British resources on EU Lisbon Treaty

The debate on the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon starts in earnest in the UK House of Commons tomorrow, Monday. Here is a list of some resources on the EU Reform Treaty from a British perspective:


European Union (Amendment) Bill, 17 December 2007, Bill 48

Explanatory notes to the European Union (Amendment) Bill

House of Commons Library, Research paper 07/80, 22 November 2007: The EU Reform Treaty: amendments to the Treaty on European Union

House of Commons Library, Research paper 07/86, 6 December 2007: The Treaty of Lisbon: amendments to the Treaty establishing the European Community

House of Commons Library, Research paper 08/03, 15 January 2008: European Union (Amendment) Bill, Bill 48 of 2007-08

House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee: Foreign Policy Aspects of the Lisbon Treaty, Third Report of Session 2007-08

***

The report of the Foreign Affairs Committee was published today. The first media reactions have focused on the essential similarities between the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty.

This is true, especially concerning the foreign policy parts of the Treaty of Lisbon, and a foregone conclusion for anyone who has read the June 2007 mandate for the intergovernmental conference.

Naturally, the Treaty of Lisbon itself, and the consolidated versions offered by Statewatch, the IIEA and Markus Walther are important materials.

Should I have mentioned other documents or comments?


Ralf Grahn

EU Treaty of Lisbon: International organisations and conferences

If the member states of the European Union (EU) want to shape world events effectively, they have to coordinate their actions in international organisations and at international conferences. This coordination encompasses both questions of substance and candidates for international posts.

The Security Council of the United Nations, where France and the United Kingdom – the only EU states with nuclear weapons – are permanent members, is a special case. Neither has shown any interest to give up its seat, its veto powers or its status as a (former) great power in favour of representation for the European Union, but at a practical level both have an interest to keep the other EU members on board in most questions.

Action in international organisations and at international conferences is one aspect of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) of the EU in order to safeguard its values and promote its objectives.



***

The intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) regaled us with this exquisite sample of stirring penmanship. See the Treaty of Lisbon (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/29):


”38) Article 19 shall be amended as follows:

(a) in paragraph 1, the words "the common positions" shall be replaced by "the Union's positions" in the first and second subparagraphs and the following sentence shall be added at the end of the first subparagraph: "The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall organise this coordination.";

(b) paragraph 2 shall be amended as follows:

(i) in the first subparagraph, the words "Without prejudice to paragraph 1 and Article 14(3)," shall be replaced by "In accordance with Article 11(3)," and the words "the latter" shall be replaced by "the other Member States and the High Representative";

(ii) in the second subparagraph, first sentence, the words "and the High Representative" shall be inserted after "the other Member States"; in the second sentence, the word "permanent" shall be deleted and the words "ensure the defence of the positions" shall be replaced by "defend the positions";

(iii) the following new third subparagraph shall be added:

"When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall request that the High Representative be invited to present the Union's position."

***

In the existing Treaty on European Union (TEU) Article 19 looks like this (latest consolidated version OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/18):

“Article 19

1. Member States shall coordinate their action in international organisations and at international
conferences. They shall uphold the common positions in such forums.

In international organisations and at international conferences where not all the Member States
participate, those which do take part shall uphold the common positions.

2. Without prejudice to paragraph 1 and Article 14(3), Member States represented in international organisations or international conferences where not all the Member States participate shall keep the latter informed of any matter of common interest.

Member States which are also members of the United Nations Security Council will concert and
keep the other Member States fully informed. Member States which are permanent members of the Security Council will, in the execution of their functions, ensure the defence of the positions and the interests of the Union, without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter.”

***

We now proceed towards a consolidated version of Article 19 TEU, by making the amendments according to the ’construction manual’. Here is the amended and consolidated Article:

Article 19

1. Member States shall coordinate their action in international organisations and at international
conferences. They shall uphold the Union’s positions in such forums. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall organise this coordination.

