Mr Brown goes to Brussels

Written by Andrew Duff and published in ft.com on Thu 28th Feb 2008

The Windsors have traditionally not been very good on Europe. Unlike the Dutch Oranjes, Spanish Bourbons or assorted Saxe-Coburg-Gothas, the British royal family has tended to steer away from European politics, at least in peacetime, ever since King Edward VII enjoyed the entente cordiale with France in 1904.

Unlike Queen Victoria's progeny, who were sent abroad to marry for Britain, Queen Elizabeth's children have taken steadfastly English spouses. So the Prince of Wales's recent official visit to Brussels - his first for sixteen years - is notable. The prince made a rather interesting speech to MEPs mostly about forestry. In a departure from the royal norm, he spoke warmly about the European Union having become "a leading player on the world stage". "Surely," he asked, à propos of climate change, "this is just the moment in history for which the European Union was created?" In the context of the current ill-tempered debate at Westminster over the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, this was bold.

Prince Charles was followed to Brussels a week later by Prime Minister Gordon Brown. This was his first official visit to the European Commission since becoming prime minister last June. By any standards, Mr Brown was late: Chancellor Merkel came to Brussels within 24 hours of her taking office, and Nicolas Sarkozy within a week of becoming president. But Mr Brown's message to the Brussels press corps bore some resemblance to that of the prince: Europe "must lead the way" on climate change and fight against world poverty. 'The EU is essential to the success of Britain, and a Britain fully engaged in Europe is essential to the success of the EU. Britain must be at the centre of Europe."

Mr Brown's agenda with Commission president José Manuel Barroso focused on economic reform, particularly to help small business. He argued for the full unbundling of the energy supply market and for a carbon emissions bank to trade pollution quotas, independent of the Commission. He urged support for his old enemy, trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson in the WTO talks. He put the case for EU budgetary reform. And he had to press competition policy Commissioner Neelie Kroes to allow the nationalisation of the failed British bank, Northern Rock.

The prime minister's contention that Britain is at the centre of Europe sparked the fairly obvious reaction from journalists. In that case, why did Mr Brown block sterling's membership of the euro? Why did his government negotiate treaty opt-outs from the EU's common area of freedom, security and justice? Why the notorious - if, as the House of Commons has noticed, fairly spurious - "red lines" over foreign and security policy? And why deny the Charter of Fundamental Rights full justiciability in Britain? '"No, we are right in the centre of Europe", came the reply. "On economic reforms, on climate change, on the fight against terror and organised crime ... on all these major issues affecting Europe and its role in the world, we are right in the centre of the agenda, pushing for an open, flexible and dynamic Europe in a globalised world". One admires the chutzpah.

Mr Brown will need good luck if he is to capitalise on his Brussels trip. The incoming French presidency of the Council has a very different agenda. Much of what the British leader has to say is seen by his French counterpart as anathema. Apart from his well-known penchant for "economic patriotism", Mr Sarkozy wants to major during his six-month term as EU president on building common security and defence policy, an agenda which might go too far too soon for Mr Brown.

Nobody is keener to escape from the Union's constitutional wrangling than Mr Brown. When the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified at Westminster he and other British party leaders will be mightily relieved. Yet, paradoxically, the UK's clout is at its height during and not after one of the EU's periodic negotiations on treaty reform. In an intergovernmental conference to revise the treaties the British can always punch above their weight by threatening to dilute or veto steps to more European integration which are supported by everyone else. Once the new treaty enters into force, prospectively on 1 January 2009, it will be back to EU business as usual. And EU business in justice and home affairs, where the pace of change promises to be fast, will be done on the initiative of the Commission, by qualified majority vote in the Council and co-decision of the Parliament - with the UK, because of its opt-outs, already marginalised.

The British government is to be deprived, too, of one of its other main opportunities to call the shots. For many years, Britain has been the champion of the enlargement of the Union. With the minor exception of Croatia, there will be no further addition to the membership of the Union for the foreseeable future, and possibly not for many years ahead. Here again, it is likely to be the prohibition of Mr Sarkozy and the inhibition of Mrs Merkel which prevail over the more positive approach of Mr Brown. Britain will have lost its power of patronage over new and candidate states.

Unlike Prince Charles, Mr Brown came to Brussels when the European Parliament was on its monthly forced march to Strasbourg. This enabled him to dodge a potentially damaging encounter with MEPs. If he stays prime minister for long, however, an appearance in Parliament cannot be avoided. It would be a good place for him to advance the case for Britain in Europe. Gordon Brown would be wise to get this inevitable rendezvous out of the way sooner rather than later. "United in diversity" - that elusive motto of the European Union - means having to deal with people you do not much like on matters you cannot simply choose to ignore.

Andrew Duff's "True Guide to the Treaty of Lisbon" is available on www.andrewduff.eu