Miliband's constitutional muddle
Matthew d'Ancona 3:35pm
Glutton for punishment that I am, I watched all of the Commons European Scrutiny Committee's cross-examination of David Miliband on Tuesday (you can share my pain by going to the committee's website). Most of the press coverage has focused on the angry exchanges between the Foreign Secretary and the MPs, and particularly his justified fury at the invocation by the chairman, Michael Connarty, of the Munich agreement and Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. This was a deplorable allusion, and Mr Miliband had a duty as well as a right to express the strongest possible objections.
That aside, the hearings were also a fascinating - if often impenetrable - exploration of the legal ramifications of the EU Reform Treaty which Gordon Brown and his fellow heads of government will try to sign off in Lisbon. Not since Bill Clinton said that it all depends what you mean by 'is' has so much been said about a single word: in this case, 'shall', when applied to the supposedly new rights (or duties?) of national parliaments to get involved in the governance of the EU.
The session also revealed in eye-watering detail how much doubt still clings to the Government's famous 'red lines'. We know that Britain has a special right, shared with Ireland, to opt in to justice and home affairs policies. But how much do we know about the new threat of unspecified 'financial consequences' if we are judged to have caused difficulties in the passage of such proposals?
And what of the Charter of Fundamental Rights? If, as Mr Miliband says, it creates nothing and merely reasserts rights that exist in the system already, why is it needed at all, and why did the Government initially struggle to stay out of it altogether? The Foreign Office lawyers who accompanied their boss at least admitted that the full impact of the Charter will not be known until the courts get to work on it.
Not for the faint-hearted. If you want a quicker guide to just how much is at stake at Lisbon, consult Open Europe's very handy pre-summit briefing here.



Previous





SJH
October 17th, 2007 4:56pm Report this commentRe: Peace in Our Time- "justified fury", "deplorable allusion". I thought it in fact a deplorable reaction from the Foreign Secretary . This expression is commonly used when one is referring to anyone making a hollow claim of having secured something that was at risk. Mr Milliband's unjustified fury and your support for it leave me mystified.
Max Kaye
October 17th, 2007 6:06pm Report this comment... and besides, Chamberlain was only selling Czheckoslovakia down the river, not his own country.
J H Holloway
October 17th, 2007 7:42pm Report this commentThe ITN report on my 3G phone told me (in Munich) this morning that Milliband was cut up about the allusion. And then it added Milliband was Jewish. In all honesty, I can't see how Jewishness is relevent in relation to Chamberlain's cack-handed diplomacy.
John Austin
October 17th, 2007 10:24pm Report this commentNeville Chamberlain started rearming in 1938 after Munich. He did not believe there would be peace, that was just for the birds. He got us an extra year of peace, without which we'd have been much worse off than we even were in 1939.
David Lindsay
October 18th, 2007 11:39am Report this commentWhat would Cameron do if Brown just said no? The referendum demand is his only policy. But what if there were nothing on which to hold a referendum?
Tim Price
October 19th, 2007 11:49am Report this commentI should have thought Milliband's Jewish antecedence should make him more aware than others of the importance of not capitulating sovereignity to a barely elected foreign government. Be shamed by the reference, Foreign Secretary - how dare you have the arrogance to be offended!
Frank Leader
October 20th, 2007 9:35am Report this commentDavid Milliband is Father and Grandfather were communists. So roll on the collectives.
John
October 22nd, 2007 1:13pm Report this commentI think that Matthew's unswerving support for David Miliband might have something to do with his (Matthew's) wife's job.
Back to top