In international organisations and at international conferences where not all the Member States
participate, those which do take part shall uphold the Union’s positions.

2. In accordance with Article 11(3), Member States represented in international
organisations or international conferences where not all the Member States participate shall
keep the other Member States and the High Representative informed of any matter of common interest.

Member States which are also members of the United Nations Security Council will concert and
keep the other Member States and the High Representative fully informed. Member States which are members of the Security Council will, in the execution of their functions, defend the positions and the interests of the Union, without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall request that the High Representative be invited to present the Union's position.




***

The European Convention proposed the following Article III-206 in the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/68):

Article III-206

1. Member States shall coordinate their action in international organisations and at international conferences. They shall uphold the Union's positions in such fora. The Union Minister for Foreign Affairs shall organise this coordination.

In international organisations and at international conferences where not all the Member States participate, those which do take part shall uphold the Union's positions.

2. Without prejudice to paragraph 1 and Article III-198(3), Member States represented in international organisations or international conferences where not all the Member States participate shall keep the latter, as well as the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, informed of any matter of common interest.

Member States which are also members of the United Nations Security Council shall concert and keep the other Member States and the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs fully informed. Member States which are members of the Security Council will, in the execution of their functions, defend the positions and the interests of the Union, without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall request that the
Union Minister for Foreign Affairs be asked to present the Union's position.

***

The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe actually signed by the member states had the following Article III-305 (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/137):

Article III-305

1. Member States shall coordinate their action in international organisations and at international
conferences. They shall uphold the Union's positions in such fora. The Union Minister for
Foreign Affairs shall organise this coordination.

In international organisations and at international conferences where not all the Member States
participate, those which do take part shall uphold the Union's positions.

2. In accordance with Article I-16(2), Member States represented in international organisations or international conferences where not all the Member States participate shall keep the latter, as well as the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, informed of any matter of common interest.

Member States which are also members of the United Nations Security Council shall concert and
keep the other Member States and the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs fully informed.
Member States which are members of the Security Council will, in the execution of their functions, defend the positions and the interests of the Union, without prejudice to their responsibilities under the United Nations Charter.

When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall request that the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs be asked to present the Union's position.

***

As we see, the basic idea remains the same from the existing TEU, via the Convention and the Constitutional Treaty to the Lisbon Treaty, when Article 19 TEU is presented in a readable, consolidated form.

The role of the High Representative is highlighted, both as a recipient of information and as an organiser of the needed coordination between member states.

The real addition, since the Convention, is Article 19(2) TEU, the new third subparagraph, on the invitation to the High Representative to present the Union’s position (provided there is one).

The loser here, as in the common foreign and security policy in general, is the rotating presidency of the Council. No more memorable appearances in the name of ‘Europe’ on the world stage for the leader(s) of a member state, every fourteenth year or so. The enhanced role of the High Representative should contribute to more coordinated, coherent and consistent action by the EU at international forums.

Since the EU’s agreed CFSP values and objectives are praiseworthy, institutional innovations leading to improved delivery are welcome from a citizen’s standpoint.

***

Let it be said that the Treaty of Lisbon does not deprive the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council of their seats, or change the composition of the Security Council, which can not be done unilaterally by the European Union.

On the other hand, from an EU citizen’s point of view and in order to strengthen global governance, a permanent Security Council seat for the European Union would be an improvement.

The UN Security Council remains special, in that the members, the permanent ones constantly, are supposed to ‘concert’ first, and then to inform the rest. How much the practices evolve towards advance ‘concert’ within the Council remains to be seen.

***

Diplomatic cooperation will be next in turn.


Ralf Grahn

Gordon Brown on Global Europe

Until now, the only thing that has maintained Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s credentials as a European statesman, has been the Conservative Party’s complete lack of constructive EU policy.

Yesterday, Brown did much to cast off his crown as curmudgeon of the year among EU leaders. Speaking to a business audience Brown finally outlined a programme for Britain in Europe, laying the background for future success, coming out strongly in favour of British EU membership and pointing towards the needed economic reforms within the Union.

