Archives for June 2008

This piece is part of a BBC TV series focusing on Conservative policy.

If David Cameron becomes prime minister he may spend an awful lot of time in Brussels and talking about Europe. It's a tricky and potentially dangerous topic for the Conservatives, but the handful of policies that have been announced suggest it could blow up into one of the big stories of PM Cameron's first term in office. The Irish No to Lisbon raises even more tantalising possibilities.

The Conservatives are clear that they don't want to leave the European Union, but have very severe doubts about the way it is being run at the moment. Mr Cameron has made two firm promises: to take back certain powers from the EU and put his party at the forefront of forging a brand new European political group. But more oblique hints suggest he could also be heading for a first-term referendum on Britain's relationship with the EU.

That's an awful lot of the "E" word for someone who was elected leader promising not to "bang on" about Europe. It is a subject that evokes real passion in the hearts of many Conservative stalwarts. That can make it an awkward subject too, where pragmatism is seen as betrayal and principle as obsession. The Conservative civil war was about Europe, and it was a huge factor in Mrs Thatcher's downfall and the undermining of John Major's government.

But times have changed, the pro-European generals, like Ken Clark and Michael Heseltine, may not have quit the field, but no longer command big battalions. The vast majority of those in power now range from suspicion of the EU to downright hostility. They think this is a mirror image of the views of the British voters. Lower down the ranks, while few openly advocate leaving the EU, many see a semi-detached relationship as a logical outcome.

Mr Cameron's first foray into European politics has not been an unqualified success. During his campaign to become Conservative leader he won some over with a promise to pull the Conservatives out of their current grouping in the European Parliament. He hasn't yet been able to keep the promise. As this is exactly the sort of esoteric Euro-row that seems designed to confuse, I will leave this most pressing problem until last.

Most Conservatives think the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty is a gift. While it helps them argue the case that the treaty is dead, it also hands them a convenient blunt weapon for next year's Euro elections.

The June 2009 elections for the European Parliament will be taken by most in Westminster and perhaps many in the country as merely a dress rehearsal for the general election. But there's likely to be clear blue water between the main parties on Europe itself. It is now certain that if the Lisbon Treaty is still in limbo the Conservatives will offer a referendum if they win the next election. What if the Irish do vote again, and do vote Yes?

The shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, argues: "If this treaty is ratified in this country without a referendum, and if it is ratified in all other countries and comes into force before a general election, in our view not only would political integration have gone too far but the treaty would lack democratic legitimacy in Britain. So as we have already made clear, that situation would not be acceptable to an incoming Conservative government and we would not let matters rest there".

What precisely this means the Conservatives will not say at this stage, but it sounds like a pretty big hint that there will either be an attempt at renegotiating Lisbon or a referendum on Britain's relationship with the European Union, or a combination of the two.

The other major Conservative promise is to bring home certain powers from Brussels. They would attempt to "repatriate", as it is known in the jargon, both social and employment policy. This is complex, because so much of it is covered by health and safety legislation. Many Conservative MPs and MEPs want fishing policy brought home as well, although at the moment Mr Cameron's team judge this to be too complex. Others would add to the shopping list perhaps defence, perhaps agriculture.

These priorities for an incoming Conservative government would be against a background of a shift in the European political landscape.

The Conservatives are at the moment part of the EPP-ED group, which is dominated by the German Christian Democrats and the French UMP, both currently parties of government. It is the biggest and most powerful grouping in the parliament. While centre-right, it is pretty enthusiastic about a Europe of "ever further union".

That is why Mr Cameron wants to pull out of the group. But his initial promise proved hard to keep. The most obvious partners, the Czech Civic Democrats (ODA), don't want to link up until after the European elections in June 2009. One source tells me this will happen and they are on course to form the fourth-largest grouping in the European Parliament, with 60 members and six countries involved. A more cynical source says that is "tosh to put it politely: we'd link up with one serious party of government and a series of mavericks and extremists". At any rate, it would mean even before Mr Cameron had to start hard negotiations about Britain's relationship with the EU he would have severely annoyed the leaders of the two most powerful EU countries, France and Germany.

It wouldn't be the best background for what is big, high-wire stuff. It is just about possible to see other EU countries allowing British opt-outs on social and employment law. It is approaching the fanciful to expect these other countries to allow Britain to opt out of a treaty that has already been ratified.

But if there had been a referendum in Britain that instructed the government to seek a different relationship they would have to accept it, at least in some form. It is hard to see whether this would end up with new opt-outs, a new relationship, an exit strategy or a reconstruction of the whole European project. Some think the latter is possible. In the words of one enthusiast, the Conservatives would "storm the citadel" and lead a Europe-wide movement that would change the EU into a more democratic, looser organisation, no longer aimed at "ever greater union".

But there is a potential downside. On the Conservative Party's main webpage on policy there is not a single mention of Europe - a reflection of the high command's belief that while people may agree with them about the EU, it is not a main priority for most voters. If Mr Cameron does end up "banging on" about Europe, fighting a referendum campaign against a new Labour leader who'd be seeking to make a mark, it might rather bore the voters, who thought schools and hospitals were Mr Cameron's priority.

So there are those who think this will remain on the back burner. One Conservative politician, who desperately wants a changed relationship with the EU, believes only a leader with a Powellite obsessiveness and a willingness to take on the whole of the civil service, the diplomatic corps, big business as well as France and Germany could succeed. And he adds ruefully that sort of politician doesn't become party leader these days.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The fate of the Lisbon Treaty will, I suspect, be in the hands of the opinion pollsters.

Have we learnt any more since the dust settled on the European Council meeting? At the summit President Sarkozy frankly admitted to his fellow leaders that if a referendum had been held in France right now, it would have been lost. So he might have some sympathy for the man tasked with finding a way forward. As I understand it, no one was crude enough to directly suggest that the Irish prime minister call another referendum, but it was the assumption that hung in the air.

When the Czech prime minister stormed out of the room during the first session, effectively bringing it to an end, it concentrated minds. His protest was at a text that would have pushed countries to carry on with ratification but this together with the influence from other eastern countries, the Scandinavians and Britain, made it clear that those who wanted to push Ireland were not in the majority. If the Franco-German motor still drives the European Union it isn't spinning quite as furiously as some would like.

I know it will disappoint some readers, but no consideration was given to abandoning Lisbon or taking the No vote as a serious comment on the direction of the European Union. So they wait for Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen to report back in October. In that time there will be an effort to cajole, scare, but above all analyse the Irish people.

A telephone poll of 2,000 people, conducted days after the vote, had 55% only making up their minds in the week before the poll, 52% of No voters saying their main reason was not fully understanding the issues and 76% felt their No would help renegotiate a better deal for Ireland. This, on the surface, is quite good news for those who want another vote.

