Oral question asked in the House of Commons, by Keith Vaz (Labour). It was answered on Tuesday, 29 November 2005 on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

European Constitution

Question: Clearly a period of reflection is in the interests of the whole of the European Union. However, there are elements of the constitution that match Britain's reform agenda. Is my right hon. Friend confident that during our presidency we have achieved what we set out to achieve in connection with reforming the structure of the EU? Will he assure the House that if we do not get those agreements by the end of the presidency, he and the Foreign Secretary will pursue this agenda until the EU is made more efficient and effective, irrespective of what happens to the constitution?

Answer: My hon. Friend's question contains a number of points. First, the judgment that the British Government reached, in the light of the decisive rejection in France and the Netherlands, was that the best use of the time during the British presidency was to engage in a broader conversation about the future of Europe. That explains the agenda that we set for the Hampton Court meeting in October in relation to specific future reforms of the European Union. Of course we have made substantive reforms in policy areas—for example, on the sugar regime, as was mentioned earlier—but in the coming six months further reflection is needed on the correct way forward, not least given the disparate range of opinions now being expressed in Europe on the future of the constitutional treaty.

Secondary information

Type: Oral question
Reference: 440 c121
Session: 2005-06
Oral question type: Supplementary
Chamber / Committee: House of Commons chamber
Subjects: European Constitution Treaty EU countries France Referendums Netherlands
Link: View this Oral question on www.publications.parliament.uk