***

What is needed for future success? Brown clearly placed himself in the economic reform camp:
“The countries and continents that will succeed in the new era of globalisation will be those that are open rather than closed, for free trade rather than protectionism, are flexible rather than rigid, and invest in high skills and the potential of their people.”
***
The future of the United Kingdom lies in the European Union, was the message of Brown:
“But what is clear is that at this time of global economic uncertainty, we should not be throwing into question -as some would - the stability of our relationship with Europe and even our future membership of the European Union --- risking trade, business and jobs. Indeed, I strongly believe that rather than retreating to the sidelines we must remain fully engaged in Europe so we can push forward the reforms that are essential for Europe's, and Britain's, economic future.
The EU is key to the success of business in the UK:
Europe accounts for nearly 60 per cent of our trade;
700,000 British companies have trading ties to Europe;
And 3.5 million British jobs depend upon Europe.
And even in the face of rapid globalisation, our trade with Europe continues to rise, meaning Europe is as important to the future of Britain than ever.”
***
Economic reform is key to the European Union’s future and relevance, according to Brown:
“At the heart of a more competitive Europe in the 21st century must be a long-term commitment to a more outward looking relationship with the rest of the world. This is what I mean in practice by 'global Europe' - a Europe that knows it must face outwards if it is to be open for business.”
***
A few comments:
Great Britain has a lot to give its continental European partners and the EU when it comes to a dynamic business climate, although the Nordic countries may have succeeded at least as well while excelling at public services and social security. Brown’s programme on economic stability, growth, competitiveness and jobs reads like a roadmap to a more prosperous future for European citizens.

On more foreign policy oriented themes, Brown made the case for European climate change and environmental policy and reforming international institutions.

So far, so good. But what did Gordon Brown leave uncovered, at least in this speech?

More than twenty years have passed since the European Community (formerly the EEC) began its transformation into a political union, with efforts to forge common foreign policy as well as new internal policies.

The future security and prosperity of EU citizens is going to depend on how successfully the European Union manages to pool the resources of its member states in the areas of common foreign, security and defence policies, including a common defence.

When are we going to hear this speech?


Ralf Grahn


Gordon Brown: Beyond The Reform Treaty: Business Priorities For A ‘Global Europe’; 14 January 2008;
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page14251.asp

Isolationist UK

Yesterday I wrote about the new core areas of European integration, with new member states steadily advancing into the growing Schengen area, the expanding Eurozone and the shared values of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as most of them being dual EU and NATO members.

The more striking contrasts between old and new members are gradually disappearing, and the core groups are growing.

***

The coin has a flip side. The old member states staying aloof from these areas of deeper integration are gradually marginalising themselves.

Rickety rules for unanimous decision making give ample scope for obstructionist tactics, but blocking decisions and hailing aborted deals as success stories is hardly a constructive line to take. It is hard to believe that isolationist policies are going to win friends and help to influence people within the European Union in the long run.

***

One example of the political price self-imposed marginalisation may entail, came when Valéry Giscard d’Estaing answered a question about the new President of the European Council on his blog. VGE emphasised that the person should be selected with care, and he went on to say that he or she should come from a country which belongs to the Schengen area and the Eurozone and adheres to the Charter.

Any British candidate (including Tony Blair) was eliminated 3 to 0.

Of course, VGE is not part of the European Council now, but I imagine that his line of reasoning strikes a note with many European leaders.

***

No wonder that the new Danish government wants to offer its people a chance to abolish the peculiar opt-outs of the country.

Not surprisingly the new Polish government wants to repair the damages caused by its predecessor.

***

The United Kingdom has shown few such signs. These last months Great Britain seems to have drifted farther out into the Atlantic, without getting closer to the United States. The UK used the negative referendums on the Constitution for Europe for domestic purposes, having little to do with the reasons for failure in France and the Netherlands.

