FOREIGN Secretary Malcolm Rifkind signalled a retreat in Britain's beef war with Europe last night after he was met with a fusillade of criticisms on an unprecedented scale from all other EU governments.
As Britain made two more concessions in its policy of non-co-operation senior Government figures signalled the campaign would not last beyond the Florence summit next week - assuming a formula is found for a phased lifting of the beef export embargo.
This formula will form the basis of a so-called framework document and will require European Commission blessing if the embargo is to be lifted. Mr Rifkind - who blocked 16 EU decisions yesterday to the continued fury of other Community governments - is demanding the framework must first be agreed at a political level.
This way no other EU states can block it as they did the lifting of the ban on beef derivatives, he and the Prime Minister calculate.
But the Government's fear now is that there is so much resentment at British tactics in the policy of non-co-operation that the framework deal could still collapse, leaving Britain isolated in the Community as never before. It was this rising apprehension which triggered yesterday's toning down of British rhetoric.
Mr Rifkind arrived in Luxembourg at the start of two crucial weeks for Britain in Europe and his reception was the most hostile that observers could recall for any Foreign Minister. Several member states referred to John Major's policy of non-co-operation as blackmail.
Denmark's Niels Helveg-Petersen talked of British ``madness'' and demanded a more level-headed approach so that the Florence summit could be saved. ``If we all end up in Florence discussing only mad cows we will be making a fool of ourselves,'' he said bitterly. Italy's foreign minister, Mr Lamberto Dini, who chaired the talks, said later: ``All the ministers deplored the method of indiscriminate boycotting of EU decisions.''
France's Herve de Charette told reporters Mr Rifkind had been received in ``irritation and exasperation'' and one EU official remarked: ``There has been nothing like this ever before.''
Dutch foreign minister Hans van Mielo condemned Britain for giving the outside world a ``totally wrong and totally negative picture of the European Union''.
But Mr Rifkind made a show of being defiant. ``The policy of non-co-operation announced by the Prime Minister must continue until the conditions have been met . . . the basic position of the UK, I'm afraid, must continue,'' he said.
Surprisingly he did not, as planned, block moves by the EU to help fund elections in Bosnia. Nor did Mr Rifkind scupper an EU-Algeria trade deal. This second concession was seen as an acknowledgement of French president Jacques Chirac's role in supporting Mr Major in the row over beef derivatives. He also confirmed a decision announced earlier not to block an EU association agreement with Slovenia.
Mr Rifkind emerged ruefully admitting that ``there was a great lack of enthusiasm''. But as he prepared to brief Mr Major on his reception, British officials made clear the campaign of disruption would continue if there was no deal this side of the Florence summit.
Mr Major will now present the proposed framework agreement - the product of Mr Rifkind's tour of EU capitals last week - to Britain's Community partners. The technical aspects of the Government's BSE eradication plan will be studied today in Brussels by the Community's standing veterinary committee.
After the plan is cleared the vets will then be shown the framework document and will be asked to approve it, if necessary by a qualified majority, at the end of the week.
Foreign ministers will meet again in Rome net Monday to put the finishing touches to the agenda for Florence. By that time Mr Rifkind hopes to have in the bag a series of firm and bankable political guarantees that there will be no political revenge against the UK in the guise of scientific argument which would delay the lifting of the ban.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article