How much EU legislation in member state UK? Nosemonkey and House of Commons Library

On 13 October 2010 the European Parliament awarded its journalism prizes to for excellent media work on Europe. Among the four categories, the prize for Internet journalism went to the Euroblog pioneer James Clive-Matthews, also known as Nosemonkey.



You can read the winning blog post: What percentage of laws come from the EU? (2 June 2009)


On the very day of the award ceremony in the European Parliament, across the Channel the House of Commons Library informed subscribers about the publication of its research paper 10/62, which presents a reworked view on the role of EU laws in Britain:




How much legislation comes from Europe? (13 October 2010; 59 pages)



This fits nicely with the EU law theme, or more narrowly EU business regulation, we have been looking at on Grahnlaw, in the blog posts How much EU law is there? Smart regulation and impact assessments (13 October 2010) and Smart Regulation in the European Union (14 October 2010).



The summary conclusion of the UK House of Commons Library Research Paper 10/62 is (page 1):

Using statistics from national law databases and the EU’s EUR-Lex database, it is possible to estimate the proportion of national laws based on EU laws. In the UK data from these sources provided estimates that suggest that over the twelve-year period from 1997 to 2009 6.8% of primary legislation (Statutes) and 14.1% of secondary legislation (Statutory Instruments) had a role in implementing EU obligations, although the degree of involvement varied from passing reference to explicit implementation. Sectoral studies suggest that the agriculture forms the highest area of EU influence and defence the lowest. The British Government estimates that around 50% of UK legislation with a significant economic impact originates from EU legislation.

Besides the indicative numbers (percentages) the study is interesting due to its discussion about the difficulties of quantitative comparisons and especially qualitative assessments of the influence of EU legislation on national law-making.

The various aspects and uncertainties covered make the Research Paper into an educational tool for those who are interested in various forms of EU level decision-making and interaction with the national level, naturally in the United Kingdom, but also elsewhere: in EU member states Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland and Belgium, as well as non-EU states Norway and Iceland.

The Research Paper refers to popular (mis)conceptions and often repeated quotes, including Euromyths, as well as a host of studies which have tried to uncover both percentages and influences of EU law in the member states.



Comments

The frontlines in the debate about EU impact have not always been clear-cut. Opponents of the European Union (euphemistically called eurosceptics) have decried the “intrusiveness” of EU legislation, whereas pro-European may have exaggerated the importance of the EU.

It looks clear that the proportion of EU legislation is much smaller if we look at all areas of legislation than if we study policy sectors affecting businesses.

There are also huge differences between EU policy areas. The common agricultural policy (CAP) affects farmers and the common fisheries policy (CFP) fishermen, whereas defence is almost exempt from legislation derived from the EU.

I recommend reading the House of Commons Library Research Paper 10/62, which offers a wide range of studies and opinions on these questions.

I am going to add only a few more comments on certain details.



After Nosemonkey’s blog post and as part of the following discussion, I presented a summary of the findings of Yves Bertoncini in the Grahnlaw entry How much law is EU law? (6 June 2009). The Research Paper offers more details on Bertoncini’s study, on page 8 and pages 31-32.


The Library Research Paper refers to the European Commission’s 26th Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of Community Law (2008) (page 8):

“At the end of 2008, the rules of the Treaty were supplemented by some 8,200 regulations and just under 1,900 directives in force throughout the 27 Member States”.

There are now updated figures, because just before the publication of the Research Paper, the latest annual report was published on 1 October 2010, as noted in my 13 October blog post:



27th annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (2009); Brussels, 1.10.2010 COM(2010) 538 final (12 pages)

If we compare the reports, we can see that the numbers of regulations and directives have fallen significantly during 2009 (page 2). First the quote in question:

At the end of 2009, EU law comprised, apart from the rules of the Treaty, some 6140 regulations and just under 1820 directives in force throughout the 27 Member States.

The number of regulations has decreased by about 2060 and there are around 80 directives less than a year earlier.