The UK launched new demands to generally weaken the treaty it had already signed in 2004 and to introduce non negotiable specific “red lines”. Once again, the European partners showed flexibility.

***

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has not visited the European institutions specifically, something Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Nicolas Sarkozy did instantly after being installed.

The present European Commission is fairly pro-business, pro-globalisation and pro-enlargement. As such it could be an important ally for Britain, but nurturing constructive alliances does not seem to top the British agenda.

Brown has said little about the European Union, except that it should have a more global view and stop reforming its institutions. By signing the Treaty of Lisbon but missing the ceremony, Brown managed to harvest scorn from both anti-EU and pro-EU quarters. This snub to Britain’s oldest ally can have done little to enhance Brown’s prestige among European leaders or further British interests.

There are few indications that Brown’s grumpiness has placated the rabid domestic EU detractors, egged on by an imaginative tabloid press. (Calling this crowd eurosceptic is a euphemism.)

Failing to communicate clearly, why Britain’s interests lie within Europe, is a long term legacy of successive British governments, but Gordon Brown has let the situation worsen.

The Tory opposition has done its utmost to make Gordon Brown look like a real statesman, painting itself into a corner on European affairs, should it win a majority with an obligation to pursue real British interests.


***

Perhaps we have to admit that Schengen, the euro and shared values are hopeless causes in Britain for domestic reasons, in spite of the negative consequences of being an outsider. There is one area, crucial for the future, where the United Kingdom could make a signal contribution, if it wanted to: defence.

The UK is a leading member of NATO and it has the best military capabilities among the EU countries. Here it is more difficult to see domestic reasons for the lack of progress. It rather looks like the umbilical cord tying Britain to the USA is the main reason for the failure to advance decisively to build a common European defence.

In the long run there seem to be few options to a common European defence (built on democratic accountability) in conjunction with the transatlantic ties offered by the intergovernmental NATO alliance. In these questions President Sarkozy seems to be somewhat closer to the truth.

As it is, Britain is decidedly an EU outsider, a leader of steadily shrinking groups of like-minded self-marginalising powers.

***

The regional parliament in Scotland has demanded a British referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. This is only an opinion, since ratification is to be decided by the UK Parliament. But it shows that the pressure is growing.

At the same time, Labour is sinking like a stone in opinion polls. This might lead to Brown’s choice of parliamentary ratification being defeated, by the parliament most keen to be seen as the hallmark of parliamentary sovereignty. Hardly anyone believes that a referendum on an EU Treaty (regardless of content) can be won in Britain.

If the ratification process fails in Britain, it is hard to believe that EU leaders, fed up with 35 years of British obstructionism, would embark on a new round of negotiations to bring the UK on board.

A more probable scenario would be that the rest of the European Union, or at least the more willing member states, would re-establish the EU and upgrade its capacity at the same time.

The end result might come as a blessing for secessionist opinion, but it is hard to see how British long term interests would be served by reverting to isolationist policies.

For Great Britain insularity, isolation and exclusion may soon be more than mere mindsets, unless Scotland and Wales decide on a change of Union, leaving England behind.


Ralf Grahn

EU Treaty of Lisbon: Fundamental Rights

Slowly but surely the people, the citizens of the European Union, emerge with legal rights and obligations.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was prepared by the first broadly based Convention, encompassing members of the European Parliament and national parliaments. At the summit in Nice, in December 2000, the member states were not yet unanimously ready to incorporate the Charter into the Treaty of Nice.

The Charter was jointly proclaimed by the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission on 7 December 2000, and it became politically but not legally binding (OJ 18.12.2000, C 364/1).

The second Convention incorporated the Charter into the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe signed in Rome on 29 October 2004 (OJ 16.12.2004, C 310/1), where it became Part II.

Since the Constitutional Treaty was not ratified by all member states, the Charter has continued to live on as a solemn political proclamation.

