Adrian Hamilton: A mini-treaty won't solve Europe's problems

It's easy (and just) to say that in all decency Tony Blair should now go as soon as possible and let his successor take over. But those arguing for this forget one thing. In many ways it suits Gordon Brown to have Tony Blair taking on the onus of some of his more difficult immediate decisions.

Nowhere is this more obvious than on the thorny subject of the EU constitution and the German-French plans for a mini-treaty at the 21 June summit. Of course it should be the new Labour leader who should be representing the country, argue some Brownites. It is only Blair's vanity that insists that he and not Brown is there to represent the country.

But this ignores the degree to which it suits Brown on this occasion to wait in the wings. The future of EU structures and policy is in many ways the most important single foreign policy issue facing the Prime Minister-in-waiting. It's also a devilishly sensitive one. Whatever is decided in the summit is going to be difficult to sell to a British public deeply sceptical of, and mostly bored by, Europe.

If we join the Germans and French in proclaiming a new mini-treaty, we face the problem of explaining to the public why they won't be given the promised referendum on it. If we don't, we face the prospect of being left out of a newly-energised Union led by Paris and Berlin.

Much better for Brown, a known Eurosceptic, indeed a largely disinterested European, to let Blair sign the summit communiqué and then play Britain's hand as it develops than to face the dilemmas right at the start of his new reign.

But convenience for our politicians is not necessarily right for the country or for Europe. There is something indecent about the haste and single-mindedness with which the duopoly of Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy are stitching up their mini-treaty. Even that arch compromiser Romano Prodi, Italy's Prime Minister, was at it this week, telling the European Parliament that if the treaty were not signed the core countries would have to forge ahead with greater integration on their own.

Leaving aside whether this would necessarily be a bad thing, one is still entitled to ask whether the latest manoeuvres in Brussels and Berlin are really a step forward towards a new future for the Union or a move back to the old world of deals behind closed doors and ruthless powermongering by the big countries at the expense of the smaller.

In case anyone has forgotten, it was exactly that sense of frustration with the old ways of doing things that had the electorates of France and the Netherlands reject the EU constitution two years ago, and would almost certainly have led to its rejection in Britain had we ever got to holding a popular vote.

Since then, of course, we have got new leadership in Berlin and Paris and - less happily perhaps - in Rome and Warsaw. The mood in Europe has also become more sober as the common threats of climate change, energy security and resurgent Russia have grown more menacing.

What hasn't changed, however, are the problems of the democratic deficit in the Union. And these have only been made more difficult by the emergence of quite different approaches among the recent arrivals at Brussels. Where first they were enthusiastic "Europeans", now the new members of the club are becoming more restive about the way their voices are ignored .

Clearly the expansion of the EU from 15 to 27 members demands changes in its decision-making processes. This, argues its proponents, is what the new mini-treaty will do and no more. But in a broader sense enlargement also requires a different way of approaching problems and reaching common accord, and that is exactly what a Germany and France, intent on restoring the supremacy of the old inner core, seem determined to circumvent.

The trouble with the mini-treaty is that, if it means something, it should not be voted in without referral to the wider electorate. But if it doesn't mean anything, why have it? Too much of the debate in this country is about powers and their dispersal. But that's not the real problem. The problem is how to restore Europe's self-confidence and its leadership on the issues on which it can and needs to take a stand.

If the EU is to mean anything, it has to mean a common policy towards security of energy supplies. Only Europe can effectively confront Russia over defence and fuel. Only Europe can provide an effective combination of carrot and stick in dealing with Iran and the Middle East. Only a united European view will count for much in negotiations on trade, carbon emissions, debt and aid.

Tony Blair's presence at next month's summit may be a convenience for Gordon Brown, but it is no more than postponement of the policy decisions he faces.

a.hamilton@independent.co.uk

More from Adrian Hamilton