A successful summit

After frantic negotiations, the European Council summit has ended with success on a number of fronts, with agreement on how to tackle both long and short-term political problems.

The summit ended with agreements that will enable the EU to meet its previously agreed targets (to cut carbon emissions by 20%, to increase use of renewable energy by 20%, and also achieve a cut of 20% in energy use by 2020 as compared with 1990 levels).

Given the strident opposition from several eastern European countries and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, it is an impressive feat that a deal was reached. Indeed, John Kerry as US representative at the UN climate conference in Poznan, has already described the deal as "an enormous act of leadership". The package also enables the EU to revive its pledge to cut emissions by 30% provided the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen next year agrees to a new deal as well.

The other pressing problem facing the summit was how to tackle the financial crisis and economic downturn. Despite the apparent spat between our Government and the Germans on how best to respond, EU leaders have announced a €200 billion stimulus package - the equivalent of roughly 1.5% of total gross domestic product in the EU. Although the precise details of the package will be ironed out over the next few days, they will include a combination of tax cuts,extra financial support for small businesses and an acceleration of public spending projects. Although individual Member States will be able to opt-out of specific measures with which they disagree, it is good news that, rather than leave all countries to 'go it alone' and so increasing economic turmoil, EU countries have come together to seek a co-ordinated response.

The discussion of how to salvage the Lisbon Treaty was, to most, the least important item on the agenda at this week's European summit - no one would argue that the EU's institutional framework is more important than the future of the planet and mitigating the effects of the economic downturn. But the deal struck maintains the package of institutional reforms that will allow the EU to be better able to deal with these long-term political problems. As I reported yesterday, the Irish government can claim a notable diplomatic victory and the 27 governments can show that the issues raised in the no campaign have been listened to and responded to.

So, a European Council summit convenes and Britain has a treaty which contains all the things it asked for at the June summit. This time Britain is not going into the meeting with major battles to fight. All of the Government's so-called 'red lines' have been agreed, and Britain keeps its ability to pick and choose whether to opt-in or out on justice and home affairs policy. The treaty discussions are expected to be wrapped up fairly swiftly. If there are any last minute hitches, they will probably be Polish or Italian quibbles. It should be a successful (and low-octane) first summit for Gordon Brown as our Prime Minister.

Of course, this is unlikely to assuage the obsessive Euroscepticism of the Murdoch press, the Telegraph and the Mail. You can expect to read the usual wild-eyed diatribes and baseless scare stories about the contents of the Reform Treaty and how it will lead to a centralised superstate.

However, the reality is that most people are not interested in such shrill little-Englanderism. I gather that the Sun's readership has fallen by over 100,000 each day its front page has been dominated by demands for a referendum on the treaty. Meanwhile, Mark Mardell's blog points out that more people declared their religion to be "Jedi" in the last census than have signed the Sun's petition. When looking at the substance of the text, such apathy is unsurprising - are people really suggesting a referendum should be held on whether we replace the 6-month rotating presidency of the European Council with a 30-month one, or apply qualified majority voting to the composition of the comitology committee?!

Let us be clear: this treaty is good for Britain and for the EU. It abandons the previous concept of a Constitution that swept away all the existing treaties and replaced them with a codifying Constitution, and the various symbols and controversial elements that some countries felt had the trappings of statehood. At the same time, it preserves the practical adjustments to the EU institutions contained in the Constitution: the strengthened role of national and European parliaments in EU decision making, reducing the number of Commissioners, merging the two EU foreign affairs positions into one role of High Representative, replacing the six month rotating Council presidency with a 30-month permanent position.

In short, it is a compromise between the 18 countries that had said 'yes', the two who said 'no', and the seven who were waiting to see on the constitution - but a positive compromise that should put an end to the years of institutional wrangling and enable EU decision making to be more effective and efficient. For those of us who believe in Britain's place in the European Union, this is a result to be welcomed.

P.S. I was pleased to read the position of Business Europe (the CBI and its European partners) welcoming the Reform Treaty. In their words, "the proposed Reform Treaty is a good compromise providing an improved framework for decision-making with 27 Member States".

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!

The first European summit of the year concluded today with national governments agreeing bold targets to combat climate change.
Member States have ambitious plans to generate 20% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

EU countries will also aim to reduce carbon emissions by 20%, increase the use of bio-fuels to 10% of transport fuel and will also consider banning filament light bulbs in private homes and offices by 2010.

The deal allows for flexibility so the less developed countries will not have to contribute as much as those in the western half of the continent.

This is, by any standards, an important breakthrough on an issue in which Britain has been at the forefront. Securing EU-wide agreement on such a programme will not only make it more effective but will also help gain leverage to persuade the rest of the world to do like wise.

For more on the summit you can read the BBC’s report while the Guardian and the Times also have coverage on ther websites.

The Finnish Prime Minister today reported back to the European Parliament on Friday's European Council summit. This European Council was neither historic nor punctuated by spectacular disagreements. Yes, even Summit meetings can be boring!

The Finnish Prime Minister, Vanhanen (not to be confused with Dan Hannan, Tory Eurosceptic!) mentioned his regrets that the European Council did not agree to switch from unanimity to qualified majority voting (QMV) on the issue of co-operation on fighting crime - a proposal which was blocked, among others, by Germany and Britain. He said if you want effective decision-taking in the EU, then it was necessary to have QMV. To have 27 vetoes round the table and still expect to emerge with a sensible policy is obviously difficult. Indeed, a good example had just been given a few days before, when Poland alone vetoed a decision which Britain was rather keen on, namely establishing a system whereby prisoners can be transferred to their own countries to serve their sentences. As Britain has a relatively large number of foreign prisoners, it is in our interest to get them out of our overcrowded jails and let them serve their sentences at home (and at their home countries expense). Yet because of the veto system, Poland was able to block something that every other country agreed to.

Vanhanen was interesting in another sense - the evolution of Finland's position. Historically, Finland was a deeply Eurosceptic country, keeping out of the European Union and even the Council of Europe for many years. When it eventually joined in the mid 1990s it was initially cautious. Yet now, it is an enthusiastic participant in the European Union, has joined the euro (within which its economic performance is even better than Britain's), has joined the Schengen area of passport free travel within Europe and supports more majority voting in the Council of Ministers. Last week it also ratified the European Constitution.

Perhaps we should send some of Britain's Eurosceptics to Finland?

Am in Brussels at the end of the European Council (Summit) meeting. Do various radio and television interviews.

However, I also pop in, out of interest, to the briefing given by the Prime Minister's spokesman to the British press. This is a curious affair. In the room are British journalists present at the Summit meeting and down the line are the lobby correspondents in London. The Prime Minister's spokesman takes questions alternately from those in the room in Brussels and those down the line in London. Every question put by those in Brussels relates to the subject of the briefing, namely what is happening at the summit meeting on issues such as Turkey's accession to the EU, the future of the Constitutional Treaty, European energy policy and so on. All the questions coming down the line from London are to do with domestic politics and bear no relation whatsoever with the subject of the briefing. And so on, back and forth like ping pong.

I can also see clearly which stories will be in tomorrow's newspapers - and it wont be the European ones. So much for helping public understanding of what actually happens in Brussels.