Sarkozy must be careful to leave EU's options open

Nikolas Sarkozy's first speech in the European Parliament as President of the European Council was the closing highlight of the final Strasbourg session before the summer recess.

His speech was far more conciliatory than perhaps people had been expecting - especially in the light of his trenchant, and largely unjustified, criticisms of Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson. In particular, he attempted to re-assure those who fear that the French presidency will pursue a more protectionist agenda by saying that while Europeans had a right to expect "protection" from the EU this should not mean "protectionism". He also rejected the argument used by some French and German voices following the Irish referendum that a "multi-speed" Europe should be pursued, describing this scenario as "a last resort".

It was also interesting to hear him refer to the need for European politicians to take into account the specificity of sport when framing EU law, commenting that, just as the culture sector has some derogations from internal market rules, so exceptions should also apply in sports policy.

More controversially, he stated that there could be no further enlargement of the EU without the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, on the grounds that an enlarged EU required new institutions.

Of course, it is true that one of the reasons for reforming the treaties is the constant enlargement of the EU, and it is highly desirable to streamline the institutions to avoid sclerosis. But simply announcing that there can be no further enlargement - even to Croatia, which is nearly ready - is treading on dangerous political territory. It effectively holds potential accession countries, hostage pending the EU resolving its institutional future, or at the very least postpones their accession to the long term.

But it is the prospect of EU membership that has provided a massive incentive to the Balkan countries of the former Yugoslavia and to Turkey to reform their political and judicial structures. In many ways, enlargement is one of the biggest successes of the EU. Paddy Ashdown famously described it as "undoubtedly one of the EU's most effective means of exercising soft power" to secure stability and reform among its neighbours. To throw away the prospect of medium-term accession to the EU would remove the biggest carrot of all in Europe's soft-power armoury.

It could also be counter-productive in securing reform. Opponents of the Lisbon Treaty might well seize on this position to say that blocking Lisbon would therefore block Turkish accession, which would be popular in some quarters. Even though Turkish accession is years away and anyway requires a separate unanimous decision and national ratification, it would not stop a populist campaign along the lines of "stop Lisbon to stop Turkey".

So, Sarkozy's position is shooting himself in the foot - twice over.

Those of us who support both the reforms contained in the Lisbon Treaty and the enlargement of the EU need to be clear that blocking the latter to achieve the former is a highly dangerous tactic. It also slams the door on one potential way out if Lisbon remains blocked, namely incorporating some of the institutional reforms into a country's accession treaty (which anyway has to address issues like the new country's votes in the council and seats in the European Parliament).

Closing down your options is not the right thing to do at the present time.

Sarkozy address

Whether or not Britain remains in the grip of Sarkosis (deep obsession with Sarkozy and his wife), the state visit has been an interesting one.

At the State Banquet at Windsor Castle, which I had the privelege to attend, and in his speech to Parliament, the French president went out of his way to thank Britain for saving France in the two world wars, which he said France would never forget. This is something that not every previous French President has been happy to say so clearly and eloquently.

He likened France and Britain to two brothers, born in the same era, who had grown up together and as teenagers had squabbled a lot, been jealous of each other's possesions, pinched from each other, and yet had fought side by side in early adulthood (20th Century) in defence of their independence and their shared values of liberty and democracy. Now their relationship had matured into deep friendship and although their lifestyles, tastes and friends might often differ, this, as in the best of families, in no way detracts from their brotherhood. Indeed, they also mutually admire many of each other's achievments.

They are both also part of a wider family of countries in Europe. Both need the European Union, just as the European Union would be inconceivable without them.

Well put.

It's been a rough couple of weeks for the BBC but despite the fact people often bemoan them for a perceived right-wing, left-wing, Eurosceptic or even Europhile bias, the reality is that the BBC is one of Britain's best exports and one of our most valuable institutions. So much so the French now plan to copy its successful model.

French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, worries that although the BBC has the same funding as French external broadcasters it is much more successful and told Patrick de Carolis, the boss of French Televisions, that he wanted his four channels to be "more creative and daring", citing the BBC as the model.

He has championed reform of France's public television network to mimic the BBC's structure. The first upshot of this proposed reform is to rationalise the separate external French televisions channels into a single large, BBC-like, corporation. This, he hopes, will raise French Television's world-wide visibility and influence to the level at which the BBC has enjoyed for decades.

