Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

The Government in Crisis: Danish issue could lead to changes in Maastricht Bill

Nicholas Timmins,Political Correspondent
Friday 30 October 1992 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

GOVERNMENT amendment of its own legislation to ratify Maastricht cannot be ruled out as a consequence of solving Denmark's problems over the treaty, MPs were told yesterday.

And Michael Jay, the Under- Secretary who heads the Foreign Office's European Communities Department, said that while it was expected that the 'political framework' for resolving the Danish 'no' would be agreed at December's Edinburgh summit, it 'inevitable that there will be some work to be done after Edinburgh before final texts are agreed'.

Mr Jay made it plain to the MPs that as holder of the European Presidency, Britain is still unsure precisely how the Danish problem will be resolved. Mr Jay's warning, made in an internal Foreign Office memo and leaked to the Independent on Wednesday, that the Danish position was 'unlikely to be acceptable as it stands to member states', is already being used by Labour to justify its vote next week against the Maastricht Bill returning.

Mr Jay told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee 'a solution has to be found . . . which all member states can accept, but exactly how we get there has to be discussed in the weeks ahead'.

Repeatedly challenged by MPs on whether the Danish accommodation could mean substantive changes to, or even withdrawal of the Government's legislation, Mr Jay said: 'These are very difficult questions to answer. Until one is clear what the document that comes out at the end of it will be, it is very hard to know what the implications will be for other member states as far as ratification is concerned.'

Whether the Government's legislation would need amendment, he said, 'depends on what happens in the negotiations ahead, and what form of agreement with the Danes has been reached at Edinburgh or thereafter'.

George Robertson, Labour's European Affairs spokesman, said that only underlined Labour's case for the Bill not returning to the Commons now. 'There is no point in debating a Bill that the Government itself might need to amend. It is clear there is a massive job to be done to deal with the Danish package before Edinburgh,' he said.

Mr Jay stressed that the Danes had not asked for a renegotiation of the treaty, and the 12 had ruled that out. The Danish memorandum, however, states that their new agreement must be 'juridically binding' on all states.

Asked how that could be achieved without renegotiation, Mr Jay said: 'These are just the sort of negotiations that are going to have to be considered amongst all member states.'

MPs were told a protocol would be a legally binding part of the treaty; a declaration would have a lesser weight before the European Court. Another option would be a 'free standing agreement' which did not modify the treaty; while Mr Jay did not rule out a mini- Maastricht II. He said: 'There are a number of possibilities one can envisage,' but 'it is very hard to be precise. We haven't been in this territory before.'

Delors warning, page 8

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in