Those who still think the proposed Reform Treaty is a federalist plot would do well to read what the federalists themselves think about it!

Looking at the latest issue of the “New Federalist” magazine, I see that they say:

“The results of the spring Eurobarometer [opinion poll] indicate that two thirds of Europeans (66%) subscribe to the idea of the European Constitution. However, this didn’t prevent he EU heads of State and Government, at the last European Summit (21-23 June), to drive the EU in a very different direction”.

They go on to ask:

“What is left from the ambition to reform the EU into a more efficient, democratic and legitimate enlarged Union? The result, full of compromises, opt-out opportunities and special texts for certain countries, is not going to give rise to a treaty that wins any federalist awards. Indeed, the result is extremely disappointing for anyone who had been campaigning for a Constitution for Europe and in particular for the Constitutional Treaty. What is left from the improvements achieved by the Convention? Where did the substance of the Constitutional Treaty go?”

In their assessment:

"The constitutional concept, which consisted in replacing all existing Treaties by a single text called ‘Constitutional Treaty’ is abandoned. In fact, this involves much more than just loosing the name “Constitution”, as the new Treaty will lose in fact its constitutional character. It starts with the suppression of the Preamble and the European symbols from the Treaty. Common values and symbols are not indispensable to an institutional settlement, but perhaps desirable to create the premise of a European identity. It continues with the opt-out agreement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights for the UK. Thus the civil and social rights given by the Charter are only applicable for certain citizens but not for all.

"What is perhaps more damageable is the loss of the possibility for the EU to speak with one strong voice in the world. Indeed the compromise reached is a water downed CFSP with the loss of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Now the foreign Minister will be called ‘High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy’. What is the use of having a High representative, with very limited powers?

"Furthermore, the lack of a clear terminology and efficiency of EU-Legislation contributes to the substantive change of the Constitutional Treaty. For instance the supremacy of EU law will be deleted and replaced by a declaration on the supremacy of EU law. Then, the denomination of ‘EU framework law’ and ‘EU law’ will be abandoned and instead the existing denomination of ‘regulations’, ‘directives’ and ‘decisions’ will be kept.

"...this summit showed once again that Europe is currently only the sum of nationalist ambitions and Machiavellian intrigues between EU capitals.”

This extremely disappointed reaction of the federalists should make anyone take claims of the Reform Treaty being a federalist conspiracy with a pinch of salt!

The leading anti-European campaigner Dan Hannan MEP, who moonlights as a leader writer for the Daily Telegraph, has attempted to avoid the awkward fact (from his point of view) that the amendments agreed at the European Council to replace the Constitutional Treaty amount to very little indeed in the way of major constitutional change for Britain, by arguing that we should have a referendum instead on the accumulated changes to the EU that have taken place since we first joined.

This is akin to saying that the changes to the composition of the House of Lords should trigger a national referendum on the whole of the British constitution. After all, this too has evolved by incremental changes, none of which have been subject to a referendum.

Such a vote - also mooted by those arguing for the British constitution to be codified in a single document - would have some interesting parallels with the French vote on the now abandoned Constitutional Treaty. A vote on the British constitution as it stands would have no guarantee of it being approved. Some would vote against it because they object to a hereditary monarchy, others because they disagree with the electoral system for the House of Commons, still more because they don't like the House of Lords (as it is or as it is mooted). Some might vote against because they think their part of the UK should leave and become an independent country. And yet others would ignore all these issues and relish the opportunity just to vote against the government or the "establishment".

This coalition of "noes" would not get us anywhere in solving any of the individual issues currently being discussed in terms of reforming the British system. But it does illustrate the inherent dangers of holding single Yes/No referenda on an amalgamation of complex inter-related issues.

So, the deal has been done - in the early hours of this morning. Many of us in the Council building feared that Polish intransigence would last throughout the night and longer, but eventually they too compromised at about three a.m.. I've lost count of the number of interviews I've done for British, French, German, Dutch, Belgian and Luxembourg TV and radio throughout the long day and night, but hopefully there will be no need for another summit on these issues for many years to come.

The Constitutional Treaty has been replaced by a practical set of reforms to the current European Union. They will make it work more efficiently and will improve parliamentary scrutiny and democratic accountability. This is a result to be welcomed. Euro-obsessives that want Britain to leave Europe (and, presumably, become part of America) will try to scare people with their ususal froth, but any objective look at the agreement shows that their complaints are fibs or exaggerations. Indeed, UKIP leader Nigel Farage was looking distincly forlorn, not sure what he could complain about, when I debated with him on BBC this morning - he fell back on quoting an article that has been in the treaty since Maastricht, 15 years ago.

Indeed, of the issues that the Eurosceptics focussed on, almost all have disappeared or been neutralized:

* The term "constitution" has been abandoned.

* On the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a new clause says "In particular, for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in title 4 of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to the United Kingdom."

* On the Foreign Minister, the role stays as High Representative, as it is called already now, and EU foreign policy will be decided by "The European Council and the Council acting unanimously", without the European Courts having a say over it. It is specified that none of this will effect the "existing legal basis, responsibilities, and powers of each member state,"

* In the field of justice and home affairs, where there is a switch from unanimity to majority voting, there are opt-outs for Britain.

Curiously, two items which Eurosceptics continue to criticise are things that, if they thought about them for a few seconds, they might appreciate.

* One is the longer-term president of the European Council (30 months instead of six months). This could lead to a strengthening of the intergovernmental European Council presidency at the expense of the Commission presidency. That is certainly why the anti-federalist French support it.

* The other is the "External Action Service". At present, EU external representations across the globe are run by the Commission. This change is designeed to give Council (i.e. national governments) a say in running and staffing them. Another step away from, rather than towards, a federal system.

However, Tory and UKIP critics just don't want to know and are simply focussed on finding fault with any change.

On the other side, federalists will be disappointed. The Italian and Belgian governments are muttering about too much having been sacrificed to placate the Brits, the Dutch, the Poles and the French. The European Parliament will be unhappy, as will the 22 countries who wished to retain the Constitutional Treaty intact.

BBC Europe chief and blogger Mark Mardell's assessment is interesting. Although BBC impartiality means he has to treat the Eurosceptics seriously and give them coverage they don't deserve, he clearly proclaims a victory for the government, saying: "Tony Blair can claim that he has won all his red lines. Of course, many will feel this was utterly predictable and of course Conservatives and other will say that there is plenty here that deserves a referendum. But Mr Blair has made their job that much harder."

Indeed a referendum seems hard to justify. Britain has never had a referendum to ratify an international treaty, and it would be odd to start with a minor one. We similarly have never had a referendum on issues that are far more important and that really interest the public, like the creation of the national health service, compulsory education, university fees, the death penalty, the monarchy. We are a parliamentary democracy - a British tradition we are generally proud of. To argue that a referendum is justified because the president of the European Council will have a 30-month instead of 6-month term of office is ludicrous.

