ourselves have delivered on Hague's pledge which we went to such lengths to ridicule throughout the election campaign.

The consequences of inaction can be measured in the opinion polls. The public faithfully reflect the absence among their political leaders of a campaigning commitment to the euro.

Those who urge caution on the Prime Minister because the polls are hostile miss the obvious lesson of the last five years. So long as the Government puts caution first and fails to campaign on the case for joining the euro, support for a "yes" vote will ebb away among a public that only hears the "no" case argued with conviction.

The fundamental flaw at the heart of government policy on the euro is that it is a recipe for inaction. It need not have been. The famous five tests were originally presented as the necessary conditions before we put into practice our commitment in principle to take Britain into the euro. But the Treasury has ever since presented the five tests as the sole determinant of not just when, but whether Britain should join the euro.

The result is that any cabinet minister who rashly speaks up in support of the government's agreed position that in principle we should join the euro is briefed against for singing off the hymn sheet. I remember a particularly sharp rap over the knuckles for once daring to agree with the consistent majority in the opinion polls who believe it inevitable that Britain will join the euro.

Government will only escape this paralysis if it sets a date for Britain to enter the euro. It needs a target to provide a clear objective for government policy and a motive for ministers to get out in the country and explain why Britain will be better off inside the euro. If the forthcoming statement concludes we should not join now, it should be clear and firm on when we can join.

Which brings us back to Peter 's alleged observations on the personality of the Chancellor, which so impressed his lunch companions. Those of us convinced that Britain should join the euro need to resist the temptation of regarding the Chancellor as the obstacle.

Drawing up teams of those who support Tony Blair or those who want Gordon Brown as captain misses the point. We will only carry a majority among the public in the grandstand if both Blair and Brown are seen to be playing on the same side. A referendum secured by bludgeoning the Chancellor into submission would be one the eurocamp would be doomed to lose.

The challenge is a more complex and subtle one. How do we convert Gordon Brown to the conclusion that it is in his interest to endorse the euro?

This need not be a hopeless undertaking. Gordon Brown's thoughtful speech to the CBI displayed that he is ambivalent rather than sceptical on Europe.

The speech was regrettably more forceful about the shortcomings of Europe than about its strengths. In Britain we need to remember with a touch of humility that it is we who have to fulfil the conditions to join the euro, not Europe that has to fulfil the conditions before we will let them join us.

Nevertheless, no euro enthusiast would disagree with Gordon Brown on the urgent, unanswerable case for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. It is an outdated, expensive and socially regressive policy of protectionism. Its prime victims are poor farmers of Africa and Asia who cannot sell to Europe, and poor consumers within Europe who are forced to pay double the world price for a basic commodity such as sugar.

There is a tide for reform of the CAP ready to be seized. But Britain will not be credible as a leading force for reform of the CAP or anything else in Europe if we announce that we are indefinitely postponing a decision on the euro.

If Gordon Brown wants to go down in history as a political figure who reformed Europe on the broad canvas he painted this week, then he also needs to be the Chancellor who strengthened the influence of Britain by taking it into the euro zone which now defines the core of Europe.

He personally has much to offer the movement for reform. There is a consensus that fundamental reform of the Stability and Growth Pact is essential to focus it as much on the growth of jobs in factories as on stability in the financial markets. With the credit of the more successful framework for stability which he has created for Britain, Gordon Brown could be an influential architect of the next Stability and Growth Pact. But only those countries who have committed themselves to the euro will be taken seriously when they offer advice on how it should be run.

My worry is not that Britain will fail to join the euro, but that we will leave it too late and join from a position of desperation rather than strength. In those circumstances Gordon Brown will be fated to watch his successor complete a task that he avoided and hear himself be blamed for the higher price of delay.

It is a commonplace that Tony Blair sees taking Britain into the euro as crucial to his place in history. The objective for the pro-Europeans must be to convince Gordon Brown that joining the euro would be a triumph and an opportunity for him, too. If we let a decision to join the euro be defined as a defeat for Gordon Brown, then we have lost the referendum before it has begun.

The author was Foreign Secretary from 1997 to 2001

Posted 11:01 AM by Dil
Until Europe agrees with us, the tests will always fail

The cabinet's euro debate is a sham designed to cover the PM's retreat

Hugo Young
Tuesday May 20, 2003
The Guardian

Yesterday is said to have seen the start of a period of supercharged cabinet government that will conclude on June 9. Not only will there be full cabinet meetings to determine policy on the euro, but each colleague has been allotted time with the prime minister and chancellor to ask questions and raise any doubts about the Treasury's conclusions. They will have their say, which they have hitherto been denied. But there's supposed to be more to it than that. This is Mr Blair hoping to deploy the cabinet behind his own line, that there should be a referendum in this parliament, against the chancellor's determination that there should not.
That is not, in reality, what is happening. It's a fiction both men have reasons to cultivate, but it is almost the opposite of the truth. These ministers will be seen by Blair and Brown jointly to hear what is becoming their joint opinion. They won't witness an argument, for there no longer is much argument. Blair has been co-opted to the Brown position, that there can be no early referendum, which means in practice no referendum in this parliament.