***

The intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) decided, in line with its June mandate, to make the Charter legally binding without incorporating the text into the Reform Treaty, now called the Treaty of Lisbon.

One day before the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Charter was solemnly proclaimed in Strasbourg by the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 14.12.2007, C 303/1) with the Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (C 303/17).

***

Since the solemn proclamation ceremony in Strasbourg was marred by unseemly protests in the European Parliament, it is appropriate to mention that the 27 member states’ governments and the European Commission have acted unanimously, and that the groupings against citizens’ rights had suffered a resounding defeat, 534 MEPs voting in favour of the Charter, 85 against and 21 abstentions.

This disgraceful tumult against the rights of EU citizens has been justly reprimanded, although friends of loutish behaviour have done their utmost to turn their soul buddies into champions of free speech for trying to disrupt a solemn and, for most Europeans, joyful occasion.

***

This is not the place for detailed analysis of the Charter, but a brief look at the headlines of the Articles gives an overview of the freedoms, rights and principles it contains:


TITLE I DIGNITY

Human dignity
Right to life
Right to the integrity of the person
Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Prohibition of slavery and forced labour


TITLE II FREEDOMS

Right to liberty and security
Respect for private and family life
Protection of personal data
Right to marry and right to found a family
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Freedom of expression and information
Freedom of assembly and of association
Freedom of the arts and sciences
Right to education
Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work
Freedom to conduct a business
Right to property
Right to asylum
Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition


TITLE III EQUALITY

Equality before the law
Non-discrimination
Cultural, religious and linguistic diversity
Equality between women and men
The rights of the child
The rights of the elderly
Integration of persons with disabilities


TITLE IV SOLIDARITY

Workers’ right to information and consultation within the undertaking
Right of collective bargaining and action
Right of access to placement services
Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal
Fair and just working conditions
Prohibition of child labour and protection of young people at work
Family and professional life
Social security and social assistance
Health care
Access to services of general economic interest
Environmental protection
Consumer protection


TITLE V CITIZENS’ RIGHTS

Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at the elections to the European Parliament
Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections
Right to good administration
Right of access to documents
European Ombudsman
Right to petition
Freedom of movement and of residence
Diplomatic and consular protection


TITLE VI JUSTICE

Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Presumption of innocence and right of defence
Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties
Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence


TITLE VII GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER

Field of application
Scope and interpretation of rights and principles
Level of protection
Prohibition of abuse of rights

***

Why is the Charter important?

Indeed, the Charter contains no new rights. They all exist in the EU Treaties, in the the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Council of Europe) and various other human rights documents.

But bringing these various rights together, and making them visible for the citizens of the Union, is a manifestation of shared European values. The result is the most up to date legally binding human rights document on earth, and it offers the citizens a basis for scrutiny of EU institutions and member states when they implement European Union law.

The political rights of the Union’s citizens are still underdeveloped, but otherwise the Charter is a step towards recognition of the interests of the citizens as the foundation for the European project.
The Charter is a source of pride for the EU citizens, and it is going to be a source of reference for human rights in the world.

Naturally, the Charter would have been more visible if it had become a part of the Lisbon Treaty (and of future consolidated versions of the Treaty).

***

The European Union is given leave to accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Humans Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The constitutional traditions common to the Member States form part of the general principles of European Union law.

***

The Treaty of Lisbon (Official Journal of the European Union 17.12.2007, C 306/1) repeals Articles 4 and 5 of the Treaty on European Union (latest consolidated version OJ 29.12.2006, C 321 E/1). Consequently, the following Article is numbered 6, the present one being replaced by the following

Article 6

1. The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties.

The provisions of the Charter shall not extend in any way the competences of the Union as defined in the Treaties.

The rights, freedoms and principles in the Charter shall be interpreted in accordance with the general provisions in Title VII of the Charter governing its interpretation and application and with due regard to the explanations referred to in the Charter, that set out the sources of those provisions.

2. The Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Such accession shall not affect the Union’s competences as defined in the Treaties.

3. Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of the Union’s law.

***

Unanimity among the member states’ governments has come at a price. The unity of EU law is diminished by the opt-outs of the governments of the United Kingdom and Poland.

See Protocol Number 7 on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to Poland and the United Kingdom, as well as the Polish declarations 51 and 53 annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon.

The new Polish government has not been able to relinquish the opt-out, since it needs the support of the morally conservative opposition to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon. But the new government wants Poland to become a constructive force in EU politics, so a future renouncement of the opt-out seems to be hanging in the air.

That would leave Great Britain as the only member state fundamentally out of tune with mainstream European values on human rights.


Ralf Grahn

EU Treaty of Lisbon: Member States

Surely, not only one, but 27 European governments must have signed away their countries, freedoms, democracy, the rule of law as well as their cultures, traditions and languages on that fatal 13 December 2007 in Lisbon, didn’t they?

Everything worth living and dying for was crushed by the new evil empire born, the European Superstate, wasn’t it?

Alice in Wonderland never had the hallucinating experiences a few glimpses of the English tabloids and blogosphere offer in abundance. Vitriolic distortion seems to be par for the course.

Judging from the shouted comments, few of the scare-mongering crowd have read the existing EU and EC Treaties or the amending Treaty of Lisbon, and even fewer have understood their contents.

The government of the United Kingdom has, along with 26 other governments, signed the Reform Treaty of the European Union, named the Treaty of Lisbon. But the UK government and Parliament have not stood up for the amending Treaty.

Mainly, they have been busy with explaining and exploring where they have managed to obstruct the progress of others and how convincingly they have been able to distance themselves from the rest of Europe by various opt-outs and quibbles over wording.

Instead of relinquishing new powers to the European Union, the Member States have mainly tinkered with the internal “rules of procedure” in order to make the enlarged Union become a bit less ineffective in dealing with the competences it already has.

Effectiveness, democracy and solidarity have advanced timorously. On the whole, the European Union is not going to be able to act decisively on the world stage, in spite of growing global challenges.

The foreign, security and defence policies of the European Union continue to be highly intergovernmental and ineffective, requiring unanimity in crucial decisions (liberum veto) and practically outside democratic scrutiny at the Union level. That the individual governments lack the capacity to meet the main challenges effectively, seems to be a minor concern.

***

Let us look at what the amended Treaty on European Union actually says.

After the basic Treaty structure, values and objectives of the European Union, we reach some of the umpteen reminders that the EU at this stage is mainly a creature of Member States’ governments, and that the Union is held on a short leash (well too short to achieve its most important aims).

Instead of a list of overwhelming powers being relinquished by the governments, we are confronted with a variety of clauses hedging in the capacity of the European Union to act.

Up front, the EU Treaty resembles the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not …

Time and again, we are reminded of what the Union shall not do, irrespectively of if the Member States can meet the challenges effectively on their own.

***

The new Article 3a, paragraph 1, tells us that the European Union exercises only the powers conferred upon it. The principle of attributed powers limits the scope of Union legislation and action. Everything the EU does, has to be based on the Treaties.

All other powers (competences) remain with the Member States. And the Member States themselves, through their representatives, man the European Council and the Council, the two most important institutions of the EU.

The European Union may not be fully democratic, but it is subject to the rule of law.

In addition to the principle of equality of Member States, Article 3a, paragraph 2, contains a host of pointers on the questions remaining within the purview of the Member States. National identities, political and constitutional structures, regional and local self-government, territorial integrity, law and order as well as national security (mentioned twice) remain, fundamentally, matters for the Member States. (This follows the wording of the Constitutional Treaty, Article I-5, paragraph 1, except for the mainly repetitive words now added: In particular, national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State.)