An Irish colleague of mine tells me Irish airwaves are filled with phone-ins full of people saying "what have we done?" in nervous voices. This is an attitude some EU stalwarts will wish to encourage, ahead of a possible second vote. Two very well respected commentators, Peter Ludlow and Wolfgang Munchau have published articles suggesting that Ireland will be isolated if the No vote stands. And the Centre for European Policy Studies has published an analysis suggesting how this could happen.

Some think a bit more of this, and a few concessions on some of Mr Cowen's eight points will do the trick. I am not sure and I think the "don't push us around" vote might be stronger than some care to think. No analysis has been done by any august body on what a second No would do to the EU.

In the meantime, the French presidency will tread carefully: the plans for harmonising base rates of corporation tax have disappeared and the defence plans will be presented to stress their voluntary nature. The delicious debate on who would get what job has been shelved. This fascinating report explains what has been going on behind closed doors to set up an EU diplomatic service, as envisaged under the treaty: I wonder if they will still go on behind even tighter-shut doors?

The Irish No will dominate EU politics for a good while now, but I don't want to turn into a one-trick pony, so I am going to take it easy for a couple of days, and when I return I hope it will be with a different subject.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The Irish prime minister is nothing if not expressive in his body language. During the summit I've seen him amid a throng of other leaders and suddenly left alone, turning from left to right, not seeming to know what to do. I've seen him talking to other heads of government, clutching his head and waving his arms. One can't help feeling sorry for him at his first summit as Irish leader. At his final news conference he said it was his responsibility to find a way to move forward and added "Is it possible, can I do it?"

If he doesn't know, I certainly don't. But what has this summit produced? Of course, more time for Cowen. Of course, no definite path. Had they come up with a cunning plan or given Cowen 24 hours to find a solution it would have been truly astonishing.

But given the gut French and German reaction to the vote a week ago today, the conclusions are bland and mild. It notes the result, notes 17 countries have backed the treaty and agree more time is needed to analyse the situation and agree to "Ireland's suggestion to come back to this issue" in October.

Brian Cowen has already identified eight issues which were behind the No vote. Some fears, like those over defence, might be soothed away by a declaration that the EU has no plans to force Ireland into a euro-army. Others, like the size of the commission, could be dealt with by the agreement of other countries. Some, like the Irish voting weight, could not be altered without reopening the whole thing - a horrifying thought all parties have ruled out. But, leaving aside the legitimacy of such a move, could enough be done to change the voters' minds?

Although everyone is being very nice and kind at the moment, they won't be if Mr Cowen returns in October and says "sorry, no can do".

But what of my benchmarks at the beginning of the summit? Deadline ...October is not a deadline, and those arguing for a rush forward have not raised their voices. But many want this over before next June's European elections and I think the autumn summit will have a greater air of urgency.

Franco-German position and enlargement: The French and Germans do appear united and are saying the EU cannot get any bigger without a new treaty. This is a traditional threat to aim at the eastern countries and the UK.

Czechs: In the end a special "footnote" was added for the Czechs, noting that ratification is before the courts in their country.

That's it for the moment: maybe more next week when the dust settles.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Glad they are reading this corner: the Foreign Office have just rung to say Number 10 wanted to point out that British ratification will not be delayed, it's just that the court ruling will be out before the process is complete. Evidently even after the Queen signs it off the instruments of ratification have to be deposited in Rome. It's something I might read up on on a quiet day, but not today. Anyway despite my initial excitement a slap from a judge, mildly embarrassing, but no big deal.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

A real bombshell thrown into the summit at the last minute, which may or may not be of significance. Gordon Brown has just told the news conference that ratification of the Lisbon Treaty will not happen until after a court ruling. Funny, we all thought it had already happened.

This is in reaction to a letter from Lord Justice Richards, who is hearing a case brought by Stuart Wheeler saying that the Governemnt has acted illegally by not giving a referendum.
The judge writes: "The court is very surprised that the Government apparently proposes to ratify while the claimant's challenge to the decision not to hold a referendum on ratification is before the court. The court expects a judgment to be handed down next week. The defendants are invited to stay their hand voluntarily until judgment. If, in the absence of any satisfactory assurance to that effect, the claimant decides to seek injunctive relief, I direct that the application be placed before me personally."

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

More on Brian Cowen's speech. He told other leaders that there was no strong suggestion that the Irish people were less committed to the EU now than in the past, and there was no serious calling into question of the benefits of membership.

He rejects the idea that the treaty was rejected because it was too complex to understand. But he has a long list of "genuinely felt" anxieties, which he labels concerns about the EU's future direction and potential future direction. They are:

- World trade talks.
- Suggestions of tax harmonisation.
- Loss of a commissioner.
- Change in Ireland's voting strength.
- Lack of democratic accountability of the EU high representative and president of the council.
- Possible European Court of Justice rulings on areas like abortion and euthanasia.
- Insufficient workers' rights.
- Defence policy.

That's eight concerns. We won't know for some time how, or indeed if, he intends to address these concerns.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Bag slung over my shoulder, overcoat on, and heading for the door bad luck struck in the form of a readout of the Irish prime minister's speech. So forgive me if I am terse in my summary. I will give you more detail later.

He made it clear he saw October as a reporting stage, not a deadline, arguing "it would be counterproductive to any potential way forward.. for us to attempt to predetermine a precise time frame".

He identified a list of reasons for the referendum defeat, none of which will be surprising for those who've followed the campaign. He added that the poor economic outlook might have been a factor, noting it's not going to get any better. While that sounds suspiciously like a warning of the dangers of a second referendum, much of the rest highlights troubled waters where oil might usefully be poured. I am not sure if this points towards a second referendum. I don't think the other EU leaders are sure. I am not sure if Mr Cowen is sure. I'm going to sleep on it, and when I wake up I am not sure it will be any clearer.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

While the Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen had to endure pats of sympathy on his back, and arms and elbows, like someone who's had a rather embarrassing accident, the pressure is on the Czechs.

The Irish PM has to report back in October, but the Slovenian presidency stressed that this wasn't a deadline to "fix" the situation. This may just be kind words, and indeed the actual words that will be released from the summit have not yet been agreed in full.

While the Czech PM, Mirek Topolanek, said that his country wouldn't put the brakes on the ratification process he also told the other leaders there was a great deal of suspicion of the EU in his country. Despite his promise to carry on, he also said "I am not going to force MPs to back Lisbon and I wouldn't bet 100 crowns (about three pounds) on a Czech "yes". He said there was a lot he didn't agree with in Lisbon, but he had linked his political career to it. He said there were eight solutions on the table: only one of them was suspension of ratification. He said the Irish No had the same value as the French and Dutch Nos, but "we are three years old, and three more tired".

After the leaders' dinner the President of the Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, in as crisp a form as I've seen him, hit back. He said that it was "completely inconceivable" that a government would sign and not move towards ratification. He said all governments had an "obligation" to carry on - they had signed up to the treaty, and "not for fun".

