The Czech constitutional court has cleared the Lisbon Treaty, as my colleague in Warsaw reports here.

Klaus - the last man standing between David Cameron and Lisbon’s ratification - could now sign the treaty within a month. Now it’s just a waiting game for Cameron to drop his promised referendum on Lisbon, a pledge which was always going to be difficult to maintain.

Jean Eaglesham writes here that: “David Cameron is poised to rule out a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty….an announcement would come ‘very soon’.”

The business secretary discusses whether Tony Blair has a realistic chance of getting the job.

Continue reading "FT video: Lord Mandelson on why Blair should be EU president"

David Cameron faces a horrible decision if the Lisbon treaty comes into force. A quick glance at the policy options makes it obvious why he doesn’t want to explain what he would do. Playing hardball runs the risk of wasting the first year (term?) of a Tory government in a fruitless European battle. The pragmatic route, however, will never satisfy his party. So what to do? Here’s a quick Q&A.

How can Cameron change the Lisbon treaty? Merely to start a formal renegotiation, Cameron would need to propose an Intergovernmental Conference and win the support of 14 countries - a simple majority of member states.

What, 14 countries? That seems like a lot. Yes. And negotiating Lisbon Mark-2 is about as appealing to other European leaders as watching test match cricket.

But many governments do want to repatriate powers, don’t they? Yes. But those demands were all raised during Lisbon talks. Remember, every change to a treaty clause requires unanimous consent. So you need 14 countries to start a negotiation and 27 countries to end it. It just takes one country to dig their heels in and it’s game over. Cameron could be making lots of trips to Riga, Sofia and Talin.

Umm…sounds hard. What could Cameron do to persuade them? He could call a referendum on Europe, either before or after trying to renegotiate the treaty. That would give him a mandate for talks - if the vote went the right way, on a question that was relevant.

But the rest of Europe could still block him. What then? Sabotage. Cameron could withhold Britain’s budget contribution, leave an empty chair at meetings or hold up the EU’s next treaty, which would be needed to accept Croatia or Iceland as members.

Hard ball! Would they listen? Once they stopped yelling? Possibly. But, at this stage, we’d be months into an unholy row. And every European diplomat would know that Cameron had invested a big chunk of his political capital into emerging victorious. They could offer him a face saving deal - but the ransom would be high.

Ouch. Is there an easier way? The pragmatic approach is for Cameron to threaten a referendum, while seeking some kind of concession that would allow him to declare victory.

What could that be? Well, he could ask for a “declaration of subsidiarity” on social policy for instance, which would make absolutely clear that any new rules would be primarily determined by Britain. Victory! The “declaration” would only be passed, of course, because it would have absolutely no legal force. No other countries would care. Peace in our time!

Wait a minute! That won’t meet the Tory manifesto commitment to opt-out of the social chapter? No. It would be purely symbolic. But be realistic. Restoring the social chapter opt-out is harder than it sounds. The chapter no longer exists; it is integrated into the Lisbon treaty. So Cameron would have to propose a fresh treaty negotiation, win the support of 14 countries to start, and then 27 countries to finish. So back to square one.

In retrospect I chose the wrong fortnight to be on holiday. But from my Cornish vantage point I couldn’t help wondering who had inadvertently come out of the expenses saga smelling of roses.

Firstly the central London MPs. They couldn’t claim the additional cost allowance so there was never any temptation - unlike those in outer London. Thus Harriet Harman sails through unscathed.

Secondly is none other than Lord Mandelson, the business secretary and one of the most powerful members of cabinet. Mandelson had the good fortune of spending the four years in question in Brussels and therefore has no embarrassing expenses by default. He emerges squeaky clean.

On the subject of Europe, my colleague Jean Eaglesham reports today that Labour MEPs will have to publish receipts for claims made under their office allowance. They will also have to publish their travel costs and the number of times they have claimed the E298 daily attendance allowance. The catch? This will only apply to future expense claims.

With the European elections fast approaching, eurosceptics will again be claiming that nothing good  comes out of Brussels. I’ve been leaked a document that conclusively proves them wrong. This proposed apple-pie-directive, which has been doing the diplomatic rounds, is quite special.

Some of it will mean nothing to those of you who are not immersed in the comfortingly odd habits of Brussels. But some of the insights are hilarious. My hat goes off to the Eurocrat who wrote it.

I particularly enjoyed these points:

1. FR has entered a study reserve. It is reflecting on whether the effect of combining the two distinct elements in the Commission’s proposal could be to “mélanger les pommes et les poires”.

1. Two delegations (EL, CY) also maintain a linguistic reserve. They insist that the Greek language version of the new Programme should refer to “Apple π”.

We eagerly await the motherhood directive.

A big moment: Downing Street have just released the seating plan for the G20 dinner. The protocol officials seem to have done a decent job because it is hard to pick the best place to sit. We’ve decided that Felipe Calderon of Mexico has a pretty good spot, with Russia and Brazil to his left and right, and China and France opposite (well, if Sarko turns up). We’re wondering what Gordon Brown will have to say to Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

Some other important details to report. Downing Street have confirmed that there will be a veggie option (possibly for the Indian premier?) There is no exchange of gifts as part of the bilateral but the heads of delegations will tomorrow receive a “selection of produce that highlights British talent”. The trip was worth it then.

It is not quite the “empty chair”, but Nicolas Sarkozy is making very clear that he is unhappy with Gordon Brown’s grand plan. Will the G20 meeting survive the Sarko huff?

The French president told French radio that the “projects” on the table “satisfy neither France or Germany”. He warned that he would “not associate” himself with “false compromises, not dealing with the problems that keep us busy”. His ultimatum is a more stringent crackdown on financial services.

This may be empty grandstanding, some low politics to push up his poll numbers, or an unflattering translation (I haven’t seen the French transcript). But Sarkozy is definitely revelling in being the troublemaker at the “unity” conference. All this from the leader that Brown appeared to be closest to in Europe. What happened to the “entente formidable”?

Here is an alternative translation of his comments from Reuters:

“I will not associate myself with a summit that would end with a communique made of false compromises that would not tackle the issues that concern us.”

“Regulation is at the heart of the debate that we are going to be holding during these hours,” he said.

“As of today, there is no firm agreement in place. The conversation is going forward, there are projects on the table. As things stand at the moment, these projects do not suit France or Germany.”

“The empty chair policy would mark a failure, which would be that of the summit.”

“I do not want to think that we will come to that. I had (German Chancellor Angela) Merkel on the telephone again late last night. We are on exactly the same wavelength. We have and we will carry a European view on values which are those of Europe.”