But I predict that it won't stop the Torygraph, the Mail, the Sun, the Express UKIP, the Conservative party and the BNP demanding one!

British Eurosceptics, who let us not forget, are a highly organised and well financed network, are working themselves up into a frenzy over the European Council discussions on replacing the Constitutional Treaty with a pragmatic set of amendments to the current European treaties.

The Eurosceptic press is full of articles and leaders spitting bile about Europe, and claiming that “Blair is just hours from betraying Britain” (Express), “Blair to surrender” (Telegraph), that Blair could “sell us down the river to the faceless EU politicians and bureaucrats who run Europe. There is no middle road at this travelling road show of snake oil salesman and three card tricksters..” (Sun)

Charming!

Tory politicians are equally at it. Hague contributes to the Sun’s diatribe, while Heathcoat Amory tells outright fibs when he says that “80 percent of our laws are imposed by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels”. He knows perfectly well that “bureaucrats” don’t make European laws – ministers from national governments and elected MEPs do – and in any case the figure of 80 percent of our laws coming from Europe is contradicted by the House of Commons library estimates of nine percent.

The Telegraph reports “EU reform chaos as Blair and Brown fail to agree” while the Financial Times reports the opposite “Brown and Blair find rare unity on defending 'red lines' “.

Some pro-European voices are allowed a few lines in some papers:

• “Unless Europe gets its act together, the world will continue to ignore it (writes Timothy Garton Ash for the Guardian)

• "Come 2009, when the US gets a new president, the EU must be ready to speak in a voice that will actually be listened to.". "The presidency's reduced package of functionally necessary institutional changes is a pragmatic, not an ideological response to the present impasse. We can see nothing in the German presidency's approach to these issues that conflicts in any way with British national interests." (Letter in the Financial Times from Lords Dykes, Hannay of Chiswick, Kerr of Kinlochard, and Peter Sutherland – none of them Labour, by the way).

• "There is no doubt that some provisions of the old constitutional treaty were misconceived, but there are other measures which should be retained in a new treaty, which are sensible responses to the EU's expansion from 15 to 27 member states in the last three years. The proposals to end the rotating presidency, to merge the two foreign affairs roles, to reform voting weights in the European Council and to give national parliaments a greater role in the decision-making process are among the measures that should attract support from those who genuinely wish to see the EU work better." (Letter from Lord Brittan of Spennithorne QC, Mr Roger Carr, Mr Guy Dawson, Mr Niall FitzGerald, Sir Philip Hampton, Mr Vijay Patel, Sir Mike Rake, Mr Roland Rudd, Mr Bryan Sanderson, Ms Rosemary Thorne, Mr Bill Thomas, Lord Tugendhat).

But the Eurosceptic papers appear not to want to publish dissenting letters or even factual corrections. We are in for a battle between the unelected press barons and the elected government on an issue on which the former have prepared the ground for years with their relentless depiction of the Europe as akin to the bubonic plague.

Reading through the briefing by the Eurosceptic think-tank Open Europe on the proposals for a new treaty, I was struck by several glaring omissions.

It makes predictions on what is likely to be in the treaty, mentioning the replacement of the six month rotating presidency, merging the two EU spokesmen on foreign affairs, voting weights in the Council of Ministers and the proposal to reduce the number of Commissioners.

However, despite seeing fit to claim that a revised treaty will not increase democratic accountability and will give the EU more powers, both of which are palpably incorrect, it fails to mention one of the proposals that will form the core of any revised treaty - namely, making all European legislation subject to the double approval of national governments and the directly elected European Parliament. Indeed, a revised treaty would also give national parliaments far more influence over their ministers and enhance their ability to scrutinise legislative proposals from the Commission. Both of these measures would greatly enhance parliamentary scrutiny of European legislation, something which I am sure even the most rabid Eurosceptic would accept is a good thing, and it is most surprising that a supposedly reputable think-tank would see fit to completely ignore it.

Moreover, Open Europe claims that 54% of UK Chief Executives think that the benefits of the common market are outweighed by the cost of regulation. Yet this apparent dissatisfaction doesn't square with the stance of Business for New Europe, an independent group of business leaders, which cites a poll showing that 52% of business leaders support a new treaty, with just 31% opposed. In the words of Sir Philip Hampton, Chairman of Sainsbury's, "The key aim for business is the development of an effective single market. The main provisions of the amending treaty should help achieve that."

By the way, any sufferes from insomnia who want to see the issue of the new treaty debated by myself, Tory europhobe MEP Dan Hannan, Robert Evans and Telegraph correspondent, Bruno Waterfield should click here http://www.maramoja.tv/index2.html

Over the next seven days the Sun has set itself the task of saving Britain from a “draconian new superstate”.

Thankfully they have kept things in perspective. Their urgent battle to save Britain from “surrender” is deemed less newsworthy than Michael Barrymore, Big Brother and a drunk soldier stripping off. Only then is Britain truly worth saving.

And as predictable as a soused squaddie in their birthday suit, is the Sun’s attempt to hoodwink (as they like to say) its readers into fearing any reform by publishing its own version of the treaty, which bears almost no resemblance to what is actually up for discussion.

The Sun’s version of the treaty includes:

"A PERMANENT EU President with 3,500 staff.
UNELECTED European judges getting unprecedented powers to set UK law.
BRITAIN surrendering its seat on the UN Security Council.
AN EU foreign minister representing the UK on international issues.
SLASHING Britain’s voting powers by a THIRD.
GIVING UP for good Britain’s hard-won veto on EU directives.
BOWING to EU laws on criminal justice and policing.
A RAFT of job-destroying shopfloor laws.
DESTROYING the City’s reputation as the world’s greatest money market.
HANDING the European Commission the power to meddle in any part of British laws it chooses.”

Every one of these 10 items is a tribute to the imagination of Sun journalists.

In fact, the EU will not have a permanent president but one that serves 30 months, instead of the current six, merely chairing summit meetings. The 3,500 staff it mentions is a statistic plucked from thin air.

European judges have never and will never be able to set UK law, they merely adjudicate when there is a dispute over EU laws previously agreed by government ministers and MEPs.

The claim Britain will have to surrender her seat at the UN is bunkum as is the preposterous suggestion that the treaty is out to destroy the City’s reputation or will cost British jobs.

If an EU foreign minister is introduced he or she will only represent Britain’s interests when we agree with the other 26 Member States on an issue. If there is a difference of opinion, like there was on Iraq, then there is no common position to represent. In either case Britain, like every other EU country, will continue to express its own views through its own foreign minister.

The current proposals would actually increase Britain’s voting power quite considerably, which just shows the Sun’s journalist can’t even add up.

The only point with a grain of truth in is the justice and policing veto, which will be discussed. Britain will want to keep this and it seems highly unlikely Blair will leave without some sort of veto or derogation in place.

