Sanity on mad cows may rule if Britain pulls in its horns

THE QUESTION is simple. What is a frame work? The answer depends on your perspective, but there is a growing confidence Brussels that some kind of "frame work" will be agreed before the Florence summit in 10 days on the chased lifting of the export ban on British beef. That would allow the ending of the veto policy and the EU to put up a "business as usual" sign.

Brussels observers detect evidence of movement in Britain's definition of a framework and in the implementation of its policy of non cooperation. Perhaps, optimists suggest, sanity is prevailing and Mr Major's government is coming to realise how counterproductive its policy is a veto too far.

Agreement will make the summit more productive and friendlier than might otherwise be the case apart from the fact that it will be, able to take decisions once Britain stops its blocking tactic. The Foreign Secretary, Mr Malcolm Rilkind, as good as promised on Monday that the summit would talk about nothing else if the framework was not agreed by then.

That would be a recipe for a very nasty confrontation, with more than one leader's patience clearly wearing thin.

The Commission President, perhaps over optimistically, told foreign ministers at the same meeting that they could well be "on the home stretch". But yesterday he was also talking in upbeat terms about the possibility of a deal being presented by the Commission toe next Monday's special "conclave" of foreign ministers in Rome.

What then is a framework? We know it is not a "timetable" for the lifting of the ban. It was that in the immediate aftermath of Mr Major's Commons declaration of war. It is not so any more.

It soon became clear that no one was going to sign up to any specific dates, and so that definition would not wear with Britain's partners. A new definition had to be found. Now we are looking for a political agreement on the phased lifting of the ban.

The initial phases are likely to include lifting the ban on third country exports, on animals from certified disease free herds, perhaps also on grass fed herds, and, probably first, on the exports of young calves. (It is ironic that the lifting of the latter could well lead to renewed protests in British ports against the veal business.)

Unfortunately, however, this latest definition scarcely leaves us any the wiser.

There is general agreement now that the lifting must be based on scientific evidence and strictly public health grounds, although the British still contend the Germans have yet to accept this. There is broad acceptance that the methodology of Britain's eradication plan is sound, but the cull of at risk animals may have to be larger and controls better enforced.

But there agreement ends, and she devil will be in the detail. So, if a framework can leave the detail until later, there is the possibility of progress.

If however, the British insist the framework should specify detailed measures to be taken ahead of each chase of the lifting of the ban, and then that the lifting would be automatically triggered by the implementation of such measures, there no possibility of agreement.

The Taoiseach and Mr Santer spoke yesterday of the framework as "a scaffolding", the detail of which would have to be filled in later. Mr Santer implied he was in close "constructive" contact with the British on the issue and the broad approach was one they seemed able to live with.

The tone of the debate has noticeably lowered, despite the strong words from foreign ministers on Monday. There Mr Rifkind raised the veto on two issues and hinted at a new flexibility on matters there a delay could cause real damage, he said, they had been willing to look twice at its use.

His interpretation of damage and that of his EU colleagues may not be identical, but some see the comments as a significant easing of his position that suggests a new willingness to see his colleagues problems.

It could also be seen as a hint that London believes an acceptable face saving compromise is on the cards. It would certainly be a strange move tactically if the opposite were true.

Mr Rifkind's tour of capitals will have made him aware of his partners' anger and the long term damage being done to Britain's standing, even though he insists perversely the British strategy has helped advance the lifting of the tallow and gelatin ban.

And, although an all out war on beef may appeal to many Tory backwoodsmen as a launching pad for a general election, more pragmatic Tories know their friends in the business world would be appalled by such a strategy. The Confederation of British Industry forcibly signalled as much the other day.

Time, perhaps, for cooler heads to guide.