He'd already done a good job trying to make this summit about oil and food prices, not the Irish No. I suspect many European newspapers will go with this line.

President Barroso has announced an emergency package to help fishermen, 200 million euros more for an emergency food distribution programme and a fund to help farmers in the developing world. But he insisted that the real way forward was less reliance on oil, and said that investing in renewables, which once seemed "exotic", now makes economic sense. He added there was "no quick fix, no magic solution."

The same might be said about the Lisbon Treaty. We only have a hint so far of the differing views: President Sarkozy said that the process of letting new countries join the EU was "suspended". The Slovenian presidency said it wasn't.

The Irish PM didn't hold a news conference and so far no word has leaked out, at least in my direction, of his description of his plight.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The foreign ministers' dinner finished about half an hour ago. They've decided to lift sanctions against Cuba.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

We're hearing that the Czechs don't want any mention of further ratification and the ongoing process of ratification will be "noted", not "urged".

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The presidents and prime ministers of the European Union dined on Slovenian-inspired delicacies such as trout with pumpkin foam, lamb "Idrija" style and Kefir pudding with Teran liqueur and red berries.

I am itching to find out what the Irish prime minister told them, but as yet nobody is talking. Indeed I am not sure they've quite got round to the coffee.

It has been decided that the Irish have four months to report back: but it isn't clear if that is a deadline or merely a staging point. The Czechs are coming out strongly that it should only be the latter. The deputy prime minister, Alexandr Vondra, told the BBC that he was glad the Lisbon Treaty was in a "parking lot" (being scrutinised by the constitutional court) in his country and that his message was "please don't press us".

The Czechs don't want any encouragement in the final text to continue with the process. Oh and I hope their dinner was less "imaginative" than the anchovy and salami rolls in the press room.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The Irish prime minister was one of the first to arrive at the meeting. He'd already held a brief joint news conference with Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and was meeting with Germany's Angela Merkel. He is getting lots of warm handshakes, pats on the back and touches on the arm, like a family member who has suffered a bereavement.

There seems to be agreement that Ireland cannot and should not be isolated: at least not at the moment. Angela Merkel has dismissed talk of a two-speed Europe. The official statement will definitely talk about giving the Irish more time and "respecting" the "No" vote.

But will the Czechs sign up to anything that talks about continued ratification? And will the Irish be expected to come up with a concrete plan at the summit in October?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The barriers are up and the leaders are about to arrive.

The former UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw used to talk of summits as "two shirters" or "three shirters", taking ministerial packing as a good clue to how long it would all take.

But this could be the "two crises" summit. The one is that caused by the Irish "No" to the Lisbon Treaty. The other, the subject previously top of the agenda, is the fuel crisis hitting families and businesses all over Europe. Don't be surprised if the leaders try to combine the two: "we'd love to help but we need the Lisbon Treaty to act". At the very least they will stress that their top priority is dealing with concerns about high prices, rather than institutional navel-gazing.

This is a critical summit. The outcomes may not be dramatic, because it is in the leaders' interests to appear calm and collected. It's most likely, after some preamble on meeting the concerns of citizens, they will talk about respecting the Irish, the need for Lisbon and push everything off to another summit in October. But even if they manage an appearance of stately swan-like progress there will be furious paddling beneath the water.

Here are the things to look out for:

• Is the October meeting a deadline or just a staging post? In other words, how much time will the Irish be given to come up with some proposals? The mood music towards the Irish, punitive or understanding, will be important.

• Is there a united Franco-German position? For the first time ever the German press conference will be translated into English and French - a sign Chancellor Merkel intends to speak for Europe.

• Is a bigger European Union linked to the treaty? France's President Sarkozy and the president of the European Parliament have argued: without Lisbon, Croatia and others can't join the EU as planned. Does everyone agree?

• The Czech position: They are teetering on the brink of pulling the plug.. will they do it? We know the president is not keen on signing, the prime minister has issued a statement saying: "The Irish 'No' is not of a lesser impact for us than the French and Dutch 'No'. It signifies that no matter whether the ratification process continues or not, the Lisbon Treaty will not enter into force. The Czech ratification process has been suspended until the official decision of the constitutional court. That leaves us time for further debate inside the Czech Republic as well as in the EU."

Sounds clear enough, but will he be sat upon?

The real business will be over dinner, but I'd better go and watch what the leaders say as they come into the first meeting.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

EU leaders are gathering in Brussels for a tense summit after the Irish said "No" to the Lisbon Treaty. But the 27-nation bloc won't be considering scrapping the whole project. Here is a longer version of my piece which was on this morning's Radio 4 Today programme.

To many a British newspaper the Irish are a heroic race, who have smashed the hated Lisbon Treaty. In many European capitals campaigners gathered outside Irish embassies to show their thanks. But many newspapers on the continent take a rather different tack. A Swedish newspaper fumed "Ireland should be forced to rethink or become an associate member of the EU". An Austrian editorial declared "Ireland should do the rest of Europe a favour and leave".

This is not just the gut reaction of some journalists, but of many in the political classes all over Europe. And it raises the question: "What part of 'No' do they not understand?" It sounds like a cheap jibe, but it goes to the heart of the European Union. Those who dislike the EU's direction of travel call it the "ratchet effect": the EU's only movement is one way, towards more common policies, more co-operation between countries, more power to the centre.

But the British newspaper template - that Brussels is forcing reluctant, bullied countries to do something or other - misses an important point. National governments are the ones forcing the pace, not the Commission, not the European Parliament.

All the EU countries signed this thing, most genuinely like it, and governments like to get their way. Especially big ones. Imagine if Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Spain and Italy and all the rest had agreed to build a space rocket and Ireland for whatever reason objected. Would they say: "OK that's fine, we'll call the whole thing off", or would they press ahead with the plan without Ireland?

But of course the European Union is not a space rocket or any other one-off project... it's a club with a mission: and moreover a quite clearly stated mission. Those who signed the Treaty of Rome, establishing the Common Market 50 years ago agreed they were "DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples".

The Treaty of Nice, the one that the EU operates under at the moment, says they are: "RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".

The Lisbon Treaty repeats this and adds it should "mark a new stage in the process of European integration".

And of course the EU has the European commissioners. They have two main jobs: to suggest new laws, and to promote the purpose of the treaties. So it's in their job spec to push for more integration.

Some argue history is at the heart of it. They would say the architects of the European project came out of the war profoundly suspicious of what they would have regarded as the excess of democracy, the populism that produced Hitler and Mussolini. They wanted to establish a French-style bureaucracy, as wise guardians of a higher truth. This may be so.

I suspect though that one seasoned diplomat got it right when he said there are "a lot of people who think they have been working for a long time for the good of the people of Europe and really don't understand why the benefits have not come across".

I'm told that when the foreign ministers met in Luxembourg earlier this week half of them raised the question of what they were doing wrong, and agonised about being seen as an out-of-touch technocratic elite. What they don't discuss is whether the EU should be a completely different beast altogether.