Again, the pure numbers tell us little about the impact of EU legislation. The institutions of the European Union have pursued a “better regulation” agenda and a “better lawmaking” agenda. Obsolete legal acts have been taken off the statute book (acquis communautaire). Simplification exercises have resulted in recast acts, which can integrate two or more narrower acts. Some of the disappearances are more technical than substantial, even if more comprehensive acts add ease of use, as do consolidated or updated versions.

There have also been real efforts to “cut red tape”, but a more detailed look at the different simplification measures goes beyond the purpose of this blog post.




Ralf Grahn




P.S. Eurogoblin, one of the editorial team of the multilingual blog aggregator Bloggingportal.eu, has started experimenting with a daily EU Morning Briefing, which mixes events with personal comments. Worth following.

European arrest warrant: EU & UK

In the report Justice issues in Europe, the UK House of Commons Justice Committee discusses matters relevant to the development of the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ).

This timely report is interesting both generally and from a British point of view.

In this blog post we look at the European arrest warrant.





Stockholm Programme


In the European Union’s 2010─2014 Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens, the European Council invited the European Commission to (document 5731/10; page 40):

… explore the results of the evaluation of the European Arrest Warrant, and, where appropriate, make proposals to increase efficiency and legal protection for individuals in the process of surrender, by adopting a step-by-step approach to other instruments on mutual recognition; ...

Stockholm Programme Action Plan


Since then, the proposed Action Plan for the implementation of the Stockholm Programme has been published in 21 official EU languages:




Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens - Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme; Brussels, 20.4.2010; COM(2010) 171 final


(The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council has issued its first conclusions on the Action Programme (document 8920/10).)


In the Action Plan, under the headline Furthering the implementation of mutual recognition (in the area of criminal law), the Commission has promised to report on the implementation of the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant in 2010 and to contribute with “appropriate follow-up” in 2014.



European arrest warrant



For an overview of the European Arrest Warrant, you can consult the relevant summary of EU legislation on Europa (latest update 8 January 2010).




You can also read the Wikipedia encyclopedia entry European Arrest Warrant, including critical viewpoints (last update 29 April 2010).



Here is the consolidated version (28 March 2009) of:



COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States

The provisions defining the European arrest warrant and setting out its scope:

CHAPTER 1
GENERAL PRINCIPLES



Article 1
Definition of the European arrest warrant and obligation to execute it


1. The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.

2. Member States shall execute any European arrest warrant on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition and in accordance with the provisions of this Framework Decision.

3. This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.



Article 2
Scope of the European arrest warrant


1. A European arrest warrant may be issued for acts punishable by the law of the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months or, where a sentence has been passed or a detention order has been made, for sentences of at least four months.

2. The following offences, if they are punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years and as they are defined by the law of the issuing Member State, shall, under the terms of this Framework Decision and without verification of the double criminality of the act, give rise to surrender pursuant to a European arrest warrant:

— participation in a criminal organisation,
— terrorism,
— trafficking in human beings,
— sexual exploitation of children and child pornography,
— illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances,
— illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives,
— corruption,
— fraud, including that affecting the financial interests of the European Communities within the meaning of the Convention of 26 July 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests,
— laundering of the proceeds of crime,
— counterfeiting currency, including of the euro,
— computer-related crime,
— environmental crime, including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in endangered plant species and varieties,
— facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence,
— murder, grievous bodily injury,
— illicit trade in human organs and tissue,
— kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking,
— racism and xenophobia,
— organised or armed robbery,
— illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art,
— swindling,
— racketeering and extortion,
— counterfeiting and piracy of products,
— forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein,
— forgery of means of payment,
— illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters,
— illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials,
— trafficking in stolen vehicles,
— rape,
— arson,
— crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,
— unlawful seizure of aircraft/ships,
— sabotage.

