Jose Barroso is the President of the European Commission and is not an elected politician, though he was one in the past, like all appointed Commissioners. Tonight, according to the BBC, he stated that no Member State should block the completion of treaty negotiations as this was "not in their interest". This is a rather one-sided view of the meeting, and Barroso argues that the politicians should agree upon the proposed agreement, since this furthers the construction of Europe. The key contribution from the Commission is consensus not conflict or majoritarian rule. He quite specifically referred to redlines and vetoes as counterproductive, since their existence would prevent the completion of a deal.
Just as the Polish and the British defend their positions, the Commission has weighed in on the side of the 'constitutionalists', the band of ratifiers who are using their majority to bulldoze the text through the Union. The contempt for a particular (=national) interest is manifest:
But Mr Barroso issued a coded warning to Poland, a new EU member, saying newcomers had a responsibility to help bridge divides within the union.
"It will be in their interest for them to show that their membership of the European Union is not making European Union life more difficult but, on the contrary, they are giving more impetus to the European Union," he said.
Are there not shades of the Chiracist quietism that accompanied his contempt for new Europe. Indeed, turn to Euobserver, and this friendly warning is transformed into a veiled threat. The BBC failed to understand the message that Barroso wished to convey or wilfully ignored the import of his speech. Either way, they proved once again the witless contribution of their news department:
Speaking on Tuesday afternoon (19 June), Mr Barroso, who has been banging the drum in favour keeping most of the rejected EU constitution but in a different form, said it was in central and eastern European member states' interests to show that the EU had not been weakened since they joined in 2004 and 2007.
"I believe...it would be in their interest for them to show that their membership of the EU is not making the union's life more difficult," said the commission chief.
He indicated that if the summit, which is "of special significance," were to fail "the mechanisms of coherence in the European Union...the mechanisms of solidarity will naturally be weakened," and there will be a "shadow of mistrust" cast on the EU.
The term "mechanisms" was an apparent reference to the cohesion and solidarity funds which sees billions of euros transferred from EU coffers to less well-off regions in the bloc - new member states are by far the greatest beneficiaries of this type of aid
The Labour position on their declared red lines is slightly clearer tonight. Blair said that if these redlines were kept, then the amending treaty would not require a referendum. As the legal dimension of the EU has often circumvented specific promises, such matters can be treated with scepticism. Nor is it likely that the redlines will be kept - resulting in that dealbreaker, a referendum or some dishonest fudge.
We should be grateful that Blair has set out some clear threshold conditions in his public attempts to manipulate the summit. As he is an extremely poor game player, we can expect that these will not be met.