Miliband builds on government's increasingly pro-European stance

Patrick Wintour focused on David Miliband's Mansion House speech in yesterday's Guardian, suggesting the government is entering into a new pro-European era, following the Lisbon Treaty’s smooth path through the Commons.

Miliband is arguing that rather than being a threat to the UK's foreign policy or economy, a strong EU will enhance both as it increases our links with countries within and outside the EU.

Wintour is right to assert that the government is becoming increasingly braver with regards to actually talking about Europe, something it has sometimes been reluctant to do in the past. Wintour mentions Gordon Brown's recent visit to Brussels but at Labour's Spring Conference he also made it clear that it is only within the EU that Britain can achieve its objectives on climate change, development, trade and security – all areas where he noted Europe was leading the way.

As Denis MacShane has said before all this suggests that Europe has once again become a major dividing line between the parties, and crucially it is one that works to Labour’s advantage.

A tribute to the civil servants, and to the Centre for European Reform

I missed Prince Charles's visit to European Parliament today, not just because I am not on that committee, but because I had a day in London meeting various officials and policy advisors from the Foreign office, Cabinet office and so on.

Those who claim that the government was cavalier in its negotiations about the Lisbon Treaty ought to see these officials at work. They are meticulous in knowing and analysing every detail of the treaty, looking at all the possible implications and advising ministers accordingly. They also know that the British government won on all its "red lines". The only thing is they can't say so, as civil servants, but must leave it to ministers to try to get the message across through a hostile media.

In the evening, I attended a packed 10th birthday celebration of the Centre for European Reform think tank. Not very many Tories - they don't really believe in reforming the EU - but many businessmen. A smattering of Labour MPs and peers, but also a few trade unionists. Good speech by David Miliband, looking to the future beyond treaty ratification, which will indeed be a welcome development. And as to the CER, plaudits all round for its contribution to debates on reforming Europe - which has certainly helped reform the EU (with the Reform Treaty the latest step), but which has not (yet) managed to change the way Europe is debated in Britain.

The debate begins!

The first hurdle to the parliamentary ratification of the Lisbon Treaty was easily cleared in the House of Commons last night. Despite extravagant claims in some newspapers that up to 100 Labour MPs would defy the government by voting against the treaty, the bill's second reading was passed by 362 to 224, with 19 rebel Labour MPs, (a small group with a history of being Eurosceptic), voting with the Conservatives.

Let us be clear - leaving aside the hyperbole, the Lisbon Treaty amounts to a set of modest adjustments to the EU's institutional framework such as replacing the rotating six-month presidency with a full-time one on a 30 month term, reducing the number of Commissioners to 18, altering the voting system in the Council to be based on population and increasing the role of elected parliaments in EU law-making. But in terms of what the EU can and cannot do, it changes little. Unlike the Single European Act or Maastricht, there are no new subjects added to the EU's field of responsibility - put bluntly; the Lisbon Treaty is about reform, not new powers.

The Tories' opposition to this treaty is nakedly opportunistic and lacks credibility. As David Miliband put it: "Left of centre parties in all 27 European countries support the treaty; liberal parties in all 27 countries support the treaty; and Conservative parties in 26 countries support the treaty. Only in Britain do we have a major party opposed to the contents of the treaty."

Indeed, William Hague's speech for the Conservatives was long on jokes (no one can accuse Mr Hague of lacking a rhetorical flourish) but fell short on substance. At one point, he defended his party's opposition of the treaty on the grounds that it would "weaken democracy" by taking "more decision making away from democratic control". This argument simply does not stand up. In fact, the Lisbon Treaty, by making virtually all EU legislation subject to the prior scrutiny of national parliaments (with the power to object to a proposal) and to approval by both the Council of Ministers (representing national governments) and directly elected MEPs in the European Parliament. This would amount to a level of parliamentary scrutiny and democratic accountability that exists in no other international structure. To claim that this is a diminution of parliamentary democracy is no more than intellectual laziness.

My analogy that, just as the Lisbon Treaty is estimated to be 90% the same as the Constitutional Treaty, human beings and mice are 90% the same in terms of their DNA but the difference is pretty important, also made an appearance in Hansard, being quoted approvingly (and with acknowledgent) by the new Lib Dem Foreign Affairs spokesman Ed Davey, who also made a fine speech. It was also cheering to hear Nick Clegg's interview on Radio 4 this morning, during which he appeared to state that the Liberal Democrats would not support any Tory attempts to defeat the Government in demanding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Although the Lib Dems have a reputation for saying different things to please different people, voting in favour of a treaty that they support rather than voting against it in a bid to embarrass and score points against the Government, would be an honourable approach.

Drastic differences of interpretation

David Miliband's speech at the College of Europe in Bruges provoked a wildly disparate response from Friday's papers, which reinforces the point David Rennie made on coverage of the EU - rarely is it accurate, let alone balanced.

In what was a comparatively modest speech looking at the future of the EU, the Daily Express, delved deep into its chest of conspiracy theories and raged against Miliband's "project for the Islamification of Europe". The Daily Mail decided he had "grandiose ambitions for a new EU empire" but the Independent took precisely the opposite view, accusing him of wishing to "diminish the EU".

The Guardian praised his "meaty" speech and was relieved to hear talk of an “outward-looking EU” but the Independent complains it wasn’t ambitious enough.

Hmmm. So plenty of coverage but few actual quotes and a rag-bag of claims, mostly unfounded and from the usual suspects. If you want to find out what Miliband actually said, his speech is up on the Foreign Office’s website here.