That is very frustrating for people who want a change of direction. They ask if there is anything anyone could do that would derail the project. After the Danish people rejected Maastricht, the Irish people rejected Nice, the French and Dutch people rejected the constitution and now after this vote, there is no fundamental rethink. After the rejection of the constitution, Tony Blair said that the trumpet had sounded outside the walls. But the walls have not fallen. In the end the European Union is still about governments and what they want. Only a government with a very strong will and a clear agenda to shake the foundations could make a "No" mean no. That is why on the continent they will watch the next British general election with a degree of nerves.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

A quick technical point raised by a couple of you. Like the-real-truth, post 7, I too thought for a while the wheeze of keeping the commission the same size was not likely, because it would require all countries to ratify again. This is apparently not true. There is a provision in Lisbon for a unanimous vote of the council (that is, the leaders of the 27 EU countries) to tinker with this. It would be slightly awkward, because it wouldn't come into effect until Lisbon was law and the Nice Treaty, which does cut the size of the commission, would be in force until then. But that's the sort of thing politicians employ lawyers to get round. The big political difficulty of having to ratify Lisbon doesn't exist, or so it appears: I want to check this with the lawyers, but haven't got round to it.

Clarifications, such as "Lisbon does not affect Ireland's abortion laws," don't need any ratification, either.

Just a point to Kallboll, post 28: nothing here reflects my "hopes, needs or desires". But as a journalist it is my job to "speculate": to point out likely outcomes and possibilities. If something is politically unlikely I will say so. If it's a possible way politicians may proceed I will say that, too. Don't take it for some sort of personal preference. I haven't, in this current run, explored some of the bolder ideas for reform of the European Union suggested here.

While this is the right place for such free thinking, at the moment I am more concerned with exploring what the EU is actually going to do: and none of the 27 current governments want radical changes. But I do want to explore if the EU can be changed, reformed, halted and how that could happen. More on this next week, I hope.

Tomorrow, as presidents and prime ministers gather in Brussels, I'll look at the subject at the core of many postings: what part of "no" do they not understand?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

At the end of the foreign ministers' meeting the big question is: "Will the Irish hold another referendum?" To some it will seem amazing that the Irish government is even being asked this question. But for those who are very keen on this treaty it seems the only way forward.

The British official position is that the treaty is good for Europe and means a more efficient and effective Europe. I don't see ministers shedding too many tears if it goes in the bin. The major concern seems to be not being the first, or indeed second, to declare it dead. The Czechs also have grave reservations, and gave President Sarkozy a bit of a slapping.

But as far as I can see everyone else is determined to keep Lisbon alive. They will ask the Irish what they want. Luxembourg's foreign minister said there could be assurances on abortion and defence. There would be a few tricky legal niceties to get lined up, but it is possible to ditch the smaller commission (so Ireland doesn't lose a commissioner on a rotation basis) without opening the whole business up again.

But would this be enough for the Irish government to take such an immense gamble? They would be accused of having contempt for the people. They would run the huge risk of another "No": has anyone thought through the consequences of that?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The foreign ministers' meeting in Luxembourg will be keen to hear what Irish Europe Minister Dick Roche, who played a big role in the referendum, has to say for himself. His thrust will be "keep calm, give us time, don't push us too hard". Click here to listen to what he said to me:

The UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband, on the way into the meeting, said that Britain would continue to ratify: "It would be a bizarre situation for every country to take a view about the Lisbon Treaty but for Britain to refuse to take a view," he told me.

But what will happen next? People are starting to back one of three options:
Ireland votes again;
Abandon Lisbon;
Move ahead without Ireland.

Luxembourg's foreign minister has suggested that Ireland could be given assurances about defence and abortion: a clear prelude to a second vote.

The new Italian foreign minister, former commissioner Franco Frattini, said as he went in that the referendum was "a cold shower, but Europe does not stop for this". Perhaps that is close to the third position.

No one senior is talking about leaving Ireland out in the cold, but some MEPs are in favour of this "coalition of the willing" and there is a suspicion that this is the French and German fall-back position if Ireland doesn't vote again. Mr Miliband is clearly against. He told me Ireland must not be bulldozed, and that it was written in "black and white" that the treaty must be backed by all 27 countries.

They are still in the first meeting as I write and the real discussion will be over lunch, which lasts until four in the afternoon. It's alright for some.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

It was a long Friday the 13th.

The last broadcast on the Irish "No" out of the way, we wearily made our way back home from Dublin Castle, though Temple Bar, the area of Dublin filled with clubs and bars.

A group of young men, pints in hand, tattoos on their necks, having a quick fag outside a Chinese restaurant wanted to shout "No, to Lisbon!" into our camera. Too late, the day was done.

One of them asked, "Is it really true they would have re-introduced the death penalty if we'd voted 'Yes'?"

This is, of course, why many politicians hate referendums. People will vote on many issues, some nothing to do with the issue at hand, some pure fantasy.

Ireland's worries?

This means it is almost impossible to answer the question posed by some who want to press ahead with Lisbon. Politicians who argue that ratification should continue say a second vote is possible. They say, "We have to find out what worries the Irish had, and deal with them." This is too rational by half.

The Irish were worried by many things? There were many things, some true, some not, some specific, some very general.

Referendums may be a bad way of dealing with complex legal treaties, but this vote was about the European Union. No-one can argue that this was a protest against the Irish government - Brian Cowen's poll ratings were sky high when he recently became Irish prime minister.

Some voted about specific issues, like abortion and taxation. Some voted against the general drift of the European Union. But many I spoke to didn't understand the treaty.

Unsexy debates

Some argue that means Lisbon is awful, by definition. On Friday I took part in a BBC Radio 5Live discussion with the editor of the Irish Sun, who argued it was difficult to understand, and therefore nonsense and so people were right to vote against it.

I think this line of logic is hard to sustain. Most treaties, most diplomatic agreements, and indeed most proposed laws have to be written in complex legal language. They are, by their very nature, difficult for even specialists to understand. If you can't boil it down to a simple headline, then it is very difficult for busy people with busy lives to engage in the arguments.

Purely in a sprit of fantasy politics, I make the suggestion of offering a string of referendums before negotiations on single issues. Are you in favour of an EU foreign minister? EU embassies? Fewer commissioners? A change to the voting system? A president for the European Council?

These may not be the sexiest debates to have over a pint, but you can discuss them sensibly. Then a government would know where its red lines were.

It will die

But back to reality. Foreign ministers will meet in Luxembourg today and start talking about "What next?". So they will first ask "What does Ireland want?"

If the answer is, "Not a second referendum", then there will be more talk about a two-speed Europe. I read a fair amount of stuff in newspapers about going ahead as a group of 26 without Ireland. They may be right if a way can be found of carrying on with most countries operating under Lisbon rules, with Ireland trailing behind.