3. The Council may decide at any time, acting unanimously after consultation of the European Parliament under the conditions laid down in Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), to add other categories of offence to the list contained in paragraph 2. The Council shall examine, in the light of the report submitted by the Commission pursuant to Article 34(3), whether the list should be extended or amended.

4. For offences other than those covered by paragraph 2, surrender may be subject to the condition that the acts for which the European arrest warrant has been issued constitute an offence under the law of the executing Member State, whatever the constituent elements or however it is described.

House of Commons Justice Committee


One of the relatively rare assessments of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) in the European Union published after the Stockholm Programme and before the adoption of the implementing Action Plan is:




UK House of Commons Justice Committee: Justice issues in Europe (HC 162-I; published 6 April 2010; 60 pages)



On page 19 the Committee noted that according to the Ministry of Justice, the European arrest warrant had:

• transformed extradition arrangements between EU member states
• played an important role in the UK’s fight against international and trans-national criminality
• prevented countries from refusing to surrender fugitives
• reduced the time taken to surrender fugitives from an average of 18 months under previous extradition arrangements to around 50 days, and
• enabled the UK to extradite over 1000 fugitives to other EU member states (since introduction) and, in 2008, nearly 100 wanted persons were surrendered back to the UK to face criminal proceedings.

Some problematic questions have surfaced as shown by the cases mentioned in Box 2 (pages 21 and 22).


After a discussion of difficulties with regard to individuals’ rights, the possible need for a proportionality test and potential means to remedy application problems, the Justice Committee concluded (on pages 24 to 25; point 50):

50. It is unfortunate that the successful use of the European arrest warrant, and the reduced time taken to process intra-EU extraditions, has been overshadowed by perceived injustices in individual cases. We welcome the conclusions of the evaluation of the warrant, adopted by the Council in June 2009, and the subsequent progress that has been made. However, we believe that the time it takes to review and reform such instruments undermines the mutual trust approach. Legislation should be used only as a last resort to resolving the issues over proportionality and we hope that the current approach bears fruit before the predicted growth in demand for European arrest warrants takes place.

The Committee then went on to discuss the threshold of inoperability regarding amending or accompanying EU measures, when the United Kingdom does not opt in. Regarding future developments under the Lisbon Treaty, matters were left suspended in thinnish air (page 26; point 54):

54. We are encouraged that neither the Minister, nor any of our witnesses, were able to provide a convincing example of a situation in which an existing measure would be rendered inoperable as a result of the UK’s decision not to participate. Nevertheless, we are concerned that the term “inoperable” is not defined in the protocol and that guidance is not available on its interpretation.

Ralf Grahn



P.S. If you have information about general or national publications assessing the EU’s justice and home affairs (JHA), the Stockholm Programme or the proposal for the implementing Action Plan, please feel free to share it with the readers of Grahnlaw, by posting a comment or by sending me an e-mail.

UK & EU: Justice issues in Europe (Introduction)

One of the relatively rare assessments of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) in the European Union published after the Stockholm Programme and before the adoption of the implementing Action Plan is:




UK House of Commons Justice Committee: Justice issues in Europe (HC 162-I; published 6 April 2010; 60 pages)


In this blog post we summarise the Introduction.



Introduction


The Committee Report is the result of a fairly detailed (page 5):

…inquiry into justice issues in Europe with a particular focus on developments and the implications for the 2.2 million British citizens living in other member states and 2.12 million people living in the UK who were born in another member state.

The Report briefly recapitulates the history of the EU’s area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ): the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Tampere Programme and the Hague Programme (page 5).


The Report describes the area of freedom, security and justice as still very much a “work in progress”, before embarking on an outline on the future work to be done under the Stockholm Programme (page 6).


The Committee notes that mutual trust is fairly easy to grasp, but hard to achieve in the field of legislation and policy on justice (page 6).


