The Rolls Royce breaks down
It’s an iron rule, when there is the most to blog, there isn't the time to blog it.
The British negotiating machine, normally regarded as Rolls-Royce smooth, has been shambolic, according one insider. It’s the Polish prime minister and president who are usually regarded as the most awkward negotiators in the EU, but my source says Gordon Brown is behaving like the third twin.
After Sarkozy’s triumph, I am sure the European Commission and Tony Blair were in a bind. Very close to a deal, focused on the red lines, they didn't want to object to something that hits them out of the blue.
Blair met Sarkozy and the spin was that while competition was not an EU value, not an end in itself, it was a means to an end. Sarkozy needed something to help sell the "no referendum" line to his public. All clear? It wasn't to some insiders, who feared lawyers would weaken the Commission’s desire to take on monopolies and "national champions". It wasn't to Gordon.
Apparently Treasury lawyers said EU law could be changed. So a protocol was added. Mr Blair and Mr Barroso insist this makes it crystal clear that EU law will not be changed.
There has been an air of intense worry around Mr Blair's team. When he appeared, announcing progress, he seemed a bit frustrated, explaining that this is what happens when you re-open an agreement. When you start making demands, so do others. It’s give and take.
I could go into even more detail about which words are in or out. But the real point is that the argument about the economic direction of Europe is very much a live issue. Perhaps people thought Sarkozy was an economic liberal because of the admiration he expressed in his book for the UK.
Some will now say he's an old-fashioned protectionist. But in fact he's a pragmatist and above all a French president. He has to do a balancing act. But while some see the French as hopelessly old-fashioned, I think they are devilishly clever. Protecting their own key industries from competition, while using the rules to operate in other countries may not be pretty, but it’s hardly stupid.
By the way, a title has been agreed to replace foreign minister... High Representative. The same title as now. I preferred the temporary line in the German draft - "the Union’s xxx ". Javier Solana, the EU's triple X, had a certain ring to it.
I’m Mark Mardell, the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Shambolic perhaps but that's not Gordon being a" third twin", it's Blair, in his second last day as leader of his party trying to sideline his elected replacement. The phrase sounds like a spin doctors been briefing you.
Also a small point but there was a ´óÏó´«Ã½ report on bias earlier this week. All I hear reported is Blair's Red Lines as if those were the only decisions of consequence and it will be a great victory to defend those. I'd prefer the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to give me a less Government centric view of what is important or not, on what other compromises or changes are being waved through or supported.
´óÏó´«Ã½ seems as shocked as Blair at Sarkozy's actions and Brown's response - perhaps there's more to this treaty that Blair's red lines that might cause a problem later. Wouldn't it be nice to know?
Don't go native, report.
What does this fiasco say about Gordon's judgement? EU leaders wondered why he was not present and now he is directing Blair by telephone as to what is and is not acceptable. Does no one find this odd?
What message does it send to the EU leaders? How little regard does Gordon have for them that he negotiates by telephone?
It certainly reveals Gordon's priorities and appears to back the claims of his "control-freak" nature. Combined with the apparent lack of concern for his own party (by trying to appoint non-Labour people) I think politics is about to get very topsy-turvy. Gordon needs to watch his back in two directions. I expect that both disgruntled Labour members and EU leaders wil be tossing hatchets in his general direction.
If Sarkozoy's amendment came out of the blue to the Brussels negotiators, they should have been keeping an eye on the French Presidential campaign and so should the British Embassy. It was a key item in his platform. Did Sarkozoy not mention this revolutionary change in the fundamental principles of the EU in his intimate telephone calls to Downing Street? It is not so much that the French are devilishly clever as that the British are incredibly naive (or deliberately divided)
If Sarkozoy's amendment came out of the blue to the Brussels negotiators, they should have been keeping an eye on the French Presidential campaign and so should the British Embassy. It was a key item in his platform. Did Sarkozoy not mention this revolutionary change in the fundamental principles of the EU in his intimate telephone calls to Downing Street? It is not so much that the French are devilishly clever as that the British are incredibly naive (or deliberately divided)
We in all countries voted for these people! At least Charles DeGaul was honest with his 'Non'. Strong people can say 'No', weak people can't.
