New Europe strikes back
Why are the Americans so keen to attack Iraq? Is it oil? Israel? An uncontrollable urge to kick ass after 9/11? Here in Brussels, we think we know the answer. They are trying to humble the European Union by exposing its divisions and the emptiness of its ambitions to have a united foreign policy. The letter signed by Britain, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Portugal, Poland, the Czechs and Hungary-expressing solidarity with the US-was certainly a nasty blow to the Franco-German axis; and meant as such. It also exposed the EU's pretensions to a common foreign and security policy as a "complete joke," according to a senior official charged with running EU policy. The British avoided seeking too many signatures in eastern Europe, to emphasise that the "gang of eight" is not simply from "new Europe." But the fact that after Colin Powell strutted his stuff at the UN, a further ten eastern countries signed a letter of support-including five that are about to join the EU-will have only stoked French fears about the consequences of enlargement. Michel Barnier, the French commissioner for regional policy, remarked stiffly that the newcomers should remember that they "are joining a political union, not a giant supermarket." Too late, Michel-they're already loading up their trollies with subsidised goodies, and laughing at your speeches about the European social model.
Peter Hain splutters and fumes...
Still, smirks about the letter were swiftly wiped off British faces when the convention drawing up a European constitution had its next meeting. Val?ry Giscard d'Estaing, the 77-year-old superman who is chairing the convention, produced a draft of the first 16 articles of the proposed treaty. Cue spluttering and outrage from Peter Hain, the British government's representative. Until recently, the British line had been that the convention was going swimmingly and that Hain was the dominant figure. Now, the perma-tanned Welsh secretary rose to his feet to complain that the draft constitution goes way beyond what Britain can bear and to complain that the pompously-named presidium, the inner circle of 12 conventioneers charged with coming up with a draft constitution, had gone miles beyond its mandate. If only. The sad truth-from a British perspective-is that the convention is wildly federalist. Hain's contributions are greeted in stony silence; and when a Dutch delegate attacked him in the meeting of 7th February, she was loudly applauded.
...over Giscard's first draft
But just how sinister is Giscard's draft? Much of the outrage is simply caused by the fact that the constitution spells out awkward truths that have often been denied in Britain. The British press have naturally gone nuts over the presence of the f-word-federal-in the first line of the constitution. But, as a foreign office man conceded in the corridors of the convention, "Of course we all know we're in a federation, but putting it in the very first line of the treaty is politically stupid." The same goes for article nine of the Giscard draft, which asserts the primacy of EU law over that of member states. Yawn-inducing old news to the cognoscenti. But still a bit of a jolt to the average Brit. On the other hand, there are also some genuinely new things for the British to worry about. First, the treaty is written to suggest that the EU is conferring powers on the member states rather than vice versa-(an unfortunate drafting error, according to Giscard). Second, article 14 calls for "unreserved" and "loyal" support for a common foreign policy (stop sniggering at the back). The calm-down crowd point out that this is just language lifted straight from the Maastricht treaty; the alarm-bell ringers point out that Maastricht insisted that all foreign policy should essentially be decided by unanimity and by national governments. Take that assurance out, as this treaty appears to, and could the British find themselves in court over their policy on Iraq? Article 13 formalises the euro-group; something the Brits have always fought against. But the pi?ce de r?sistance is article 12, which lists a series of policy areas where member-states can only legislate "where the Union has not exercised or ceases to exercise its competence." These include not only the single market, but also "public health." Read literally, this appears to suggest the end to the British government's control of the health service. (Come to think of it, that might be quite a good idea.) Your diarist contacted his favourite foreign office mandarin, assuming that such a reading would be dismissed as a Daily Telegraph scare. Not a bit of it. Apparently, our men with the furled umbrellas are also inclined to read article 12 this way.
Heathcoat-Amory: "I told you so"
You might expect British Eurosceptics to be slitting their wrists. But David Heathcoat-Amory, the former Tory minister, has rarely looked so chuffed. An "I told you so" smile played around his lips, as he held forth to the British hack pack. After several months of conventioneering, Heathcoat has moved well beyond the knee-jerk Tory reaction to boo-words like "federalism" and is now deep into textual analysis of the differences between "shared competences" and "areas for supporting action." Watching his performance, a German journalist smiled quietly and remarked-"That poor man, he is deeper into the quagmire than he realises."
