By intentionally arriving late and signing the EU
Reform Treaty hours after all the
other leaders, he contrived to offend
those on all sides of the argument.
Europhiles were angry he turned up late
appearing half-hearted, while sceptics are
critical he signed the treaty at all.
He may have imagined it was in his interest
not to seem too enthusiastic but his behaviour
was considered rude, and will not have
won the UK any friends across Europe.
This is the latest in a series of errors, in
which Gordon Brown has tried to be too
clever by half and ended up looking very
foolish.
The House of Commons Liaison Committee,
apparently so crucial that it forced the PM to
miss the formal proceedings in Lisbon, could
easily have been rescheduled for any other
date. This is of course the same treaty about
which he proclaimed all the "red lines" the
UK sought had been achieved.
The Prime Minister has ignored a manifesto
commitment to hold a referendum. The 2005
Labour Party manifesto stated: "It is a good
treaty for Britain and for the new Europe. We
will put it to the British people in a referendum
and campaign wholeheartedly for a 'Yes'
vote to keep Britain a leading nation in
Europe." There are many within Brown's
own party who are angry at his refusal to call
a referendum.
He is obviously not sufficiently confident
about the outcome. This is another issue
where the new Prime Minister's courage can
be criticised by opposition parties.
Last month Nicolas Sarkozy apparently told a
closed meeting of Euro MPs he could not win
a referendum in France nor could Gordon
Brown. Instead of a public vote, the Reform
Treaty will undergo Parliamentary scrutiny
during the spring. The only country where
there will be a referendum is the Republic of
Ireland because it is a constitutional requirement.
The most recent survey, conducted in fact by
the EU itself, indicated that British support
for European Union membership had fallen
to 39 per cent.
Enthusiasm for greater European integration
emerged following the wars. The initial vision
of free trade and countries co-operating for
mutual economic benefit was supported.
However the public oppose the idea of a
European Government.
The old EU Constitution was defeated in
France and the Netherlands in 2005. In the
knowledge that it would not be deliverable,
extra sections have instead been grafted onto
a number of existing treaties to amend them.
Practically the entire rejected Constitution
has thus been resurrected, without any
requirement for national referenda.
Under the Reform Treaty, the UK will lose its
right of veto in scores of policy areas. More
and more decisions will be taken by qualified
majority voting.
The way will be left open for the continuous
extension of EU powers over domestic affairs.
More power will shift away from national parliaments
to Brussels. There will be a permanent
EU President and an EU Foreign
Minister/High Representative. In the last few
days, a Belgian has been revealed as ambassador
to Africa. EU Commission President,
Jose Manuel Barroso has stated: "We should
not have doubts about the EU's future – it is
what it has always been. It is the world's first
non-imperial Empire, with 27 countries that
have agreed to pool their sovereignty."
One of the main arguments for introducing
the EU Constitution was supposedly that an
EU of 27 members would grind to a halt without
it. Clearly this has not proved to be the
case during the delay over the last few years.
The Treaty certainly has not made the work
of Brussels more transparent or simplified
the EU legal framework. Instead it creates
massive legal uncertainty.
The compromises required by member states
to agree the Treaty leave a great deal of ambiguity.
It is difficult to predict exactly which
questions will ultimately be subject to a
majority vote.
The Treaty gives legal force to a Charter of
Fundamental Rights, a list of supposed social
and civil rights. This includes a right to strike
likely to conflict with national labour laws.
Such potential clashes between national law
and the Treaty will no doubt be tested in the
European Court of Justice.
Cases are bound to be brought, and only after
case law has accumulated will the boundaries
become clear. The potential for legal contest
introduces unpredictability and greater
expense.
Those seeking to promote further integration
should not overlook the fact that the 27 member
countries are not all that similar. All bring
different histories, experiences and systems
of democracy.
They come from different values bases.
That's part of the reason why in Northern
Ireland we have such difficulties with regulations
imposed over our heads which fundamentally
contradict our moral viewpoint.
Some of the directives which have emerged
from Brussels can conflict with the personal
faith of many in Northern Ireland and a society
based on a Judeo-Christian beliefs framework.
It is wrong to ignore or seek to avoid
the views of the people. The Prime Minister
should call a referendum on the Treaty.