I suppose we are more sophisticated now, more 'weazle words'.
We must realise that all these countries have dramatically different cultures, if we are to integrate, then it will take far longer than the politicians would like, which is not in their 'timeframe'. Their timeframe requires action now, to maintain their 'high profile and incomes'.
It is not what people want in any country. Integration is a natural process, it depends on trust, this takes a long time to generate, maybe lifetimes, or longer. Timescales in the middle east are ridiculous, for us to come together with them will take decades if not longer. What a waste of human energy.
Unfortunately politicians want to make money (a killing), in their lifetimes, no good when you are dead, is their mantra. Unless they truly care about the future of the people, from all countries and faiths and cultures, their will not be uninimity.
These political games sicken me, these guys are just trying to line their pockets, whilst paying lip service to the needs of people throughout Europe and the World. Their wealth is dependent on 'PC fashion', which they ride into battle!
The best Marriages are made by people who agree, honestly, not people who scheme and manipulate, these marriages are destined for divorce. Is that what we Europeans want? Can we control and influence these egotistical people. Everyone wants the best for their country, of course. If opinions are so disparate, then do not try to force the issue, wait until views are closer together, they will be at some stage, maybe a long time. But then it is right.
The people will reap the 'whirlwind of our leaders' after they are long gone.
The referendum is the only way, the politicians views may be correct,long term, maybe? But are the people ready yet? Until they are the answere is 'Non'. If the people are not ready it will all end in tears.
Love to all Europeans.
Neil Hewitt
As a French myself who followed the referendum. I find Sarkozy change not that strange.
French -are- old fashion, word like "Liberalism" (preferably with a neo- or ultra- before, you should never run dry of anxiogenic) are "feared" like the plague by most of the politician, right or left.
Perhaps it's because protection law seems more protective for their style of life for them than some complex "invisible hand" of market, perhaps it's something else.
If you place a "liberal" or a "competitive" in any text anywhere, you give an handful supply of bullet to the far left party and the left wing of the socialist, and to the far right and the protectionists.
One thing that you could hear a lot is that "The Europe that they are trying to sell you is not an Europe to protect you, or an Europe that defend your right, this Europe is a 'neo-liberalist' market place which will ensure that the state won't be able to protect you from hostile takeover and job loss". And by playing with the fear of people, that's how you get a "no" to the European Constitutional Treaty referendum.
That kind of fear is not just bad, it's existence is a fact, and deleting those red flag words, save the president from going against the "no referendum" too openly. Like Blair is trying to sell the "move along, no referendum is needed here".
Dear Mr Mardell,
I very much enjoyed following your blog on this issue. I disagree however with your remark on the French being clever, albeit nationalist, when seeking to protect their own industry from competition. There is little convincing evidence that protecting industry helps that industry or their workers in anything but the very short term. The rationale behind the EU internal market, the WTO and definitly the UK economies are based on this fact. Protectionism has never helped anybody but politicials who need to answer to voters who fear, often with reason, such short-term changes.
This line about free market and competitiveness is all right for peace time. But when you consideer national defence, it's another matter. If the French hadn't kept their national champions, the futurre British aircraft carrieers would not be built in France, but in South Korea or China. How's that for security and sovereignty ?
Neil Hewitt,
I do not recognise the protrait you paint:
'these guys are just trying to line their pockets...Their wealth is dependent on 'PC fashion''
What are you talking about? Are you accusing all ministers of corruption? What does this have to do with the EU?
For the most part they earn a salary. A good one but probably not as good as they could get in the private sector.
As for the pace of change:
Poltical leaders have to lead. Most informed people fear that Europe may fall behind the rest of the world in terms of competitiveness and economy. If this happens, how will we maintain our way of life?
The EU's single market and various areas of cooperation and integration(such as technological development, educational exchanges and action on climate change) are necessary to preserve our way of life.
It is the job of politicians to do what is right for the people. We get the chance to chuck them out at every election if we don't agree.