Since the European Union is a joint effort, established to promote common interests, Article 3a, paragraph 3, reminds us that team efforts are needed. On the whole, the European Union lacks the administrative machinery needed to execute its acts and decisions. Therefore, the Member States have an obligation to fulfil these obligations. This shall be done in a spirit of loyal cooperation. (Article 10 of the current TEC is essentially the same as the second and third subparagraphs of Article 3a(3); Article I-5, paragraph 2, of the Constitutional Treaty would have been essentially the same as the whole paragraph 3 of Article 3a).

***


The Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon (CIG 14/07). Article 3 is repealed and the following Article 3a is inserted:

1. In accordance with Article 3b, competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States.

2. The Union shall respect the equality of the Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government. It shall respect their essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security. In particular, national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State.

3. Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties.

The Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union.

The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives.


***

The Member States are mentioned ad nauseam in the amended Treaty on European Union, but otherwise I see very little to merit popular uprisings or grave insults. Tedious stuff, mainly.

I realise that I am a hack, totally lacking the inventive spirit of tabloid journalists.


Ralf Grahn

Anti-Europeans showed their true ilk

The anti-European MEPs who launched their demonstration in the European Parliament yesterday really showed the stuff they are made of.

Trying to disrupt the proclamation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, endorsed by a vast majority of the Parliament, as well as the governments of the Member States and the European Commission, is in extremely bad taste.

Euphemistically calling themselves Eurosceptics, they have nothing philosophical about their manners or aims. Loutish behaviour seems to be pack and parcel with their anti-European ilk.

Choosing the proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as the setting for their disruptive and childish behaviour must have emanated from a highly insular kind of genius.

Largely symbolic, the Charter is one of the signs that the citizens of the European Union were not totally forgotten in the process leading up to the Treaty of Lisbon.

The Charter embodies, in a coherent manner, freedoms as well as political, economic and social rights and principles concerning citizens. The Charter is the most comprehensive and up to date codification of legally binding human rights on this planet.

It is not the fault of 25 Member States that Poland and the United Kingdom chose to opt out of the Charter. There must be interesting reasons for these two countries to disenfranchise their own citizens, but the new Polish government seems to have understood that these reasons are unconvincing in the long run.

And Great Britain? But that is a story for grown-ups, said Kipling.


Ralf Grahn

Who is the best anti-European?

The Kosmopolit blog looked at the relative merits of Jaroslaw Kaczynski, Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy on blocking or undermining the European Union: The quiet, the loud and the hyperactive: Who is the best anti-European?

Yesterday the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was proclaimed in Strasbourg and today we are going to witness the signing ceremony of the Treaty of Lisbon.

We should be overjoyed, shouldn’t we? Why these doubting questions from Kosmopolit?

***

I posted a comment, which I am going to repeat here:

Who will be successful in blocking decisions?

Your question is sadly revealing of the mindset of national leaders (feudal lords) trying to insulate Europe against success in the world and to ensure that intergovernmentalism is enshrined instead of democratic accountability in foreign, security and defence policies.

The Treaty of Lisbon, to be signed later today, separately by Mr Brown, is no quantum leap for the security, prosperity and democratic rights of EU citizens.

The bickering leaders may be tired of institutional reform, but they have left the European project in a state of infirmity and disarray.

Europe is, in a way, the “old Continent”, but must it also be decrepit?

Let other politicians, think-tanks, researchers, journalists, NGOs and democratically inclined citizens of the European Union keep up the pressure, in spite of our weary leaders.

***

It is impossible to speak with one voice in the world, if one voice is all it takes in the European Council or Council to block decision-making and when the individual states safeguard their freedom to act independently on the international stage.

It is inconsistent to enshrine values of openness, transparency and democracy, when back-room dealing between state governments leave the European Parliament and the Union’s citizens as mere spectators.

Let it be said, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Treaty of Lisbon are improvements on the Nice Treaty, but they fall far short of the effective, democratic and solidary European Union the collective interests of its citizens call for.


Ralf Grahn


Source:

Kosmopolit: The quiet, the loud and the hyperactive: Who is the best anti-European? 13 December 2007; http://kosmopolit.wordpress.com