Internationale Politikanalyse Europäische Politik, Juni 2005 Denis MacShane* Britain’s Presidency of the European Union. Internal Crisis, External Strength, Economic Movement B ritain did not wish for still less expect to take over the presidency of the EU at a moment of consider­able tension, if not crisis, for the new EU of 25 mem­ber states. When Britain first held the Presidency in 1977, there were just 9 EU member states and Britain was seen as the“sick man” of Europe with a poor economy, arrogant, over-mighty trade unions who sought to dictate the policy of the then Labour gov­ernment, and an elderly prime minister on the eve of handing power over to the long 18-year hegemonic rule of the Thatcher-led Conservative Party. ∗ Britain held the presidency in 1981, 1986 and 1992 under the Conservatives. It again held the presidency in January-June 1998 when Tony Blair had been Prime Minister for the first few months. Even then there were tensions between the UK’s refusal to seek to prepare to join the Euro at a time when the new currency was seen as the definition of true Europeanness. A year later, in 1999, the social democratic domina­tion of European governments was complete – Blair, Jospin, Schröder, D’Alema, Persson, Rasmussen, Kok, Gutierres et al with Romano Prodi in Brussels and Bill Clinton in the White House. Never in European history have so many heads of government come from the Party of European Socialists. Their cumulative failure to come together and fashion a common European Union reformist agenda and apply it with determination is one of the lost chances of social democratic history. Today 19 of the 25 governments in the EU are headed by European People’s Party(EPP) centre-right or conservative politicians. It is against this background that the freshly re-elected Labour government, headed by Tony Blair with the longest serving experience of any Labour prime minister takes over the presidency of the European Union on 1 st July 2005. The Constitutional Crisis Britain’s Presidency of the EU comes at a crucial time in EU history. The‘No’ votes in France and the Nether­lands reveal a democratic disconnect between the ide­als and institutions of the EU and the mass of voters in two important countries. Although the noble name “Constitution” was applied to the new Treaty, it is an international treaty and requires ratification by all sig­natories. The declaration requiring the European Council to consider what happens if five or more EU member states reject the Treaty was written in to pro­vide for maverick or special interest rejections in small member states. No-one envisaged republican, statist, centralised France and the Atlanticist, liberal, kingdom of the Netherlands – both founding EU members – to deliver a decisive‘No’ in a referendum. Unless and until France and the Netherlands agree to hold second referendums the Treaty cannot be rati­fied. If it is modified the entire ratification process has to begin again. The debate over the Treaty will con­tinue during the UK Presidency. In addition to the dec­laration made at the June Council meeting each mem­ber state will have to decide how to respond to the French-Dutch‘No’ votes. Those countries that have not yet ratified will have to decide whether to proceed. The EU will look foolish if there are successive No votes on a Treaty that, in any event, cannot be ratified. Britain has decided, at this stage, not to initiate a long and complex parliamentary process to adopt a law on the Treaty and a referen­dum. The process is only suspended and can come back to Parliament at some future stage. But until France and the Netherlands ratify the Treaty there is no appetite for a difficult parliamentary and referendum debate. ∗ The Right Honourable Dr Denis MacShane MP is the Labour MP for Rotherham and was Europe Minister in the British gov­ernment 2002-2005