The Sun is running a poll alongside the story which will inevitably conclude that 90 odd percent of its readers don’t want Blair to sign a new treaty, which they will then proudly proclaim is the voice of the British people. Which of course it isn’t, it is what Sun readers think of the imaginary treaty they have made up themselves, which I wouldn’t want Blair to sign either.

If the Sun gave as much importance to the bare facts as it does to bare bums, it might one day be able to claim it speaks for the British people over Europe. Until then it is helping to form opinions based on outrageous lies.

Today I took part in very constructive discussions with members of the House of Commons EU Scrutiny Committee and the House of Lords EU Committee in the bi-annual meeting they jointly have with British MEPs.

Part of the discussion focussed on what is likely to replace the EU Constitutional Treaty. Although actual negotiations will only begin in a new ICG in the autumn (if one is called by next week's European summit), the outline of the likely scenario is beginning to emerge.

Only one MP present, Heathcote-Amory, took the line of the extreme Europhobes claiming that it is somehow illegitimate to try to bridge the gap between the majority of states who want to retain the bulk of the Constitutional Treaty and the minority who have reservations about it, including the two that rejected it outright. After all, the latter two are now saying they wish to negotiate a new treaty.

The idea of a set of amendments to the current treaties, which would focus on practical improvements to the current EU system, generally found favour - certainly among the Lords, but also MPs present at the meeting.

If the new amending treaty focuses on measures such as changing the term of office of the Council Presidency from six months to 30 months, extending majority voting in areas where this is acceptable to member states, enhancing parliamentary scrutiny, merging the positions of the Commissioner for External Relations and the High Representative for External Relations, clarifying that the Charter of Rights has no implications for purely domestic legislation and cutting the size of the Commission and the European Parliament, then it should, in principle, be capable of having wide-spread support in both the Commons and the Lords - not withstanding the temptations of some Eurosceptics to frighten people into thinking that it would mean the end of Britain as a country.

It would also be difficult to justify having a referendum on such changes. Britain has never ever ratified an international treaty by means of a referendum. Indeed, it has never had a nation-wide referendum on any political issue, however important or controversial except for once in 1975. Why on earth we should have one on changing the term of office of the chairmanship of one of the EU institutions from six months to 30 months is beyond me!

Debate over what to do about the Constitutional Treaty has finally reached the mainstream British media.

The usual suspects have embraced hyperbolic nonsense, ignoring the pragmatic and vital reforms the original treaty offered, as I explain in more detail in my article for EU Observer. You can read it by clicking here.

The BBC’s Europe correspondent, Mark Mardell, blogs on the forthcoming summit and rightly points out that it is absurd to suggest Blair is tying Brown’s hands by agreeing a deal (as some papers are suggesting), as Gordon will be responsible for signing any treaty when he becomes Prime Minister in a couple of weeks.

Mardell and the Independent both fear the summit could get bogged down by Poland’s desire to introduce a voting system based on the square root of a country’s population. The reform of the voting system in the Constitutional Treaty intended to re-balance the weight of votes in the Council, which has slid towards smaller countries since the EU’s enlargement. By basing votes on population, bigger countries (like Britain) would be more fairly represented, while ensuring 55% of countries have to approve any directives and regulations would protect smaller member states (like Ireland).

The square root system has no chance of being implemented but the worry is Poland will refuse to budge on the issue, a result which Mardell suggests might be secretly welcomed by Gordon.

He presumably thinks that deadlock caused by another country will save Gordon from a pounding from the Eurosceptic press but a pounding from the Eurosceptic press is as inevitible as the endless coverage the same papers give to Big Brother.

The EU must reform if it is to work. We cannot continue to duck the issue and the sooner member states can reach an agreement acceptable to all the better – something Gordon knows!

I came across this typically restrained piece by Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail (don't worry, I don't make a habit of reading the Mail!). It appears that, aside from the usual diatribe, she has completely misunderstood a number of issues regarding a revised European treaty.

Aside from the usual bunkum about the treaty creating a new EU President (we already have an EU presidency which changes every six months - the treaty simply provides for a two-and-a-half year chair) she claims that merging the two posts of External Relations Commissioner and Council High Representative on Foreign Affairs, would mean the end of an independent British foreign policy! A new EU foreign affairs spokesperson would merely speak for the EU where there was a common position. She asks the question "what would happen if British foreign policy contradicted that of the EU". But, if Britain (or any country) objected, then there could be no common EU policy in the first place.

She recycles the tired Eurosceptic cliché that the EU is "anti-democratic" - conveniently ignoring the fact that the measures contained in a revised treaty would strengthen the role of the directly elected MEPs in the European Parliament (by making all EU legislation subject to approval by it and the Council of Ministers) and increasing the powers of legislative scrutiny by national parliaments. Besides, the EU is already the most democratically accountable of all the supranational organisations the UK is a member of including the WTO, NATO, IMF and World Bank, bodies which never seem to feature in her concerns about democracy.

Moreover, Phillips also reveals her own cynical double standards. She demands a referendum on a revised treaty only because it's the next best thing to a referendum on withdrawal from the EU.

I did chuckle when I read her description of the EU as "a failed, backward-looking project whose days are numbered"! In the words of Nobel peace prize winner John Hume, "the EU is the most successful example of conflict resolution in history", while Paddy Ashdown described it as "a political miracle". The EU is not perfect, but neither is any other political institution, and the reforms expected to be retained in a new treaty would enhance its effectiveness and its democratic accountability and help us to deliver the best policy results for our citizens on those matters when our countries are highly interdependent. If Melanie Phillips wants to see something that genuinely is "a failed and backward looking project", she should try reading her own columns.

Have just seen an utterly ridiculous press release from the Conservative leader Tim Kirkhope MEP, accusing Labour MEPs of being “in chaos” and contradicting the government’s position on the Constitutional Treaty in today’s vote in the European Parliament.

The Tories desperately cobbled together a press release with some outrageously selective editing of the report; once the report is read in full it is quite clear the press release is complete tosh.

The Conservative press release reads: “17 Labour MEPs voted in favour of the Brok report which committed the European Parliament to ‘reaffirm its commitment to achieving a settlement of the ongoing constitutional process of the European Union which is based on the content of the Constitutional Treaty, possibly under a different presentation’"

A quick glance at the actual report shows that the paragraph above (paragraph six) is cut off mid-sentence. It actually finishes “but taking account of the difficulties that have arisen in some Member States" – the key point which they deliberately cut out.

The Tories also conveniently ignored any mention of the following paragraph (paragraph seven unsurprisingly), which is also the exact position of the Labour government, namely to have an inter-governmental conference this autumn to negotiate a new treaty.

It will be interesting to see if this weak concoction actually makes the papers. Hopefully not, but if it does it will not have been the first time an absurd Tory press release from Europe has made column inches in some of the right-wing rags.

Am in Berlin to talk to the German government and MPs on the new EU treaty. Can the Germans (whose turn it is to chair) deliver a compromise between the 22 Member States which want to keep the Constitutional Treaty intact (18 of which have already ratified it) and the two that have rejected it, while also satisfying those like Britain which have not yet ratified?

