Polish veto and British doubts can be overcome (Andrew Duff MEP)

Andrew Duff MEP <info@andrewduffmep.org.uk>

Polish veto and British doubts can be overcome

June 19, 2007 3:35 PM

Commenting ahead of the EU summit this weekend which is due to lay down a mandate and framework for discussion on necessary institutional reforms, Andrew Duff, (UK, Lib Dem) and ALDE group spokesperson on constitutional affairs, is urging the German presidency of the Council to convene the Intergovernmental Conference despite Polish objections and British red lines.

In a statement today, Duff said:

"Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union allows the European Council to call an IGC by a simple majority vote. Unanimity is not necessary to start the process of treaty revision. Chancellor Merkel must have the confidence to start the ball rolling immediately if the institutional changes that Europe so badly needs are to be introduced. Poland has every right to be heard at the IGC, but not to veto the opening of the conference."

Graham Watson, ALDE group leader today also criticised current Polish obstructionism and pointed out that "Poland is the country that gave us 'solidarity' and has pleaded for the Union to show solidarity over its recent dispute with Russia on meat exports. It is odd, to say the least, that Poland should now be the one refusing to show solidarity with the rest of Europe on a way forward."

Andrew Duff also responded to the British Prime Minister's four 'red lines' for the IGC:

"In one sense Tony Blair is quite right: it would be unacceptable (1) if the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights changed UK domestic law; (2) if the EU foreign minister were to make the British foreign secretary redundant; (3) if the UK lost control of its police and judicial system; or (4) if the EU were to impose tax or social security decisions on the UK by qualified majority vote.

"So the Prime Minister can be reassured that none of his four fears are real ones. Indeed, Mr Blair will remember how the 2004 treaty, which he signed and welcomed as a good deal for Britain, specifically precluded such intrusions upon UK legal and political space. Nor will a successor treaty, further improved by renegotiation, include any such malevolent intentions."