Eleven local legislators out of 30 would be enough to fail the required two thirds majority in the Åland Islands, but would Finland desist from ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon if the regional parliament (lagtinget) of the autonomous Åland Islands refrained from giving its consent?
Commission actions to pursue bans on ingrained local customs like ‘snus’ (snuff), a powder tobacco product for oral use, allowed in neighbouring Sweden under a derogation (see ECJ C-344/03), and the spring hunt of water fowl (see ECJ C-343/05) have won the European Union few friends in the province.
A glimpse at letters to the editor in the local Åland newspapers would lead one to believe that the province could either leave the European Union and be better off, or that the province could exact any concessions from Finland ahead of ratification.
On the one hand, there is the special status of the internally autonomous and internationally demilitarised Åland Islands (population 26,000), part of Finland, but with derogations concerning the applicability of the EU treaties.
Within its extensive areas of legislative competence, Åland has to give its consent to new EU legislation, which has led to a number of proceedings for late transposition against Finland as the member state responsible.
On the other hand, if Finland abstained from ratifying the Lisbon Treaty following a possible Åland refusal, the country’s own intention to ratify would be thwarted and the ratification process concerning 490 million EU citizens would grind to a halt.
***
The intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) inserted the following Article 49c on applicability and territorial scope into the Treaty on European Union (TEU), of the amending Treaty of Lisbon (ToL). See OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/40:
60) An Article 49 C shall be inserted:
Article 49c TEU (ToL), after renumbering Article 52 TEU
1. The Treaties shall apply to the Kingdom of Belgium, Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The territorial scope of the Treaties is specified in Article 311a of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
***
As we see, the territorial scope of the Treaties is specified more exactly in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), where Article 311a(4) [TFEU (ToL), after renumbering Article 355(4) TFEU] would take over the the provision on the Åland Islands of Article 299(5) in the current Treaty on establishing the European Community (TEC). (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/132):
4. The provisions of the Treaties shall apply to the Åland Islands in accordance with the provisions set out in Protocol 2 to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden.
***
Protocol 2 attached to the 1994 accession treaty spell out the Finnish derogations concerning Åland:
Protocol No 2 on the Åland islands
Taking into account the special status that the Åland islands enjoy under international law, the Treaties on which the European Union is founded shall apply to the Åland islands with the following derogations:
Article 1
The provisions of the EC Treaty shall not preclude the application of the existing provisions in force on 1 January 1994 on the Åland islands on:
- restrictions, on a non-discriminatory basis, on the right of natural persons who do not enjoy hembygdsrätt/kotiseutuoikeus (regional citizenship) in Åland, and for legal persons, to acquire and hold real property on the Åland islands without permission by the competent authorities of the Åland islands;
- restrictions, on a non-discriminatory basis, on the right of establishment and the right to provide services by natural persons who do not enjoy hembygdsrätt/kotiseutuoikeus (regional citizenship) in Åland, or by legal persons without permission by the competent authorities of the Åland islands.
Article 2
(a) The territory of the Åland islands - being considered as a third territory, as defined in Article 3 (1) third indent of Council Directive 77/388/EEC as amended, and as a national territory falling outside the field of application of the excise harmonization directives as defined in Article 2 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC - shall be excluded from the territorial application of the EC provisions in the fields of harmonization of the laws of the Member States on turnover taxes and on excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation. This exemption shall not have any effect on the Community's own resources.
This paragraph shall not apply to the provisions of Council Directive 69/335/EEC, as amended, relating to capital duty.
(b) This derogation is aimed at maintaining a viable local economy in the islands and shall not have any negative effects on the interests of the Union nor on its common policies. If the Commission considers that the provisions in paragraph (a) are no longer justified, particularly in terms of fair competition or own resources, it shall submit appropriate proposals to the Council, which shall act in accordance with the pertinent articles of the EC Treaty.
Article 3
The Republic of Finland shall ensure that the same treatment applies to all natural and legal persons of the Member States in the Åland islands.
***
In other words, there are restrictions on EU citizens’ chances to buy property, to establish a business and to provide services in the province, because permissions are required. These restrictions apply to Finnish nationals as well (non-discriminatory).
