17 June 2004:

Tony Blair before the Nice Summit in 2000: "We set out very clearly where there are particular positions, for example in relation to tax and the social security system, where we think this is the province of national governments and national parliaments but of course we want to make sure we have a successful summit. But we have got absolute red lines we have laid down" (Daily Mail, 9 December 2000).

News report ahead of Nice Summit in 2000: "Mr Blair's spokesman later stressed that these "bottom lines" were maintaining the national veto on tax, social security, defence, border controls and immigration, and treaty changes" (Telegraph, 14 November 2000).

Tony Blair after the Nice Summit in 2000: "We were told that we could not improve Europe's defence capability - a vital NATO as well as EU interest - without undermining NATO, and that we would be isolated on tax and social security. We secured those objectives without its even being suggested that we were an obstacle in the way of enlargement. It is possible, in our judgment, to fight Britain's corner, get the best out of Europe for Britain and exercise real authority and influence in Europe. That is as it should be. Britain is a world power. To stand aside from the key alliance - the European Union - right on our doorstep, is not advancing Britain's interests; it is betraying British interests" (Statement to the House of Commons of Nice, 11 December 2000).

News report after the Nice Summit in 2000: "Just before dawn broke over the French Riviera yesterday, Tony Blair cleared one of the most difficult hurdles which lie between him and the general election victory - probably on May 3 - that will clinch Labour's elusive second term. By getting agreement to a treaty of Nice without giving up important national vetoes, he has covered his flank" (Guardian, 12 December 2000).

It should surprise nobody that the "Conclusions" of the Brussels Summit, intended to be given to the media after the "negotiations", have already been produced and published - see link.

click here

The latest proposals from the Irish Presidency can be found at this link:

click here

Re voting weights: the proposal is for a 65% population threshold and a 55% member states threshold. Abstentions may no longer count when calculating QMV making it easier to pass legislation. To help with democratic legitimacy, they propose that if there is a minority that objects to a measure but they are short of the votes they need, the EU will "do all in its power...to reach a satisfactory outcome" - eg. allow more time for discussion...They are unclear whether this should be expressed in a Protocol or Declaration. Other questions on how QMV will work - such as over the euro - are yet to be decided.

Re the Stability Pact: Germany and Holland have had a public row about the wording after Germany attempted to water down the Pact yet further. The Irish say that it "has been suggested" that both references in III-76(6) to "proposals" should be changed to "recommendations". It suggests that "with a view to seeking a compromise, the Presidency has suggested only one such change". Is this supposed to mean that it is OK for there to be ambiguity, or that it doesn’t matter what one calls them? It is also worth noting that these "recommendations...shall not be made public". So, a supranational body can issue recommendations to a state concerning its economic governance, and it is explicitly stated that the public is not allowed to know what they are.

Re the budget: unanimity shall remain "pending the application of a simple passarelle to QMV".

Re the Charter: it says "there is consensus on the legal status". There is a new article II-52(7), presumably insisted on by the British, stating that: "The explanations drawn up as a way of providing guidance in the interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights shall be given due regard by the Courts of the Union and of the member states." There is another "Declaration" to the effect that the Conference "takes note of the Explanations". Is this supposed to mean that the Charter "will not have legal status" as Blair has said? It does not actually mean this. Saying the Explanations "shall be given due regard" does not avoid the fact that the Explanations themselves are not part of the Constitution and state explicitly themselves that they "do not have the status of law" but are "a valuable tool of interpretation".

The Explanations themselves say that the Charter operates to expand the powers of the Court beyond the limits established by ECHR, saying that the ECJ can never give "less protection" than the ECHR. This no doubt reflects the political intention. As things stand, the ECJ would no doubt use bits of the Explanations it found convenient on the grounds that they provide "guidance" and would ignore those bits that purport to limit its power on the grounds that "they do not have the force of law". II-52(3) says that the Charter is intended to provide "more extensive protection" than the ECHR, which will reinforce the clear aim of the drafters.

Article II-51(1) makes clear that the Union institutions and member states have to act according to the Charter when they are implementing EU law. Given the Government admits that over half our laws derive from EU law, that already provides the ECJ with huge scope. Also, the ECJ itself will decide whether there is any aspect of EU law involved.

II-52 says that any limitation on the Charter rights must be "provided for by law", be "proportionate", and only be made in order to meet "the Union’s objectives". The ECJ will be the judge of this.

Blair said in 2000: "It [the Charter] does not have legal status. Our case is that it should not have legal status, and we do not intend it to. We will have to fight that case." The Europe Minister famously said it would have "no more legal status than the Sun or the Beano".

Re the emergency brake: the Government is claiming it will have an "effective veto". This is not what the wording says. The procedure they have tacked on the end of the articles means that if a member state strongly objects to a decision being made by QMV it can ask for the matter to be referred to the European Council. But the procedure also allows the European Council then simply to refer the decision back to the normal QMV route. The draft does not specify that the European Council must act unanimously in doing so, and because majority voting is now the "normal procedure" in the Constitution, there is no actual veto - only a delaying mechanism.