The Pro-EU case for Brown to Brussels

Good article in the Telegraph this morning, linked here, which concludes as follows:

Moreover, Blair is on the way out. He must not bind his successor. Indeed, it is reasonable to think that in the peculiar circumstances created by his slow march out of office, it is improper for him to be at this summit at all. It would be better if he had stood aside and left discussions to Brown, for it is Brown who will have to live with the consequences. He has the reputation of being more Eurosceptic than Blair - although one should remember that he was one of those whose arguments in the late 1980s helped to force the Tory government into the Exchange Rate Mechanism.

In truth, no one knows just where Brown stands. However, he is essentially a practical man, concerned with what will work. He will be suspicious of measures which restrict the freedom of action of member states, even while recognising that on some issues - such as climate change - common European policies are not only desirable, but necessary.

Brown is intellectually more formidable than Blair, and probably more so than Merkel or Sarkozy. No one is better fitted to make the case that the future vitality of the EU requires the leaders of the member states to recognise that its strength lies in its diversity, not a suffocating and resented uniformity. Meantime in The Guardian, linked here, Martin Kettle on Comment is free, spells out exactly what the threat contained in yesterday's The Sun, we posted on below, means for Gordon Brown: Understand this. The country's best-selling newspaper has now warned Gordon Brown that he must choose between a deal with France and Germany on next week's prospective European Union treaty or winning the next general election. Rupert Murdoch's terms could hardly be plainer. Reject the treaty and keep the support of the Sun. Accept the treaty and lose the Sun. If words mean anything, then these say: who rules? the elected government or the unelected press?