The game plan is clear: make as few changes to the original package as possible, but as many as necessary to secure agreement.

Obviously, I (and a majority in Parliament) would prefer changes of symbol to substance, of wording to content, in order to preserve the main reforms contained in the Constitutional Treaty. So, if the treaty is to be an amendment to the current treaties, rather than a codifying replacement "constitution", so be it. But if some substance does have to be sacrificed, let us at least keep those reforms that make the EU system more efficient, capable of delivering on those policies that we agree should be conducted at European level, and those which enhance its democratic accountability.

This is clearly the approach of Chancellor Merkel and her Foreign Secretary, acting as presidency deal-brokers. Good luck to them! They still have to overcome considerable divergence on the scope of the changes needed, from Poland's demand to revise the voting strengths in the Council of Ministers to the Dutch request to change the nature of the reference to fundamental rights. But the Germans remain optimistic that a deal can be made.

Germany's own position is simpler. The President of the Bundestag told me that they are happy to transfer sovereignty to the European Union on matters where common European policies are beneficial, provided such powers are not given to ministers and commissioners alone, but to the European Parliament. Would that it were so simple!

So, Sarko beat Sego, as widely expected, despite her creditable perfomance in the campaign. Although the knives will now be out for her, her score compares well. Only one socialist candidate - Mitterrand - has ever won the French presidency since it bcame directly elected nearly half a century ago. In two out of the eight elections, (1969 and 2002) the Socialist candidate did not even reach the second round. Often, it has been the factionalism of the French left that has led to their downfall.

One important consequence at European level is on the debate on the Constitutional Treaty. Sarkozy supports a simpler treaty, avoiding the constitutional implications that could require a referendum. This puts him on a similar line to that of the Dutch government, supported recently by Tony Blair, as a way to salvage the key reforms contained in the constitutional treaty without raising the constitutional questions that some feared were raised by the Constitutional Treaty.

Of course, the overwhelming majority of Member States (including the two-thirds who have already ratified it) want to salvage the whole treaty, but the combination of Britain, France, Netherlands, and probably some others supporting a less controversial scaled-down text could prove decisive. Let's hope that it doesn't mean we'll lose the really useful reforms contained in the treaty, that Blair rightly hailed as a positive result for Britain and for the whole of Europe.

As a politician you get used to being misquoted - often deliberately so by your political opponents. However, it was distressing to find out earlier this week that I was completely misquoted by a benevolent source which inadvertently got my views on a couple of key issues completely the wrong way round. For the record, I do not support a Europe-wide referendum (I indeed explained my reason for this in a blog entry, which you can read by click here).

Nor have I said that it would be an outrage to support the deletion of the full text of the Charter of Rights from Part 2 of the Constitutional Treaty and its replacement by a single article containing a cross-reference to it.

Curious to be in a country where public opinion is very pro-Europe, but the government is Eurosceptic. Opinion polls show a solid 80% approval rating for the European Parliament, compared to about 20% for the national parliament. As one MP said, "The people are strongly pro-Europe, but still have to convince the government"

I am in Warsaw at the invitation of the the Polish Senate to speak about the future of the Constitutional Treaty, now that the prospects for negotiating a new version of it

The new right-wing Polish government was one of those who considered the treaty dead following the French referendum two years ago, but is now quite keen to get into new negotiations on it. However, they want to re-open the institutional package, which the French and Dutch leaders say they are happy with. In particular, they want to renegotiate the voting system in the Council of Ministers, to give each state a vote based on the square root of its population!!

No other country has shown the slightest interest in re-opening this particular issue, and they all accept the "double majority" system laid down in the Constitutional Treaty, whereby votes must represent a large majority of the population (66%) and a majority (55%) of states. This is felt to be fair on big and small States alike.

The square root theory does actually have a sound base in academic literature. The idea is that, with block votes, only the big units count, and cutting everyone back to their square root actually equalises the influence of individual citizens, whether they are in a big unit or a small one. It protects the smaller states, as it obviously cuts the larger ones' votes by more than the smaller ones.

However, the double majority system also protects smaller states, though in a different way, by requiring a majority of states as well as of the population and also by requiring a high majority in the population vote (65%) that cannot be attained by the bigger states alone.

Everyone suspects that the Poles really want to keep the old system of the current treaty of Nice, which gives them a disproportionately high number of votes (they have 27, compared to 29 for Germany which has more than double its population). Even Spain, which is of the same size as Poland and similarly over represented in the old system, is not seeking to reopen that issue (or any other aspect of the Constitutional Treaty).

The Polish ministers we met (the parliamentarians hardly mentioned the issue) said that that was not their intention at all, that they just want a better treaty, and that accusations that they are Eurosceptic are misplaced, as they support the principle of a supranational EU and the President has said that he would even like to see a European army.

Be that as it may, we are in for a difficult negotiation if Poland (and even more if other governments follow their example) want to reopen past agreements they have made that are contested by no-one else, not even the French or the Dutch.

There are signs of movement in the Netherlands - one of the two countries that rejected the Constitutional Treaty on reforming the European Union.

The Dutch government has submitted a paper to its parliament on how it sees the way forward. This document recognises that, far from being
overwhelmingly rejected, "there were 18 Member States that did embrace the treaty" and that "there is a need for a new discussion". It says that "the Netherlands is playing an active and constructive role in this discussion."

What is it that the Dutch government envisages coming out of these discussions? Not the current Constitutional Treaty without any changes, as it states quite clearly that "the previous government withdrew the Bill for ratifying the Constitutional Treaty and this government will not be re-submitting it".

Instead, it considers that a new Treaty should be negotiated, as "the Union manifestly cannot confront its current policy challenges on the basis of the Treaty of Nice". But this new treaty should retain much of the content of the Constitutional Treaty.

The government's paper says that "it is almost self-evident that certain elements of the Constitutional Treaty will be drawn on. One reason for this is that many Member States have already ratified the text. Furthermore, as discussions in the House have revealed many times, parts of the Constitutional Treaty will be useful in fulfilling the Netherlands desire to strengthen democracy and the EU's capacity for decisive action. In fact, even the Treaty's opponents in Parliament and society at large have conceded that certain proposals are clear improvements on the existing treaties."

In particular, according to the Dutch European Affairs Minister who I met yesterday, the institutional package contained in the Constitutional Treaty is worth retaining.

All this suggests that the Dutch problem is more one of presentation that the reality of the Constitutional Treaty. Although the government's coalition agreement states that they want a new Treaty that is "convincingly different from the previously rejected Constitutional Treaty in terms of its content, size and name", the government's paper goes on to list key issues that are, in fact, either cosmetic or already dealt with by the Constitutional Treaty.