In VAT matters Åland is a ‘third country’.
***
In practice, Åland has excellent opportunities to voice its opinion, during preparation of EU matters within the government from civil servants’ committees to political decision making, including the possibility to send its plead its case in the all-important EU committee of the cabinet. I
In the parliament including Åland has one representative (out of 200, despite its small population), and this MP sits on the important EU committee of the parliament.
Åland has a watchdog attached to the Finnish EU Council representation, and thus direct contact with intergovernmental proceedings (and all other matters of concern flowing through the Council).
The province is extensively consulted, but it can not dictate the final decisions of the state, which is responsible for foreign policy in general and as treaty state in relation to the European Union.
It is not easy to see how Åland could achieve much more as a part of Finland and the European Union, taking into account some measure of proportional representation and influence, but a fudge to defuse the situation is a possibility. Leading Finnish politicians have used conciliatory language, without signalling specific concessions.
The former Supreme Court President and ECJ member Leif Sevón has given interviews, where he has outlined the possible outcomes of Åland’s refusal to consent to ratification.
***
When Finland acceded to the European Union, it notified that the treaties apply to Åland in accordance with Protocol No 2 (above).
If Åland rejects the Lisbon Treaty, it is difficult to imagine that Finland would let its own ratification be derailed, although some secessionists seem to think that Finland’s international reputation would be hurt by leaving Åland to its own devices. (Realists may be forgiven for thinking that derailing the ratification process for 490 million Europeans might seem a more worrying aspect for the Finnish political leadership.)
If Åland refused and Finland ratified, a notification on the altered territorial scope would be the probable first official manifestation of the change.
As far as I understand, there are no absolutely watertight rules to follow, if the wording of a treaty does not forsee a later development during the cumbersome ratification process.
In practice, there would probably be a few months of grace between the announcement and the scheduled date for the Lisbon Treaty to enter into force. The situation is resembles the one after Norway withdrew its membership application in 1994.
There would be need for negotiations between Åland and Finland, between Åland and the EU and between Finland and the EU on their future relations. This would then have to be patched together somehow, perhaps in a treaty adaptation and other agreements.
***
When I noticed Mark Mardell’s blog on the subject, I tried to post a comment, but there seemed to be a technical hitch, so the comment was probably left hanging. Therefore I am going to post it here, especially since I saw that the Federal Union blog had also mentioned the Åland problem (as the starting point for a discussion on the consequences of unanimity).
Here is the intended comment for Mardell’s blog:
I don't see Finland playing hardball against the EU, but of certain members of the local Åland parliament (lagtinget), where more than one third of 30 provincial legislators would suffice to scupper ratification (consent) on the behalf of Åland, against Finland.
The opposition is trying to wring concessions out of the Finnish government, although it is hard to see what more Åland could reasonably get (without total independence), being heard at every stage of preparation and legislation in EU affairs.
Two Åland issues, with the province represented by Finland, as the member state responsible, have led to defeat in the ECJ, one on the ban on 'snus' tobacco (where Sweden has a derogation) and the spring hunt for water fowl, both deeply felt local affinities.