But none of my sources think this is either sensible or possible. You can opt out of the euro - you can't opt out of a voting system, or the number of commissioners.

My hunch (and it is an informed guess, I won't eat my hat or beat myself up if I turn out to be wrong ) hasn't changed: Lisbon may not be dead, but it will die.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

What does Ireland's No mean for the European Union? Here is a longer version of my thoughts for Radio 4's 1800 bulletin.

This is a multiple crisis. The Lisbon Treaty itself is a watered-down version of the European constitution, which was abandoned after it was rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands three years ago. Lisbon was only stitched together after tortuous negotiations, carefully balancing the competing wishes and concerns of 27 countries. To go back to the drawing board is unthinkable to those who would have to do the work, as well as fairly pointless.

So it's a crisis about what happens to the ambitions and the rule changes in the documents.

Some politicians, particularly in France, will want Ireland to vote again - perhaps after a concession allowing all countries to keep a commissioner.

But it is also a crisis about legitimacy. The Irish voted No to the Nice Treaty in 2001 and were asked to vote again a year later. That time they said Yes. The Danish voted No to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 - and voted Yes a year later. The French and Dutch rejected the constitution in 2005 and the leaders designed Lisbon instead.

If Ireland is asked to vote again, voices saying that the EU doesn't understand the word "no" can only grow louder. In the end Lisbon could be declared dead. Some bits would be implemented without a treaty, others abandoned and others put into a new treaty when Croatia joins the EU in a couple of years' time. So it's also a moral crisis: we face another few years of potentially boring navel-gazing, when some European leaders say the only way to sell the EU is to deal with things like climate change, immigration and terrorism.

Friday 13th may turn out to be very unlucky indeed for those who believe in the EU project... not that it will stop them trying to press ahead regardless.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Ireland has voted No to Lisbon. For European Union politicians who back the treaty it is indeed an unlucky Friday 13th. But what will they do?

The plan is that all other countries will press ahead with backing the treaty. I am told Gordon Brown has phoned the French president to assure him that is what he will do. But this surely is just a holding pattern. Without Ireland on board Lisbon is dead.

The ball is in the court of the Irish prime minister. Many politicians in Europe will hope that he will, at some later date, call another referendum. It's likely that even some No campaigners in Ireland will urge him to go back and demand some concessions. If he went down that route Brian Cowen would be taking a grave political gamble, risking another No. If the EU demands another vote it will hardly enhance its reputation for democratic accountability.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The bookies may regret trying to be ahead of the game. Bookmaker Paddy Power decided on an early payout to those who gambled on a Yes vote. Now they're feeling decidedly nervous. The No camp tell me they're very happy with the early results, which point towards a victory for them. They say key constituencies are voting No at over 60% , while the Yes campaign's strongest areas are getting barely over 50%. Still, I think it's a bit too early to call.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Turnout, they told me, was crucial. Above 50% and it is a Yes. Under 40% and it's a No. Frankly I am suspicious about this analysis, but both camps tell me about 45% of Ireland's voters went to the polls. Right in the middle of knife-edge territory.

But in Ireland, the don't knows have it. I don't mean those who didn't bother to vote.

On talking to people at polling stations the overwhelming impression that comes through is that voters feel they don't understand the Lisbon Treaty. On the whole they agree with Ireland's Eurovision star Dustin the Turkey, who is quoted in the Irish Sun as calling the treaty "gobbledegook" (Geddit?).

At one place a teacher told me she wasn't sure how she was going to vote when she walked into the polling station.
She only decided to vote Yes as her pen hovered above the ballot paper.

At a more working-class area of Dublin the polling station staff are bored in the early evening, doing a quiz in the newspaper and chatting on their phones. Hardly anyone has been in. Turnout has been around 30% here, which is higher than the national average at this time, which is 20%. Just then a bit of a rush starts. I ask a couple of young women what they make of the treaty. "I don't know what it's all about." And her friend? "Not a clue." So how did she vote? "No. I'm not going to vote for something I don't understand."

An elderly couple tell me they don't know what it is all about, either. "But we voted Yes. Did we do the right thing?"

A couple in their thirties with three kids in tow says the Yes campaign has done a bad job of explaining the treaty. "No-one understands it." So they will be voting No.

If it turns out Ireland said No it could be because of the advice from Dustin the Turkey. But I think it will be because of the huge difficulty of finding a simple way to sell a complex legal document.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

It's all about getting the vote out now. I was on the Yes battle bus for the last day of campaigning as the new Irish prime minister spent a day shaking hands on home ground in the Irish Midlands.

In the succession of rather dull high streets and shopping centres there wasn't much political chatter. A seemingly very relaxed Brian Cowen met people and asked them to vote. He didn't even tell them what to vote for.

Young Yes campaigners in yellow T-shirts hovered around the edge of the crowd offering reassurance. And a lot of it was needed. I wouldn't say most voters were hostile, but they were concerned and not a little bewildered.

One elderly woman had heard that Lisbon would mean the European Union was going to stop people having more than two children, so she was going to vote No.What about the poster suggesting the EU will microchip children? Won't it mean Ireland has less power in the EU? "No, there's no change there," replied the campaigner - a reply that one might describe generously as broad-brush, given changing voting weights and the loss of commissioners on a regular basis.

But there is a great deal of anger with the No campaign. Mr Cowen says
"I think tomorrow is really about whether we want to be in Europe or not".
I asked him directly if he would ask Ireland to vote again, if it voted No this time. He told me: "The problem is if I go to next week's European Council with a No vote preliminary discussions would have to begin on what happens. There'd be great disappointment and a great sense of uncertainty about where we go from here."

In the countryside it seems there is less support for a No than in Dublin. In Grafton Street, by St Stephens Green, No campaigners have been working the crowd hard. People eagerly take stickers and one man offers the campaigners some leaflets of his own. He tells me: "Europe is a great idea but I don't think the treaty is going to serve the people of Europe, and I think it is really bad that out of 500 million people only we get a vote. The last time we said No to Nice they made us vote again. If we say No to Lisbon they'll make us vote again. So who's running the show and for whom?"

While people are actually voting journalists often talk about turnout and the weather, and I often think it's because there is no other hard information around. But this time it is pretty important. Based on the two referendums on the Nice Treaty the assumption is that a turnout over 50% means a Yes victory, under 40% hands it to the Noes. That makes a big assumption that public opinion has not changed much since then, but it gives us something to go on when polls close at one minute past ten tonight.

If it is a No all eyes will be on Cowen to see what he does. But they will also flicker across to Westminster, to see if Brown carries on with British ratification. I'm told he intends to, but I am not certain that will hold. We will see. Or then again, we may never know.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Eddie Downey from the Irish Farmers' Association leads his cattle across a field that is a pleasant shade of green, if not quite the required emerald, in County Meath. We'll see tomorrow if the farmers follow their own organisation with quite such obedience.
The complaint I have heard most frequently in this campaign is that people can't make head or tail of what they are voting on.