The cosmetic changes are:
* to change the name, dropping the word "constitution", which changes nothing in law;
* to have a single article cross-referencing to the Charter of Rights, instead of incorporating it in full as Part II of the treaty;
* to drop the "symbols" of the Union like the flag and anthem, which, of course already exist and don't really need a reference in the treaty;
* to make it a treaty amending the pre-existing treaties, abandoning the codification of all the European treaties into a single text - again
no legal difference other than to make things more complicated (to the benefit of lawyers!);
* for new Treaty provisions to "spell out the rules and criteria for further enlargement" - again, these criteria exist, so spelling them out in the treaty is essentially a matter of increasing their visibility.

The other set of measures advocated is simply to give more emphasis to points that are anyway already in the Constitutional Treaty:
* the principle of subsidiarity, with a strengthening of national parliaments to assess measures for subsidiarity.
* the principle of the conferral of powers ie that the Union will only exercise those powers that the Member States have jointly decided to delegate to it
* an emphasis that some policy areas "are pre-eminently suited to a chiefly national approach including pensions, social security, fiscal matters, culture and health care" - does the Constitutional Treaty in any way suggest otherwise?
* support for new treaty provisions on cross-border environmental problems.

All these points are already in the Constitutional Treaty.

Now, I don't want to underestimate the importance of cosmetic changes (if only to diminish the chances of mis-understandings and the opportunities for wilfull distortions). Nor do I underestimate the need to draw more attention to things that are in the treaty. But I note that the solution the Dutch government wants would leave intact almost all the key reforms contained in the Constitutional Treaty.

EUX.tv has more on the Netherlands and the Constitutional Treaty here

Charles Grant, the director of the Centre for European Reform, has written a fine article in the Financial Times which you can read by clicking here.

It stresses the importance of Britain playing a constructive role in solving the problems of the Constiutional Treaty rather than sitting out on the sidelines and losing influence in Europe.

One of the ideas floated on the future of the Constitutional Treaty is to hold a Europe-wide referendum across the 27 Member States.

This idea is superficially attractive: a single Europe-wide decision, instead of separate national decisions, on Europe's "rule book", could settle the divergence of views that has emerged.

However, the EU has no right, under the current treaties, to organise a Europe-wide referendum. The treaties would first need to be changed - by unanimous agreement and national ratification - to enable it to do so. Even if agreement were reached, it would take years.

So, the advocates of this idea are now calling instead for simultaneous national referenda - in every member state - and because several countries don't allow for referenda in their national constitutions, they argue that such referenda should only be consultative, not binding.

But holding a new set of national referenda now on the constitutional treaty would probably just confirm what we know already: that there is a divergence of views on it with most countries supporting it and a few against it. It would simply bring us, after a few more months, back to the question that Member States will face in June's European Council: how to overcome that divergence and find a compromise acceptable to all?

As the issue of the the Constitutional Treaty gathers pace it is interesting to see the likes of Lord Kerr, formerly Britain's Ambassador to the EU, assert his support for the redevelopment of the treaty.

You can read his article, Pick the sweetest European Cherries, on the Financial Times' website here


I also have written a briefing for the LME website which discusses Britain and the Constitutional Treaty and considers many of the points Lord Kerr makes. Click here to read it.

Cameron still tries to be all things to all men and women when it comes to Europe - not surprising if you tot up the number of Tory defections on this issue in recent years, Europhobes to UKIP and Europhiles to the Liberal Democrats.

Today, Cameron has launched the "Movement for European Reform" (not to be confused with the existing Centre for European Reform). Its and his statements to mark the occasion are a telling sign of his increasing schizophrenia on Europe.

To please the Europhiles, his MER's "New Agenda" starts off saying : "the EU helped to create prosperity and bring our continent together. More recently, the EU has helped to support and nurture new democracies in Europe. Its membership now stands at 27 nation states – this is a fantastic achievement."

But addressing his more Eurosceptic readers in the Sunday Telegraph, he writes that the MER is in fact intended to "make the EU confront its endemic flaws".

His detailed description of the MER then tries to please both. It is high on clichés and even higher on contradictions. He says that "with the welcome enlargement of the EU to include so many countries previously locked out of freedom – there is a new Europe. But, sadly, there is no new EU". No indeed - he opposed the new, reformed EU that all 27 governments agreed on in the constitutional treaty.

He rails against the cost to business of EU regulations, but says "Europe has to show real global leadership by making its emissions trading scheme more robust" - which would itself raise costs, albeit for a good reason. Perhaps he should look at whether the costs of other regulations are justified or not, rather than sounding off with sweeping generalisations. And perhaps he could at least give a passing acknowledgement that EU regulations can also cut costs by eliminating technical barriers to trade and avoiding duplication in national procedures.

He says that the EU is always "demanding more and more power from member states", yet the constitutional treaty was about improving the EU's use of its existing powers rather than increasing them. New powers can anyway only be conferred on the EU by the Member States themselves, and only if they all agree.

On the constitutional treaty, he claims that "When the French and Dutch people rejected it, the EU responded by calling the voters ‘wrong’, and reviving the idea." I'm afraid "the EU" said no such thing - it was the 18 countries that approved it that are saying that their own voters also deserve to be heard and who are calling for a compromise to be found to save at least some of the reforms it contained.

As he claims to want reform, perhaps Cameron should engage in that debate, and specify exactly what he would keep and what he would change in the current treaties and in the constitutional treaty. Does he want, for instance, the enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of EU decisions provided for by the constitutional treaty? Does he oppose the changed voting system that would make each country's vote reflect its size (strengthening Britain, by the way)? Does he agree that it would be a good idea to scrap the set of existing treaties and have just a single text? Surely he would agree that it's time to settle these issues about the EU's machinery and move on to the real policy debates, yet he persists in his opposition to the reforms. But what, exactly, does he WANT?

Or, rather, what does he feel he can say, other than vague generalisations, without alienating one wing or the other of his party?

I was delighted to be re-elected by my colleagues as Socialist Group Co-ordinator (spokesman) on Constitutional affairs yesterday. My old friend (I have known him since I was 20) Jo Leinen was re-elected as President of Parliament's Committee on Constitutional affairs.

But, the surprise of the day was the EPP Group nominating UK Tory leader Tim Kirkhope for their Vice President slot on the Committee. He has not previously even been a member of the committee and in that capacity replaces Dan Hannan, who rarely appeared.

So, why has Kirkhope, as Conservative leader, chosen to switch to this committee and, even, to be its Vice-President? Not, I assume, simply to counter me, as a fellow Yorkshire MEP. As an opponent (now) of the Constitutional Treaty, he may have decided that a higher profile Tory presence on the committee is necessary, with the issue returning to prominence. But he has not always been the most dogmatic opponent of the treaty and seems to accept the need for some of the reforms that it contains. This has caused unease among the arch-Eurosceptics in the Conservative delegation, who remain suspiscious of Kirkhope and are rumoured to be planning to oust him as leader.