Box 1 on pages 8 and 9 contains a convenient overview of justice priorities in the Stockholm Programme, under the following headlines:

• Promoting citizenship and fundamental rights
• A Europe of law and justice
• A Europe that protects
• Improving the quality of legislation and its implementation

With the establishment of mutual trust as a cornerstone of judicial cooperation and the fundamental rights of EU (and UK) citizens as starting points, the Committee chose the following key themes for its inquiry (page 9):

• The need to strike balances between proportionality, the rights of suspects and the accused in criminal proceedings, and the enforcement of security at EU and national level through mutual co-operation.
• The balance between basic principles of justice and fairness for victims and the rights of suspects and defendants rights and levels of awareness of those rights
• The cost-benefits of activity to create an area of freedom, security and justice
• The extent of monitoring and evaluation and the relative lack of enforcement.

The emphasis is on criminal justice issues (page 9).



The Committee starts its treatment of the Lisbon Treaty with a short historic overview from the Treaty of Amsterdam, before a summary of the changes brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon and the UK opt-in protocol, as well as a description of the emergency brake (pages 10 to 12).


The extended jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is explained on page 12. It remains unclear if Britain will opt in to the jurisdiction of the CJEU within the five year timeframe (page 17).


The Committee describes the legal entry into force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and mentions that the European Union aims to accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (page 12 to 13).


Will the Lisbon Treaty facilitate legislation and policy-making in the field of justice? The initial response of the Committee is cautious (page 13 to 14).


Naturally, the extraordinary position of the United Kingdom has to be discussed. The Committee argues that the position of UK participation has become more flexible, but clarifications are needed with respect to amendments Britain opposes, although it has consented to the original provisions. The Committee depicts the UK’s role in EU justice and home affairs as a key one (page 14 to 16).


The Committee welcomed the Government’s pragmatic attitude (evidence-based practical measures; “look before you legislate”) and it was encouraged by seeing this perspective reflected in the Stockholm Programme (page 16).


The Committee notes that mutual recognition is at the heart of what the EU is trying to achieve in the area of freedom, security and justice under the Stockholm programme and the Lisbon Treaty. The Government of Britain is extremely cautious about approximation (harmonisation) of criminal law, but the Committee remarks that the proposals in the Stockholm Programme and the Lisbon Treaty together give rise to the potential for a significant body of new law (pages 17 and 18).




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Information about materials from different member states and in various EU languages on the Stockholm Programme and the proposed Action Plan for implementation is most welcome. Write a comment or send me an e-mail about unofficial and official publications

Comments on UK House of Commons Library Note SN/IA/3689

The Grahnlaw blog post EU materials: European Union terminology, procedures and sources 2010 (26 April 2010) recommended:




UK House of Commons Library Note: The European Union: a guide to terminology, procedures and sources (Standard Note SN/IA/3689; last updated 24 March 2010; 14 pages; authors Vaughne Miller and Emma Clark)


The authors - Vaughne Miller and Emma Clark - are available to discuss the content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public, but this does not prevent me from discussing the Standard Note with the authors, by the means of this blog post.


Although the comments I make are personal and the preferences I mention are matters of (idiosyncratic) taste, some of the following might serve the next update of the Library Note.



Lisbon Treaty


The Library Note was published about a week before the latest consolidated version of the Treaty of Lisbon, so the rectified version was not available at the time. The Lisbon Treaty is presented in a readable and updated format, more officially:




Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; OJEU 30.3.2010 C 83.


Since we are only months away from the entry into force, I find the “Lisbon Treaty” to be a convenient shorthand expression for the current state of primary EU law. This may change with the next accession treaty or at least the next substantial treaty reform, so the terms “EU law” and “EU Treaties” employed by the authors are not only correct, but more timeless.


When we need to be more specific, we can refer to the individual treaties:



Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), or the

Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)



EU Charter


The United Kingdom may have opted out, but at least the debate in English needs the latest version of the:



Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; OJEU 30.3.2010 C 83/389



Euratom


Luckily, we now have a readable version of the Euratom or EAEC Treaty:



Consolidated version of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community; OJEU 30.3.2010 C 84



Member State


The authors discuss the use or not of capital letters.