The farmers' fears and the debate it has prompted illustrate magnificently the central problem of this referendum - not the patronising view that the issues are too complex for the ordinary voter to follow, but that the complexities are too much for just about anyone to follow. Watch as just one strand of the Lisbon debate descents into baffling wonkery.

Irish farmers were among the staunchest No voters. They are worried that if there is a change in the world trade rules they will be undercut by cheap beef from Argentina. But they swiftly moved into the Yes camp after some hard bargaining with Prime Minister Brian Cowen.

Eddie told me: "We have a written assurance from our PM that he will veto this World Trade Organization deal if it goes through in its current form. He said it was unacceptable. Because of that, we are now on board on the Lisbon deal."

"It's changed everything ?" I ask.

"It's changed everything absolutely. Without that written assurance we would be in the No camp."

Of course the big argument here is the old one between free trade and protectionism. But it also throws up the political questions. Does the Irish government really mean it? Does this have anything to do with the Lisbon Treaty? And does the government have a veto anyway?

The first is relatively simple. If by some miracle Mr Mandelson were able to negotiate a successful deal in the dying days of the Doha round he might not take too kindly to such a triumph being vetoed. In fact, I can safely predict the explosion would need a new metaphor suggesting more heat and power than merely thermonuclear. Not just I, but commission sources, think the Irish government must be banking that no deal will be done. Otherwise they really would be portrayed as the bad boys - not just of Europe, but the whole world.

Many would argue that the farmers', er, "beef" is nothing to do with the Lisbon reform treaty and that their objection is about the general pro-free trade thrust of the current European Commission.

But when I put that to the man behind the No campaign, Declan Ganley, he disagrees.

"Not true, it is linked to the Lisbon Treaty. We have the prime minister here talking about the veto and there is no veto. The fact is that all international trade agreements are moved to qualified majority voting. And the remaining technical areas where we could raise objections are massively eliminated and reduced to ridiculous areas, like the field of audiovisual services."

But the commission tells me nothing in the Lisbon Treaty changes the status of trade talks and technically the Irish government does have a veto. They say that the apparently "ridiculous" areas left are what allow the Irish to stop an agreement. This on the principle of "nothing is agreed, until everything is agreed" - known more elegantly in Brussels as "the pastis principle". A drop of the French aniseed drink into water turns the whole thing cloudy. Similarly, the commission argues that although there is no veto over agricultural deals, there is in certain special areas and that turns the whole thing into an area where there is a veto.

Neil O Brien from the British anti-Lisbon group Open Europe tells me that the only trade areas where countries will have a veto in future are cultural and audiovisual services, where there's a risk to cultural and linguistic diversity, and social, educational and health services, where the national organisations of these services are at risk.

He says: "In my view this is not even an emergency brake. Unless you can prove to the European Court of Justice that a trade deal which includes a health or education services element would 'seriously disturb the national organisation' of those services then the default position is a decision by qualified majority voting. In other words, if you wanted to stop a QMV decision then you would have to take a massive and potentially humiliating gamble on an appeal to the court."

By now we are far from the fields of Meath and knee-deep in lawyer land. I've made them as comprehensible as I can, but the arguments are so fine, so detailed, that even most of those with a keen interest in politics won't have the time to follow them.

Heady stuff, this pastis principle. Perhaps there should be a referendum on the world trade talks. They might even be easier to understand.

Thanks to those who pointed out yesterday that the three politicians represented 80%, not 8%, of the voters: a slip of the typing finger I didn't spot. And thanks also to wickedmessenger for pointing out what I actually wrote, rather than what Jose thought I wrote: it would be the designers of the treaty who would be sad, not me.

Several ask why I think the Irish would not be asked to vote again. Largely because I am hearing "you can re-heat something once, not twice", which I will henceforth call the "Salmonella Principle". But I agree if there is a No vote there will be many different proposals - and some will say they should vote again.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The Irish political establishment is, quite literally, lined up calling for a Yes vote in Thursday's referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Three men who represent 80% of Irish voters stand behind three podiums to warn of the dangers of voting No.

Enda Kenny from Fine Gael says it would be "irresponsible and wrong" and Ireland would isolate itself. Labour's Eamon Gilmore declares that, with economic uncertainty ahead, "now is not the time for this country to throw a wobbly". The prime minister, Brian Cowen, who stood between them, said that a No vote would be a vote for uncertainty.

As the leaders posed afterwards for pictures their new-found friendship did not go so far as them agreeing to shake hands.

I asked Mr Cowen what a No vote would mean. He said there would be a "huge sense of disappointment" and "obviously we would not be able to proceed with ratification and the agreed reforms - and if you don't have the agreed reforms you don't have reforms".

So Lisbon would be dead? "Obviously, yes. Every country has to ratify and any one country that doesn't ratify means it can't come into effect."

I suspect they agree with him back at the commission in Brussels. They are braced for a No vote. If that happens, eyes will turn to Britain, to see if Gordon Brown declares ratification is off. That would pull the plug on Lisbon.

In any case, there is a strong feeling the Irish could not be asked to vote again and so the project, enshrined in the dead constitution, resurrected in Lisbon, would be dead. Well, dead-ish.

There would be no attempt to renegotiate a second reform treaty. No further tinkering with the text, no treaty of Prague or Stockholm to be signed next year.

What there would be is a dissection of the corpse. Some major parts of both Lisbon and the constitution would be sadly discarded. Plans to get rid of the veto for justice and home affairs, to have a stronger foreign policy , to have a president of the council and beefed-up high representative for foreign affairs, would probably be junked. Some would no doubt try to sneak back to the dustbin and save them for later use. But an Irish No kills aspirations like these, at least for a while.

Other bits of Lisbon, like the plan for EU embassies, or if you prefer, an external action service, don't need a treaty change, so they might happen anyway. The same goes for one of the issues in contention in this referendum - the size of the commission. Plans for a smaller commission were there in an undetailed way in the Nice Treaty and could also go ahead. Ironically, an Irish No would have the effect of bringing them forward by five years.

But perhaps the number of commissioners and the change in the weighting of votes could be adopted in an accession treaty when Croatia joins the EU in 2010 or 2011. It will be interesting to see if Ireland votes on that. But Ireland may still vote Yes: it is on a knife edge and I have changed my mind about the likely result back and forth in the last 24 hours.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

German, French, Belgian and Spanish flags fly next to the European Union stars above the small compound, which is ringed with sandbags and razor wire. It is patrolled by soldiers with black rifles slung at their hips.

Military vehicles are packed tight by the large air-conditioned tents. Inside, men and women in a variety of camouflage stare at their computer screens and occasionally glance up at the large maps of an unfamiliar country.

