Professor Gavin Barrett:

Okay, let us go with played down. Careful attention needs to be paid to any paper that is put forward by France and Germany. I recall that walks along the beach in Deauville by a French President and German Chancellor led to major changes in the European Union. Agreement between France and Germany tends to be necessary but not sufficient for treaty change at European Union level. They are only two of the now 27 countries but they are important countries. I note the fact that they were able to present the paper at a European Council meeting. The other paper I mentioned, the Nordic-Baltic paper, did not get that kind of presentation. It shows that attention is paid. They were careful to say that they are not bound by the proposals put forward in the paper, but it is interesting that those ideas are being put forward and considered by them. I would be surprised if at least some of the ideas in that paper do not find their way into the ultimate treaty proposals.

On amendments to the treaty, I should be careful. I certainly would not want to give the impression that I was speaking out against referendums. If countries want to have referendums on treaties, that is entirely up to them. The concern is that a situation where each and every member state is able to veto change, not only for itself, but for the entire Union, is probably not sustainable in the long term in a European Union of 27 or more member states. When the United States constitution was agreed, the provision for it to enter into force was if nine of the 13 states in America voted in favour of it. Rhode Island voted against it and therefore voted itself out of what became the United States, but it quickly changed its opinion. If it had been able to veto the entire constitution or articles of confederation at that stage, we would probably have seen a different result. It is less that I am trying to launch a campaign against referendums, if you like, and more that I am simply raising the issue that the current Article 48 position, whereby every member state can veto change for all of the European Union, is unlikely to be sustainable. I was interested to see in the German paper the references to the European Stability Mechanism, which seem to be an indication that a workaround might be being thought about.