All there is to play for is the language, though here too fiction pervades the scene. Mr Blair has been reduced to abandoning the argument and saving face. The words of the June 9 statement will allude to the possibility of a referendum later. That's Brown's concession, to give Blair a political point he needs. But this is not in any way sincere on the chancellor's part. It is not intended to be real. The substance, as everyone ought to understand, is that the referendum will be indefinitely delayed. That is Brown's great victory.

The role of cabinet members is not to adjudicate between rival positions, or lend their collective weight to the task of outfacing Gordon. They have been brought into play to ratify, or submit to, the concordat reached between the two men. So they too are playing their part in a charade, playing at cabinet government.

Some may have a few ideas to contribute about the most appropriate weasel words. But it is inconceivable that any would challenge what is now the Blair-Brown strategy. Their task is to provide unified cabinet cover for the prime minister's retreat. Most will do this, I think, with equanimity, either because they are Brownites who are euro-sceptic anyway, or Blairites happy to endorse the general delusion, including their own, that a referendum might take place soon.

Having gained his victory, Mr Brown presents himself as not in the least euro-sceptic. He regards himself as Europe's best friend. The current period, he thinks, should be a fruitful pro-European moment, not a triumph for the antis. The time is ripe for a heavy push towards economic reform in the EU, and Britain is perfectly positioned to be its prophet and leader. The major enemies are French protectionism and German labour-market rigidity, which defy the inexorable laws of globalisation and sooner or later will have to be unpicked.

Britain, Brown thinks, is the exemplar, with an American attitude to job creation and a European philosophy of social protection. Britain can lead the way towards economic practices that break the old EU out of its inward-looking box. This, he argues, will have massive benefits both abroad and at home. It is the way to persuade the British eventually to love the euro. Once the people have seen the benign spreading of British economic reform across the continent, their hysteria about the loss of sovereignty will disappear as fast as their passion for national identity. They are, he seems to think, as mesmerised as he is by the incontestable rightness of the British economic model.

I don't doubt that Brown wants to be fully engaged in Europe, including at some distant time swapping sterling for the euro, perhaps after he has supplanted Mr Blair in No 10. But his tactics and his vision are extremely narrow. He says there must be "unambiguous" proof of the economic case, of a clarity that will only be available in the eye and at the subjective choosing of the beholder. His people believe that no popular endorsement should even be sought until they can look confidently towards a 60-40 majority. He also seems to believe that British influence on the political and economic shape of the EU will be undiminished by a decision, however artfully dressed up, which says to all observers that the euro is off his agenda.

Blair doesn't agree with any of that - though it should be noted that succumbing to the Brown analysis will draw him into stronger assertions about the unmet economic tests than he possibly believes. He has always thought that the only way of retaining a modicum of influence with his EU partners after a negative decision on the euro would be by rooting it totally in the economic case. They would understand that position, he says.

The immediate political case, of course, is not open and shut. This year would be a hard time to be arguing for entry, what with the German economy failing and the French Iraqi posturing that has prompted another burst of abomination in good old Albion. But there's a difference between saying No, with a few vague words of pretence to console the other side; and saying Yes but not quite yet, and then setting a political and economic course that is purposefully directed to preparing the way for entry. Once, the second course looked like being the policy. Now, Brown is making it ever clearer, from the height of his intellectual superiority and the distance of his outsider's position, that until the EU does things our way, the tests will always fail.

Meanwhile, the climate in which EU discussion takes place in Britain gets more poisonous. A couple of weeks ago, I suggested that one consequence of rejecting the euro would be the stoking up of anti-EU opinion, with a new drive behind the case for decoupling altogether. It has happened sooner than I thought. The sudden demands by the anti-Europe press for a referendum on a new EU constitution that nobody has yet seen have the thinly concealed purpose of putting an exit on the map. Far from running a country that had at last exorcised its anti-European ghosts, the government remains dumbly terrified by their power.

Faced with this confluence of forces - unyielding chancellor, party splitting over personalities and issue, and polling figures that look hard to overcome - Mr Blair has backed down. He hates to do it. The shared assessment the big two present is another fiction, in the sense that it disguises mutual mistrust and even loathing. Is this the over-mighty prime minister presented in Clare Short's philippic? He has been drawn into procrastination he can't control. The question about the euro moves on from this parliament to the next. But no promises, even then. Or if there are, don't believe a word.