The EU has deployed the 1,500-strong battlegroup to Vontinalys where, as you will know, the first ever free elections are threatened by the powerful local mafia and the pirates offshore, who grow bolder and more dangerous by the day.

Only this morning fighters were scrambled when a light aircraft intruded into EU military airspace. The plane was forced to the ground and two people have been arrested, but we don't yet know the nature of the threat.

What, you've never heard of Vontinalys? Don't bother Googling it. It's a country elaborately, even lovingly, imagined for the purpose of an EU war game.

But the EU battlegroup is no work of fiction. At any one time there are two such rapid response groups on stand-by to go anywhere in the world for short missions, the military arm of the EU's foreign policy. Some see them as just the germ, just the beginning, of a European Army.

In July two new battlegroups will be on stand-by. This one is made up of Germans, French, Belgians, Spanish and medics from Luxembourg . The other is a solely British concern, with the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers at its heart. One of my colleagues jokes it is, nevertheless, multi-national, made up of Scots, English and Welsh. Anglos, I supply, as well as Saxons.

The ministry of defence, rather more po-faced, says: "The EU Battlegroup initiative was driven by the UK, and we recognise that one of the positive aspects of the initiative is the chance to work with other countries on providing a rapid-response capability to the EU.

"Although the EU Battlegroup we are providing in 2008 is UK only, the 2010 UK-led EU Battlegroup is based on the UK/Netherlands Amphibious Landing Force and we are actively exploring multi-national options for future UK-led EU Battlegroups."

Sadly for those of us with TV cameras, there is no jumping out of helicopters, no tanks rolling across the plains, no rapid firing. The men and women inside the tents are staring at made-up maps on computer screens and ordering non-existent planes to take to the air. It is a test of their command operation, not the skills of troops.

We are actually on exercise in southern Germany, and by far the most exciting action was a helicopter ride, swooping low over farms and forests. Operation "European Endeavour" is designed to test out command abilities. Much of the language used in briefings wouldn't be out of place in the boardroom of a soft drinks manufacturer, or indeed the BBC. The Normandy landing is described as "an immense battle space management problem".

The battlegroups, never yet deployed in anger, have been going for four years now. But expect another big push by those who want something more.

Some of the impetus will come from the Lisbon Treaty, if it comes into force, and part from the French when they take over the EU presidency in July. The French White Book on defence is being kept under wraps, partly because President Sarkozy wants to announce it in a big speech on 17 June and partly so as not to frighten voters in Ireland, where neutrality is a touchy subject, ahead of the referendum..

But I'm told its heart will be:

A call for EU countries to spend more on defence, perhaps a specific proportion of GDP;

A proposal to beef up the rapid reaction forces, so they could operate in two or three areas of the world at the same time;

A call on countries to make available more aircraft for such operations;

A new headquarters, probably in Brussels, to control such operations.

Broadly the UK government will welcome measures that they see as practical and oppose those that are seen to duplicate Nato. But officially they won't comment until the proposals are made.

Sitting alongside his fellow senior officers from France, Spain and Belgium the German chief of staff, a small, tough and rather rumpled-looking man makes it clear such proposals must succeed.

"I am utterly convinced that the European Union has to develop its ability to react to military and civil crises. Working together with Nato we can improve the ability of both organisations to tackle the threats that face our world," says General Wolfgang Schneiderhan.

The big problem is finding countries that want to contribute - not ideas to a philosophical construct, but troops and helicopters to real missions where people could get killed. The Irish have a tradition of neutrality, as do the Scandinavian countries. The German parliament is very wary of operations that look more like war fighting than peacekeeping and the German public flinch if a single solider is killed. Poland is likely to help out, with its large and powerful military.

Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, the Polish MEP charged with producing a report on the future of EU foreign policy, wants the European Parliament to vote before soldiers go to war. He wants the EU to wave a bigger stick than it's got at the moment.

"I think we should continue to be a soft power, stabilising, peace-making, helping to construct," he says. "But we should start being a hard power as well, which means a common foreign and security policy including a European army. We are heading towards this goal by creating EU battlegroups and Eurocorps. But it should be further strengthened and increased and better financed."

I ask Liam Fox, the shadow UK defence spokesman, if further development of an EU military role, indeed a European army, is a bad thing . He says: "We have long accepted we have an EU military capability for when the United States couldn't or wouldn't act. But if you are talking about the development of a European force in competition to Nato that is very different."

Back at the operation among all the camouflage a silver-haired gentleman in a suit is talking in a rather upper-class British accent. I ask him what his job is. He's the political officer and his job is to give advice about how the operation is going down among the local population. But does he think the EU needs to develop this role?

"I would say that if the EU feels comfortable doing this it is another club in their golf bag. So if the countries of the EU are willing to do it in this setting and they are a bit more reluctant to do it under the Nato setting it's probably better that we do it, than worry about the packaging."

But doesn't it undermine Nato?

"Nato is big, old and ugly enough to cope with it. If you want something doing where a lot of furniture needs to be broken then you do need Nato. But not everything needs furniture to be broken and sometimes it's possible to do something with this sort of force at an early stage and before you need to break a lot of furniture."

On my helicopter ride back to Stuttgart I reflect that the military, the US, even the British Conservatives seem happy with not only EU battlegroups but movements towards something like a European Army, even though it seems a term out of the nightmares of those who fear a greater role for the EU. Does it make you shiver, or feel safer in your bed?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Don't believe politicians who say there is no plan "B" if Ireland votes No to the Lisbon Treaty. There is, and it is being kept under wraps in Prague.

The Czechs take over the rolling European Union presidency on 1 January 2009 - the very date that the Lisbon Treaty is due to come into effect. Depending on the result of the Irish referendum on 12 June, they could survey two very different scenarios.

That's why the Czech government has prepared two different papers on what the EU should do in the first half of next year - one based on life after Lisbon, the other, plan "B".

Some of this is technical: if Lisbon lives, there will be a president of the council, be it Juncker or Blair or Rasmussen, so a smaller role for the Czech prime minister. If Lisbon dies, there will be a bigger role for him. Some ministerial councils that would change under Lisbon, would survive.

But the Czechs are also setting out a plan "B" for the political future. Whether it is to persuade the Irish to vote again, to rip up Lisbon, redesign it or forget it I don't yet know.

But perhaps, after the demise of the constitution, we are currently living through plan "B". Perhaps the Czech plan should be codenamed "C", with the possibility of an alphabet soup of alternatives lined up behind it.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The distinctive slightly nutty, dry whiff of malt is strong and golden motes fill the air as the grain is sprayed into a ship's hold. It's almost hypnotic to watch, as the torrent from a large pipe, guided by a crane, ripples and reshapes the growing dunes of grain filling the cargo bay. Standing on a Korean ship in Belgium's Antwerp docks, watching it being loaded with British barley destined for Venezuela, I can't doubt that food is a global issue.

With food prices rocketing, some European Union politicians are more insistent than ever that Europe needs strong policies to encourage food production on this continent.