Meanwhile, I had some fun showing Kirkhope the letter from David Cameron published in yesterday's Financial Times. It advocated dropping the Constitutional Treaty, but salvaging most of the institutional changes it contains, including a long-term President of the European Council, a Foreign Minister, a streamlined majority voting system in the Council, and so on. Kirkhope looked surprised and shocked - until he spotted, just before I closed my folder, that the David Cameron in question was a professor at a Yale University and not his party leader. Had I closed the folder a few seconds earlier, Kirkhope would no doubt have been rushing out a press release welcoming the new line from his party leader!

Anyway, well done to the FT for setting a cat among the pigeons!

Good letter in last Saturday's Telegraph from a certain Alan Pavelin on the proposed EU constitution:

"I would point out that the treaty was negotiated by the elected governments of the (then)25 member states; that 18 countries (either through their elected parliaments or by referendum) have accepted it and only two have rejected it; and that, of the countries that held referendums, the total of yes votes exceeded the total of no votes. By all means argue against the treaty because you don't like its provisions (which include, for the first time, a provision allowing any member state to leave the EU)…But please don't argue against the treaty on grounds of democracy, because this flies in the face of the facts."

Today's meeting in Madrid of the 18 EU countries that have ratified the constitutional treaty is a useful reminder that this text has been ratified by a two-thirds majority of the EU's Member States. Far from being overwhelmingly rejected, as some commentators continue to claim, it was actually endorsed, not just by every single one of the national governments of EU Member States, but also by a clear majority of voters if you add together the results in all the countries that held referenda.

When eurosceptics trot out their favorite sound-bite "Which part of the word no do you not understand?", the 18 reply "Which part of the word yes do you not understand?" So far, there are two 'noes' , 18 'yeses' and seven who are waiting to see, though some of them have also made it clear that they still suppport the text.

Of course, the EU works by consensus on its basic rule-book, the treaties, and serious work must be done to overcome the divergence of views that has emerged. The reservations and objections expressed by the French and Dutch 'no' votes must be listened to. So must the views of the majority. It is quite legitimate to explore what compromises might be possible and what could get the necessary support - a subject I have written on elsewhere (and which you can read by clicking here.

Today Finland will become the 18th Member State of the EU to ratify the costitutional treaty.

Of course it is concrete results on economic growth, energy supplies, the environment and so on that matter to people more than institutional tinkering. The problem arises when the machinery blocks or splutters, thereby failing to deliver the desired results.

The EU's machinery has not yet been adapted to having nearly 30 Member States. The constitutional treaty was intended to do that. It has now been ratified by a large majority of the Member States. They remain attached to salvaging as many as possible of the reforms that it contains.

Like it or not, next June's European summit is scheduled to discuss this question and to find a way forward on institutional reform. It is in Britain's interest to support changes such as streamlining the size of the European Commission, re-weighting the votes in the Council of Ministers better to reflect the size of each country, enhancing parliamentary scrutiny, and many other of the useful reforms contained in the constitutional treaty.

How this could be done is still an open question (for an analysis of the options click here) but it is not a debate Britain can avoid and we should therefore approach it, not reluctantly, but as an opprtunity to be seized.

It is fashionable in some pro-European circles in Britain to attribute the recent rise of popularity of the EU in opinion polls in Britain to the fact that two tricky issues seem to have been removed from the agenda: accession to the euro, and the Constitutional Treaty.

It was indeed an uphill struggle, at times, to argue the case on these important but complex matters. But pro-Europeans should not for one moment think that these issues have disappeared forever.

We can certainly stay out of the euro in the short-term but in the long-run staying out means losing out. And now that the euro appears to have overcome some teething problems, the terms of this debate may well alter over the coming years.

Similarly, for the Constitutional Treaty. It may have been kicked into the long grass following the French and Dutch referendums, but the 'period of reflection' comes to an end next June when the European Council summit is due to examine a way forward on this issue. Meanwhile, various countries have continued the ratification process and by next June eighteen are likely to have done so. They will want to keep the constitution intact, or as intact as possible. But even if that is not possible, the issues that the Constitutional Treaty was intended to resolve have not disappeared and Member States will have to return to the questions of how to make the EU function more effectively as it approaches 30 Member States, how to improve its democratic accountability and how to make it easier to understand for citizens.

In theory there remains a wide range of possible options, and it is certainly premature now to decide which one of them might be politically feasible next year or later. But two main variants are emerging in the debate. One is re-negotiating the draft constitutional treaty (simply adding protocols to it seems to be an option that is fading). This would take some time and the negotiations would be protracted and complex.

The alternative is to adopt quickly a 'mini-treaty' focusing on the less controversial institutional changes that are necessary to pursue the further enlargement of the European Union. These would be modest and would not rise above the threshold that would trigger referenda in certain countries. In other words, they would give no new responsibilities or competencies to the European Union, whose remit would remain unchanged, but would streamline the institutions (notably a smaller Commission), reform voting procedures and the rotating presidency in the Council and improve democratic accountability.

Interestingly, the items contained in this second option are all issues that would, in any case, have to be addressed in the context of the next accession treaty - presumably with Croatia. The current treaties (as last amended by the Treaty of Nice) contain no provisions for new member states beyond Romania and Bulgaria. If the issues haven't been solved before that, the Croatian accession treaty will anyway have to settle how Croatia will be represented in the institutions. This means that the voting system in the Council will have to be reviewed, (with many countries advocating the system all governments agreed to in the constitutional treaty), reviewing the size of the Commission (which has to be reviewed anyway in 2009 under the current treaties) and the rotation system for the Presidency of the Council and the European Council.

Of course, ratifying an accession treaty will be less controversial than a general Constitutional Treaty, even if the later was no more than a collection of about a dozen useful reforms. There is no reason why an accession treaty should not contain 'emergency repairs' to the EU system, while leaving more fundamental reform to a more long-term process.

One European issue currently being considered by the government sounds highly technical, but is none the less causing considerable debate. It is whether the ‘Passarelle’ clause should be used to change EU procedures concerning decisions on law enforcement and criminal matters.

What this means is that the member states can decide (unanimously)to transfer decisions in this field from the specific inter-governmental procedures laid down in the so-called ‘Third Pillar’ of the EU Treaty and switch them to the general decision making procedures of the European Community. If they do so, they have the option of switching to majority voting instead of unanimity, of giving the European Parliament the extra scrutiny powers of the ‘co-decision’ procedure, and enabling judicial review of decisions by the Court of Justice. It could also allow the European Commission to chase up Member States who failed to implement what they have agreed to in the Council of Ministers.

The tabloid headline reaction has been predictable, with screaming headlines alleging that Britain is going to ‘hand-over’ powers in this field to ‘Brussels’, ignoring some basic facts about the matter.

I gave evidence last week on this matter to the House of Commons and the House of Lords scrutiny committees. I drew attention to an excellent report of the House of Lords which is available to read by clicking here. The Lords cite a number of problems with the current procedures, which take up an enormous amount of time, and they conclude ‘that the proposal deserves careful examination’ and ‘caution against any knee-jerk reactions resulting from media coverage’ (paragraph 172). They consider that a gradual transfer from the inter-governmental procedure to the community procedure ‘merits exploration’.