Hounding these customs through the courts has made the EU few friends in the islands. A healthy reminder, perhaps, of catchwords like 'diversity', 'subsidiarity' and 'proportionality'.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday 12 March 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
Comments
Don’t believe one optimistic word from any public figure about the economy or humanity in general. They are all part of the problem. Its like a game of Monopoly. In America, the richest 1% now hold 1/2 OF ALL UNITED STATES WEALTH. Unlike ‘lesser’ estimates, this includes all stocks, bonds, cash, and material assets held by America’s richest 1%. Even that filthy pig Oprah acknowledged that it was at about 50% in 2006. Naturally, she put her own ‘humanitarian’ spin on it. Calling attention to her own ‘good will’. WHAT A DISGUSTING HYPOCRITE SLOB. THE RICHEST 1% HAVE LITERALLY MADE WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. Don’t fall for any of their ‘humanitarian’ CRAP. ITS A SHAM. THESE PEOPLE ARE CAUSING THE SAME PROBLEMS THEY PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT. Ask any professor of economics. Money does not grow on trees. The government can’t just print up more on a whim. At any given time, there is a relative limit to the wealth within ANY economy of ANY size. So when too much wealth accumulates at the top, the middle class slip further into debt and the lower class further into poverty. A similar rule applies worldwide. The world’s richest 1% now own over 40% of ALL WORLD WEALTH. This is EVEN AFTER you account for all of this ‘good will’ ‘humanitarian’ BS from celebrities and executives. ITS A SHAM. As they get richer and richer, less wealth is left circulating beneath them. This is the single greatest underlying cause for the current US recession. The middle class can no longer afford to sustain their share of the economy. Their wealth has been gradually transfered to the richest 1%. One way or another, we suffer because of their incredible greed. We are talking about TRILLIONS of dollars. Transfered FROM US TO THEM. Over a period of about 27 years. Thats Reaganomics for you. The wealth does not ‘trickle down’ as we were told it would. It just accumulates at the top. Shrinking the middle class and expanding the lower class. Causing a domino effect of socio-economic problems. But the rich will never stop. They just keep getting richer. Leaving even less of the pie for the other 99% of us to share. At the same time, they throw back a few tax deductible crumbs and call themselves ‘humanitarians’. Cashing in on the PR and getting even richer the following year. IT CAN’T WORK THIS WAY. Their bogus efforts to make the world a better place can not possibly succeed. Any 'humanitarian' progress made in one area will be lost in another. EVERY SINGLE TIME. IT ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT WORK THIS WAY. This is going to end just like a game of Monopoly. The current US recession will drag on for years and lead into the worst US depression of all time. The richest 1% will live like royalty while the rest of us fight over jobs, food, and gasoline. So don’t fall for any of this PR CRAP from Hollywood, Pro Sports, and Wall Street PIGS. ITS A SHAM. Remember: They are filthy rich EVEN AFTER their tax deductible contributions. Greedy pigs. Now, we are headed for the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time. Crime, poverty, and suicide will skyrocket. SEND A “THANK YOU” NOTE TO YOUR FAVORITE MILLIONAIRE. ITS THEIR FAULT. I’m not discounting other factors like China, sub-prime, or gas prices. But all of those factors combined still pale in comparison to that HUGE transfer of wealth to the rich. Anyway, those other factors are all related and further aggrivated because of GREED. If it weren’t for the OBSCENE distribution of wealth within our country, there never would have been such a market for sub-prime to begin with. Which by the way, was another trick whipped up by greedy bankers and executives. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. The credit industry has been ENDORSED by people like Oprah, Ellen, Dr Phil, and many other celebrities. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. Now, there are commercial ties between nearly every industry and every public figure. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. So don’t fall for their ‘good will’ BS. ITS A LIE. If you fall for it, then you’re a fool. If you see any real difference between the moral character of a celebrity, politician, attorney, or executive, then you’re a fool.. WAKE UP PEOPLE. THEIR GOAL IS TO WIN THE GAME. The 1% club will always say or do whatever it takes to get as rich as possible. Without the slightest regard for anything or anyone but themselves. Reaganomics. Their idea. Loans from China. Their idea. NAFTA. Their idea. Outsourcing. Their idea. Sub-prime. Their idea. High energy prices. Their idea. The commercial lobbyist. Their idea. The multi-million dollar lawsuit. Their idea. The multi-million dollar endorsement. Their idea. $200 cell phone bills. Their idea. $200 basketball shoes. Their idea. $30 late fees. Their idea. $30 NSF fees. Their idea. $20 DVDs. Their idea. Subliminal advertising. Their idea. Brainwash plots on TV. Their idea. Prozac, Zanex, Vioxx, and Celebrex. Their idea. The MASSIVE campaign to turn every American into a brainwashed, credit card, pharmaceutical, love-sick, couch potatoe, celebrity junkie. Their idea. All of the above shrink the middle class, concentrate the world’s wealth and resources, create a dominoe effect of socio-economic problems, and wreak havok on society. All of which have been CREATED AND ENDORSED by celebrities, athletes, executives, entrepreneurs, attorneys, and politicians. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. So don’t fall for any of their ‘good will’ ‘humanitarian’ BS. ITS A SHAM. NOTHING BUT TAX DEDUCTIBLE PR CRAP. In many cases, the 'charitable' contribution is almost entirely offset.. Not to mention the opportunity to plug their name, image, product, and 'good will' all at once. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. These filthy pigs even have the nerve to throw a fit and spin up a misleading defense with regard to 'tax revenue'. ITS A SHAM. THEY SCREWED UP THE EQUATION TO BEGIN WITH. ITS THEIR OWN DAMN FAULT. If the middle and lower classes had a greater share of the pie, they could easily cover a greater share of the federal tax revenue. They are held down in many ways because of greed. Wages remain stagnant for millions because the executives, celebrities, athletes, attorneys, and entrepreneurs, are paid millions. They over-sell, over-charge, under-pay, outsource, cut jobs, and benefits to increase their bottom line. As their profits rise, so do the stock values. Which are owned primarily by the richest 5%. As more United States wealth rises to the top, the middle and lower classes inevitably suffer. This reduces the potential tax reveue drawn from those brackets. At the same time, it wreaks havok on middle and lower class communities and increases the need for financial aid. Not to mention the spike in crime because of it. There is a dominoe effect to consider. So when people forgive the rich for all of the above and then praise them for paying a greater share of the FEDERAL income taxes, its like nails on a chalk board. If these filthy pigs want to be over-paid, then they should be over-taxed as well. Remember: The richest 1% STILL own 1/2 of all United States wealth EVEN AFTER taxes, charity, and PR CRAP. A similar rule applies worldwide. There is nothing anyone can say to justify that. Anyway, there is usually a higher state and local burden on the middle and lower classes. They get little or nothing without a local tax increase. Otherwise, the red inks flows. Service cuts and lay-offs follow. Again, because of the OBSCENE distribution of bottom line wealth in this country. I can not accept any theory that our economy would suffer in any way with a more reasonable distribution of wealth. Afterall, it was more reasonable 30 years ago. Before Reaganomics came along. Before GREED became such an epidemic. Before we had an army of over-paid executives, celebrities, athletes, attorneys, investors, entrepreneurs, developers, and sold-out politicians to kiss their asses. As a nation, we were in much better shape. Lower crime rate, more widespread prosperity, stable job market, free and clear assets, lower deficit, ect. Our economy as a whole was much more stable and prosperous for the majority. WITHOUT LOANS FROM CHINA. Now, we have a more obscene distribution of bottom line wealth than ever before. We have a sold-out government, crumbling infrastructure, energy crisis, home forclosure epidemic, 13 figure national deficit, and 12 figure annual shortfall. The cost of living is higher than ever before. Most people can't even afford basic health care. ALL BECAUSE OF GREED. I really don't blame the 2nd -5th percentiles. No economy could ever function without some reasonable scale of personal wealth and income. But it can't be allowed to run wild like a mad dog. ALBERT EINSTEIN TRIED TO MAKE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND. UNBRIDLED CAPITALISM ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT WORK. Bottom line: The richest 1% will soon tank the largest economy in the world. It will be like nothing we’ve ever seen before. and thats just the beginning. Greed will eventually tank every major economy in the world. Causing millions to suffer and die. Oprah, Angelina, Brad, Bono, and Bill are not part of the solution. They are part of the problem. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE HUMANITARIAN. EXTREME WEALTH MAKES WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. WITHOUT WORLD PROSPERITY, THERE WILL NEVER BE WORLD PEACE OR ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE. GREED KILLS. IT WILL BE OUR DOWNFALL. Of course, the rich will throw a fit and call me a madman. Of course, they will jump to small minded conclusions about 'jealousy', 'envy', or 'socialism'. Of course, their ignorant fans will do the same. You have to expect that. But I speak the truth. If you don’t believe me, then copy this entry and run it by any professor of economics or socio-economics. Then tell a friend. Call the local radio station. Re-post this entry or put it in your own words. Be one of the first to predict the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time and explain its cause. WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteLet me say that I appreciate three things relating to comments to my blog:
1) People who are ready to use their own name.
2) Comments on the subject under discussion.
3) Civility.