We may grumble about the BBC from time to time, but it is pleasing to hear about the world-wide appreciation and envy for the BBC which is so often neglected by its detractors.

Click for more on the Times' website

The election of a new French President (who faces no new Presidential or Parliamentary elections for another five years), coinciding with an Intergovernmental Conference to quickly adopt a set of amendments to the current treaties, could provide us with an opportunity to solve one problem that has been niggling away at us for some time now - the issue over the Strasbourg Parliament seat.

We must try to convince France that maintaining the seat in Strasbourg is not in its interests. The refusal of France to budge on this issue is damaging its reputation across Europe, not to mention the reputation of the EU itself (the Strasbourg seat was a major factor when the Dutch rejected the Constitutional Treaty). The constant travelling MEPs and their staff (not to mention lobbyists, journalists, and so on) have to do every month to Strasbourg from Brussels not only presents a logistical nightmare, it constantly generates bad press over the wastefulness of the EU and the hypocrisy over the EU's bold environmental targets when travel between the two cities leaves a huge carbon footprint.

Mr Sarkozy presents himself as a bold reformer. What better opportunity to solve a problem that will otherwise continue to fester for many years?

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.

If there was one thing we learned from the Conservative Party Conference last week it is that the Tories are still deeply divided over Europe.

My local MP, Conservative Philip Davies, led the anti-EU cheerleading during a packed Better Off Out fringe meeting, a group which exists solely to campaign for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

Just a day after Davies had denounced the EU, Hague spelt out Conservative Party policy on Europe in his speech.

He said: “Others condemn the EU in its entirety. But as we champion a new vision for Europe and make great friendships among its newest members, it would be extraordinary for us to turn our backs on them and myopic to advocate withdrawal. I am as convinced as ever that our place is to be in Europe.”

With such a disparate range of views on the EU, and the Conservatives desperate to put on a show of unity, it was no surprise that Cameron remained silent on the issue, though he did win praise from Davies for allowing the sceptics to air their anti-EU rhetoric.

There is also some intrigue behind Nicolas Sarkozy’s appearance – or lack of it – at the conference. Sarkozy, the favourite to become the French presidential candidate for the centre-right, was due to speak in Bournemouth but in the end addressed the conference by video on the big screen.

David Rennie informs us on his blog that many (well-connected) people believe that Cameron told Sarkozy not to mention the EU in his speech and consequently the Frenchman refused to travel to the south coast. Martin Kettle of the Guardian blames Sarkozy’s absence on the Tories’ refusal to work alongside the Gaullists in the EPP – which if true will be some indication as to just how isolated the Tories will be in parliament and Europe in general should they leave the EPP. After all, the Gaullists are not federalists and traditionally support the primacy of national governments in EU deision-taking.

Some claimed that the Conservative Party Conference a success and David Cameron indeed produced a polished speech which, though with no actual policy, embraced some traditional Tory taboos (gay marriage and single parents for instance). However, he steadfastly ignored the one issue the Tories are no closer to resolving: Europe.

Nicholas Watt, the Guardian’s European editor, has put together a very astute analysis of the mess the Tory MEPs have got themselves into over their will-we-won’t-we attitude to leaving the EPP. He brings up an extra problem I’ve so far neglected in this blog: how will Europe’s family of mainstream centre-right parties react to the decision to go renegade?

By all accounts, the answer is: very badly. France’s Nicolas Sarkozy has reportedly told Cameron that he is “weak”. Other leaders have said that they will downgrade links with the Conservative party. Cameron will be losing a lot of friends in parties of government across the EU — something he'll undoubtedly come to regret if the Tories ever make it back into government here.

The most astonishing observation of this kind came from UKIP’s Nigel Farage:

“If the Conservatives were to form the next government they would probably serve the national interest better by being part of the family of European governments rather than being on the fringes. If we are going to stay in the EU it would be better to have a government that was in negotiations with other governments in Europe rather than one that has distinctly frosty relations. …

“In the EPP they [the Tories] are banded together with other parties of government. If they leave the EPP and form their own group they will have to form a group with parties whose political culture will provide a huge embarrassment to David Cameron back home. Poland’s Law and Justice Party’s stance on abortion and homosexuality will provide Mr Cameron with the hugest embarrassments back home.”