But above all, they put their finger on a crucial point: this is a field in which Britain anyway enjoys the right to opt-into or opt-out of legislation adopted by the European Union. Decisions taken by a qualified majority in which Britain was out voted would not apply to Britain if we didn’t want them to. So, it is other countries’ vetoes (of things that we want) that could be circumvented without Britain needing to accept majority decisions that it would have vetoed.

The Lords report deals with this in its paragraph 178 where it says that ‘as a result, the UK would not have to participate in proposals brought forward, the overnment will need to consider carefully whether the UK should stand in the way of other member states deciding to transfer law competence to the European community’.

As to the merits of using Community, rather than ‘third pillar’ procedures, I note that the Law Society considers that ‘the full incorporation of the justice and home affairs pillar into the community structure offers the best guarantee that rights and freedoms that are in the interests of individuals will be balanced against the security concerns of the member states’ (quoted in Lords report paragraph 119)

Tory MEP Charles Tannock made an astute point in his recent letter to the Telegraph about the problems continued enlargement (to include Croatia and other Balkan states) of the European Union will have.

It is of course to the benefit of the EU that enlargement continues but Tannock points out that the current Treaty of Nice ensures each new Member State is given a Commissioner, a minimum of six MEPs and a certain amount of votes in the Council of Ministers.

Barring detail, he is right. As the EU grows it will become politically weighted to the smaller countries, who will have a disproportionate amount of power in relation to the size of their populations and economies.

Unfortunately Mr Tannock’s solution – a population-based veto – is simply not workable. To bring it in would require each nation’s agreement and it is extremely unlikely the smaller Member States would agree to large ones having a veto but not them.

The “unlamented constitution” Mr Tannock wants abandoned, would attenuate this problem by changing the weighting of votes to make each country’s vote proportional to its population. With this fairer system, it would also increase the use of majority voting in general, limiting the veto to subjects that are really sensitive for Member States.

This is another example of an issue that will not simply disappear with the non-ratification of the constitutional treaty. Good that an opponent of the treaty is beginning to recognise one of the costs of not having it! constitutionwhere the constitution addresses issues

As the PES spokesman on Constitutional Affairs it is heartening to see Irish Premier Bertie Aherne make clear his enthusiasm for the new European Union Constitution.

Speaking in Dublin today, he said: "The Constitution will make it more effective, more democratic, more open and more easily understood.

"There is nothing automatic about the Europe we have built for ourselves over the last generation. There is nothing inevitable about the union's future. It falls to us now to make choices about our future. We should not underestimate the human potential to make the wrong choices."

His determination to fully engage the citizens of Ireland about Europe is something this country could do a lot worse than to follow.

It is also another excellent example of the disporportionate amount of media coverage given to the two countries (France and the Netherlands) who rejected the Constitution compared to those countries that are strongly in favour of it or are likely to be. For instance, I didn't see much coverage of Estonia ratifying it on Tuesday, making a total of fifteen so far.

Time and time again, Eurosceptics claim that the EU is ignoring voters in trying to salvage the constitutional treaty. Tell that to the voters of Spain, who endorsed it by a large majority. In fact, 16 countries have now ratified the treaty. It has the support of a majority of EU Member States.

So, why is it “undemocratic” to take account of the views of the majority and to try to find out what can be done to reconcile the majority and minority viewpoints?

I was amused to see that the "European Reform Forum" set up by arch-Eurosceptic Bill Cash MP has concluded that there is a "need to reform the existing European Treaties". They call for wide ranging debate and agreement on a set of reforms.

Isn't that exactly what the Constitutional Treaty - which they opposed vigorously - sought to do?

What to do about the EU constitutional treaty? That's the question we debated yesterday and voted on today.

There are at least two views. One is that this text of the Constitution is dead following the referenda in France and the Netherlands; that we had better start thinking of something else and preparing a different way forward.

The other view is to say: hang on a minute, this text has actually now been ratified by a majority of Member States. The 25 national governments themselves did not declare it dead. Instead, they extended the period of ratification and opened a 'period of reflection'. In that period of reflection we must listen carefully to those who said ‘no’, but we must also listen to the majority who have said ‘yes’ and find a way forward that can ultimately bring the two together.

Eurosceptics shout loudly about the French and Dutch referenda showing that "Europe" has lost touch with public opinion and that the constitutional treaty (presumably unlike any other treaty) was an elitist project which the public is now revolting against. They never mention the referenda in other countries which endorsed the treaty, nor the fact that, in total, more people voted in favour than against.

What we have is not a mass revolt, but a divergence of views. In the EU, when countries' views diverge, the traditional pratice is to talk things through to try to overcome that divergence and to find a compromise solution. In the past, when new treaties have been rejected by a member country, ways have been found, with the agreement of the country concerned, to reassure public opinion and to allow the treaty to be adopted after a new referendum.

This time, it is far too soon to draw conclusions as to the best way forward. The period of reflection has begun by addressing issues of context rather than the text. It is only now that several governments have begun to float ideas as to what could be done about the text.

Parliament concluded that the period of reflection must be extended at least until 2007 to enable a longer and deeper reflection. Until then, all options should be kept open. Of course – as is to be expected – Parliament would prefer to maintain the text, but it recognised that that would only be possible if measures were taken to reassure and convince public opinion. What those measures might be is left open. Parliament pointed out that there are, in theory, many options: supplementary interpretative declarations, extra protocols, rewriting part of the text, rewriting the whole text, drafting a new text and so on.

Which option is best and feasible will only emerge at the end of the period of reflection. The conclusion cannot be drawn now. But one thing is certain: the status quo – that is, the current Treaties – is not sufficient for this Union in its enlarged form to function effectively or democratically. This issue will not go away.

"He who is limping is still walking."

Does this old Yorkshire (or is it Chinese?) proverb apply to the European Union? There is no doubt that the rejection of the EU reform package by France and the Netherlands last year has injured the EU and left it limping.

But it is still very much walking. Common European-wide laws continue to be agreed in those areas where member states consider that this would be mutually beneficial. A medium term budget has been agreed. Countries still outside the EU continue to join the lengthening queue to become full members. Even with a limp, Europe is still moving ahead.

So Austria wants to review the EU constitution. I wrote in the Guardian on the subject:

"The reasons which led all 25 governments to agree that our enlarged EU needs a new rulebook have not simply disappeared. …

"The French "no" campaigners argued that rejecting the constitutional treaty would lead to a re-negotiation where the text could be "improved" - although they did not all agree on what those improvements might be. Nonetheless, it is clear that their intention was to kill the text but not the process - and possibly not all of the text.

"According to the most recent opinion polls, 64% of Dutch and 65% of French people want the constitution to be re-negotiated rather than killed off.

