Not at all. The case I am making is that the European approach has often lacked momentum and has occasionally been disjointed: an example is the rotating presidency. When we sought a statement on Litvinenko, we had to go to the Portuguese presidency—the route to an EU statement was through Lisbon. By the time of our disagreement with Russia over the British Council, the presidency had moved to Slovenia because of that ridiculous charade—that game of musical chairs with European diplomacy—and the route to a European statement on Russia was through Ljubljana. We are more effective when we work through the European Union, but we could be made much more effective still by some of the reforms in the treaty.
Treaty of Lisbon (No. 5)
Proceeding contribution from
Jim Murphy
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 20 February 2008.
It occurred during Debates on treaty on Treaty of Lisbon (No. 5).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
472 c420 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:11:48 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_446572
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_446572
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_446572