No doubt South American beer drinkers are grateful for cheap European barley, but I am here to ask if in general EU policy is harmful. Food shortages and rising prices lend a new urgency to old arguments which blame EU policy for harming agriculture in the developing world.

No-one doubts that the EU gives lots of money to the developing world - an estimated 47bn euros (£37bn; $73bn) in 2006. And European countries are more generous than many others.

But Oxfam's Zander Woollcombe says subsidies "make European food cheaper than food produced in developing countries, and when that is combined with the European Union and other rich countries forcing developing countries to open their markets, what you get is artificially cheaper European food coming into poor countries and wiping out their national industries".

I ask the obvious, if naive question: surely cheap food is good news for the poor?

"Now food is more expensive, what you've got is local poor people who can't afford to buy the food anymore and local industries have been wiped out by decades of liberalisation. It's the volatility and shocks that are really bad for consumers.

"Unless there is a drastic reappraisal of agricultural policy in the European Union, that problem will remain. And it's made worse by trade policy. The EU is saying 'do as I say', not 'do as I do'. The EU is asking poorer countries to open their markets, but because of health and safety policy and because of tariffs there are all sorts of policies that stop them exporting their goods to Europe."

EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson has some sympathy with this view. He told me the real answer to the food crisis was better land use and greater yields in the developing world. But he clearly wants to head off the growth of protectionist measures. Approaching perhaps the end game of the Doha round of trade talks he's walking a narrow tightrope, while ministers from some countries joyfully swing on either end of the rope, in an apparent effort to end the high-wire act.

He told me "what we don't need is more protectionism under the guise of food security.

"Attempts to stifle trade or reduce the supply of food to net food importers would be a matter of not beggar thy neighbour but starve thy neighbour - and it would be the last thing that we should contemplate doing.

"I think those who talk about food security and think that it is possible to create that within nations or groups of nations are not only being unrealistic but completely counter-productive. What you would be doing is reducing the supply of food to those in the world where productivity is low and creating further food scarcity on top of already spiralling shortages and rising prices. You would make the crisis worse."

What does he think of the argument about food dumping?

"I entirely agree. We should not be using trade-distorting subsidies in the developing world - and that goes for the European Union as much as for the United States. The difference is that since 2003 Europe has been reducing its trade-distorting subsidies, but the US has yet to follow us along the path of reform.

"If we make these talks successful, which is our greatest immediate challenge, we would make irreversible the stripping away of the trade-distorting impact of the subsidy we give to farmers. It wouldn't be the only gain, but it would be the greatest step forward we could achieve."

But I put it to him that he is part of a commission that intends to continue paying out subsidies to farmers, even if they look very different to the subsidies of 10 years ago.

"We are reducing net expenditure. But the key point is this: you can use payments to farmers which are not tied to production or price support, but which are there to support rural economies. Or you can maintain old-style trade-distorting subsidies - programmes which do create surpluses and create the possibility of dumping. What we've got to do is to follow the first course and reject the second. Doha would make this irreversible."
Back in Antwerp docks I expect to hear a strong defence of the role of exporters from Ivo Draye from Toepfer international trading company. But he is thoughtful and open and says prices can go up and down - and when they go down it's risky for the business.

"The best thing must be to teach the farmers in developing countries to grow their own crops. But in the meantime they don't have anything to eat, so you have to export to them. For the moment we are not hurting anybody."

Food is high on the agenda at this week's meeting in Rome and at the European Union summit later this month. But it's unlikely the leaders will take the action most reformers agree is necessary. What should they do?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Panorama Farm certainly deserves its name. The farmhouse overlooks the gentle green slopes of Baden in southern Germany - the sort of landscape urban dwellers dream of visiting at the weekend.

Beautiful it may be, but it is not exactly land for planting wheat or other big-money crops. It's mostly pasture and I can just about make out the pale white of Charolais and the black flanks of Aberdeen Angus cattle in the distance. In one corner I can see the farm's latest enterprise, a field of pick-your-own strawberries. The two Fellmann brothers are examining the crop with satisfaction - deep luscious red. I can exclusively report they are delicious.

It's a family farm and the Fellmanns have been farmers for at least three generations. But should European policy-makers let the farm stay in business? Or is it - and thousands of farms in 27 countries - unwittingly damaging farmers in poorer parts of the world?

Thomas and Johannes Fellmann clearly like each other and get on well, but sharply disagree when it comes to farm subsidies. They look different too, and no wonder. Johannes, the older brother, is tanned a dark brown by the sun and the wind. He's obviously out in all weathers, looking after his strawberries and cows.

Thomas is pale, and although he started out helping on the farm he now spends most of his time lecturing or behind a computer at the University of Hohenheim, half an hour's drive away in Stuttgart.

Johannes says he need subsidies to survive. "I wouldn't call it a subsidy. It's payment for services we provide. We need compensation here in Europe and in Germany in particular, because we have high environmental standards which make production considerably more expensive than in other countries. And there are food standards we have set out in law, so we depend on these payments."

But Dr Thomas Fellmann doesn't agree. He has studied the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the last 10 years and his thesis was on the direct payments scheme. He says it is good the farm is diversifying into crops like strawberries, because they make a profit on the open market. He thinks with high food prices everywhere now is the time for EU policy-makers to cut the aid, not least because of the damage it does in the developing world.

He says: "It's hard to explain to them. Behind every farm there is at least one family and if they are affected it is a problem. They might say 'Hey, what are the people in the third world to do with this? How could we affect them?' But they do. What you export is your surplus, so it is dumped, sold cheaply on the world market. If we do that in the long run there is no incentive to farmers in the developing world to grow more, to enhance their technology to grow more. And they can't produce enough food in these countries."

Thomas has been telling me with affection about his father, how he is meant to be retired but is always out working on the farm because there is always something to be done. Dad is a vigorous man in his seventies who clearly enjoys mucking in with the hard physical work.

But Thomas says he can't use his family to justify a bad policy. "In general I don't like subsidies. If farmers can't make a living then they have to leave the sector. This is hard for the farmers, but it doesn't make sense to give them money and go on with that support if they still can't make a living out of farming.

"Of course personally it would be very hard for my brother, indeed for me, it would hurt me, if they had to close the farm. But if they cannot make their living out of farming they should close the farm."

While we talk two pretty little girls - Johannes's two- and four-year-old daughters - come out to look curiously at the funny men with cameras piling into the strawberries and pretzel the family have generously provided as a midday snack.

Thomas adds: "The worst thing that could happen is that one of his daughters will run the farm just because they get subsidies. You could go on like that for generations and it's very difficult to stop."

Johannes replies: "I am interested obviously in what goes on in the third world and we have to take it into account. But I have my own family to feed, so it's important to me too that we make ends meet here."

It is likely that the policy of European politicians, despite the efforts of some in the Commission, will be "charity begins at home".

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?