"In that sense, the ball is in the court of France and of the Netherlands. It is up to those countries to say exactly what it is they consider necessary in order for the process to be revived. If they consider that there is no scope whatsoever for agreeing anything along the lines of the constitutional treaty, they must say so and save the rest of us a lot of time."

I was struck by how the assumptions and myths propounded by the Eurosceptics in Britain have come to dominate even the thinking of many of us pro-Europeans. Sometimes we all-too-readily concede arguments that are based on nothing more than endless repetition.

Take, for instance, the evidence that Lord Wallace of Saltaire gave to the European Reform Forum (page 19 of this PDF document). He played to the gallery in complaining that the European convention (which drafted the constitutional treaty) "did not go far enough into the whole subsidiarity issue and did not open the box that it was supposed to open, which was marked 'returning competences from the Union back to national governments'".

This is simply not true. The first few months of the Convention's work was precisely around the subject of "what do we want to do together?", in order to examine whether the EU's field of responsibilities is too large, too small or about right.

The conclusion was that it was about right: because after all, the EU only ever deals with those matters which the member states have unanimously agreed that it should. Where they have done so, it is not because they are predisposed to handing over their powers to "Brussels", but because there is sufficient reason to convince them all that common action in the matter is beneficial. And even where the EU has been given the authority to act, the degree and intensity of EU action is determined by the member states themselves, as it is the Council of Ministers (and the directly elected European Parliament) which adopt European legislation and policies, not the European Commission.

Lord Wallace bemoaned suggestions that there should be a harmonisation of the maximum level of alcohol allowed in the blood stream before a person's driving licence is withdrawn, stating that "for all I know, South Carolina and North Carolina might have different views on that, so I do not see why Belgium and Luxembourg should not have different views on it either". That is a perfectly valid standpoint - and indeed different EU countries do have different laws on this. But the difference between the US system and the EU one is this: in the EU, those arguing to have a harmonised rule have to persuade the European Parliament and ministers from national governments to support it. So, unlike in America, it cannot happen without the agreement of the member states themselves!

Together with Jo Leinen MEP, the Chair of the Constitutional Committee of the European Parliament, and a few other colleagues, I have been invited to give evidence to the EU Affairs Committee of the Czech Senate and the Czech Chamber of Deputies on what to do about the unratified EU constitution.

Prague is one of Europe's most beautiful cities, and I managed to take a quick stroll around before the meetings begin - and another one late at night. I was last here in 1978 - and how it's changed! Prague is now far more lively and bustling. Buildings have been restored and cleaned up and there is a general air of oozing prosperity, at least downtown.

Still, the most tellingly symbolic change I saw was a 'Museum of Communism' now located above a McDonalds!

As ever, not all the changes are favourable. Glaring neon light advertising was mercifully absent in the communist period. Plus, there is now a proliferation of fast food joints and sleazy bars and a striking number of beggars. Does this explain why the communist party still gets 20% of the vote?

I ask one of the communist MPs how on earth a party such as his still gets such a high vote. His answer was: "Very simple! We've remained in opposition since 1989, whereas every other party has been in government". The striking similarity between the Czech Communist party and the British Liberal Democrats had never struck me before…

Since 1978, the country has changed in other ways too. Since the 'velvet divorce', it's no longer Czechoslovakia, simply the 'Czech Republic'. A Czech journalist explains to me how this has affected the language: previously everybody could understand both Czech and Slovak, not least because TV programmes used both interchangeably. Newsreaders alternated between the two and even children's programmes swapped around. Now that's no longer the case, so the Czechs are totally unused to hearing Slovak and have difficulty understanding it. Meanwhile, the Slovaks still see a lot of Czech films (it's a larger country with a bigger film industry), so the decline is asymmetric.

Anyway. On the EU constitution, there is a wide range of views. The President of the Czech Republic, Václav Klaus, is an adamant opponent not only of the constitution but of the EU itself. The day that the Czech Republic joined the EU, he made a pilgrimage to the mountain where good King Wenceslas lies, according to legend, buried with his army waiting for the Czech day of need. This over-dramatic visit caused much derision - after all, the good King had not emerged after the 1938 Nazi takeover, the 1948 Communist coup or the 1968 Soviet invasion. If he had not defended the Czechs against these incursions by foreign dictatorships, why on earth should he emerge when the Czechs themselves have decided by referendum to join this voluntary association of neighbouring democratic countries co-operating together?!

But the Presidential position is honorary, and power lies with the Social Democratic Prime Minister and his government who are pro-Europe. At least in the Czech Parliament, a large majority supports EU membership (including most MPs from Václav Klaus's own party).

During our visit, we were treated to an impassioned plea in favour of salvaging the constitution from the President of Parliament, Lubomir Zaoralek. We also had meetings with journalists (interestingly, one is a reader of my blog!) and academics.

One final tale from Prague. We've all heard the stories of mangled English (indeed there are a few on my own website), such as the hotel offering "French widows in every bedroom", but I came across a new one at my hotel in Prague. A noticeboard informing customers of nearby church facilities was headed 'DIVINE SERVICES'...

Regular readers may recall that the European Parliament voted yes (overwhelmingly, I might add) in support of the proposed EU constitution about a year ago. Regular readers may also recall that some Eurosceptic MEPs - mostly UKIP and some Tories, plus their assistants - tried to kick up a bit of a fuss by accusing Parliament staff of "manhandling" them when they tried to wave "Vote No" banners. (The Telegraph also joined the fun with this report.) At the time, the Parliament authorities took it seriously and appointed Jim Nicholson MEP to investigate. Jim is himself a prominent Eurosceptic and member of the right-wing EPP/ED, the same group as the Tories.

Well, I'm pleased to report once and for all that there wasn't a grain of truth in the Eurosceptic stories. I spoke to Jim Nicholson today and he confirmed that, after a thorough investigation, he had been unable to find any evidence whatsoever to substantiate the allegations of mistreatment. Jim's report was made to the President of Parliament, and since it found nothing amiss I suspect nothing more will come of it, so this is just for the record. Oh, and it goes without saying: don't hold your breath for an apology from those indignant eurosceptics who invented the tales in the first place!

Add to this the disproven invention that Parliament threw a big party after the vote - utterly unfounded - and it's a fairly sorry reflection on the tactics chosen by eurosceptics to complain about Parliament's endorsement of the constitution.

In a month when nobody seems willing to further the debate about the future of Europe, it was refreshing to learn of the following resolution passed by the conference of the Co-operative Party (link to Word document):

This Conference supports the proposed new Constitution for the European Union. Conference notes that it has received support from the overwhelming majority of socialist parties across Europe and from the ETUC, and is so strongly opposed by the far right and the UK Conservative Party.…

Conference believes that the new Constitution will respond to many of the criticisms that have previously been levelled at the EU, making it clearer, more efficient and more accountable. It is a progressive step towards a more democratic and social Europe.