Generally, I know that I shift not only from day to day, but often within the same blog post.

With regard to “member states” I prefer to write without capital letters, unless I quote EU documents, but this is only a matter of personal taste.



The European Council

The European Council, with the heads of state or government, is chaired by the President of the European Council, so part of the paragraph is outdated under the Lisbon Treaty.

The European Council does not exercise legislative functions, but it makes certain decisions based on the treaties (Article 15 TEU et al).



The Council of the European Union


There are now two Council formations (configurations) directly based on the TEU: the General Affairs Council (GAC) and the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) (Article 16 TEU).

The other Council configurations are adopted by the European Council (Articles 16 TEU, 236 TFEU; List of Council configurations, in OJEU 11.12.2009 L 325/51).



Legislation


The ordinary legislative procedure leads to legislative acts adopted by the European Parliament and the Council.

Then there are special legislative procedures (mainly Council legislation).

Commission legal acts are mainly delegated (implementing) acts.



Official Journal


Since the world is full of ‘Official Journals’, I prefer to use the abbreviation OJEU for the Official Journal of the European Union.

The same goes for the Court of Justice of the European Union, and here the authors use the abbreviation CJEU, as I do.


***

The comments may be exhausting, but they are not exhaustive. They are based on a brief tour of this Library Note, but I did not check all the questions.

Perhaps others can fill in, to make the next update even better(?)




Ralf Grahn

EU materials: European Union terminology, procedures and sources 2010

Much of the existing literature on the European Union was published before the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force on 1 December 2009.

Outdated references to institutions, powers, procedures, legal bases, terms etc. tend to obscure the discussion on European Union affairs.

In the United Kingdom, the House of Commons Library does a great public service by producing Standard Notes on various subjects.

With regard to the European Union, I would like to draw attention to a Standard Note, which was updated recently, with the following aim:

This Note aims to clarify some of the terminology used to describe the institutions, laws and procedures of the European Union. It also provides links to useful sources of information on the EU.

UK House of Commons Library Note: The European Union: a guide to terminology, procedures and sources (Standard Note SN/IA/3689; last updated 24 March 2010; 14 pages; authors Vaughne Miller and Emma Clark)



Contents

1 Introduction 3

2 European ‘Community’, ‘Communities’ and ‘Union’ 3

3 The three ‘Pillars’ 4

4 EC law or EU law? 4

5 Treaty of Rome or Treaty of Lisbon? What to call the Treaty 5

6 Referencing Treaty articles 5

7 “Member State”: use of capital letters 5

8 European Council, Council of Ministers, Council of Europe 6
8.1 The European Council 6
8.2 The Council 6
8.3 The Council of Europe 7

9 European Courts 7

10 Legal instruments 7

11 Council and Commission legislation 8

12 The Acquis Communautaire 8

13 Official Journal 8

14 Legislative procedures 8
14.1 Ordinary Legislative Procedure 8
14.2 Consent 9
14.3 Consultation 9

15 Searching for EU legislation and documentation 10
15.1 Searching in Europe 10
15.2 Searching in the Member States 10
15.3 Searching in PIMS 10

16 Current information on the EU 11
16.1 Institutions 11
16.2 On-line news sources 12
16.3 Recent and forthcoming events 12
16.4 Addresses and telephone numbers 12

17 Reading List 13
17.1 General publications 13
17.2 European Union publications 13
17.3 House of Commons Library publications 13
17.4 Official Publications 14



In addition to Members of Parliament, this Standard Note is a most welcome reference for students of EU law and politics, as well as journalists reporting on European affairs.




Ralf Grahn

European Parliament Political Groups

We are only two months from the European elections, to be followed by the forming of the (new) political groups in the European Parliament.

In the United Kingdom, the House of Commons Library has published a standard note authored by Vaughne Miller on the political groups in the European Parliament.

European Parliament Political Groups (SN/IA/5031; 26 March 2009; 10 pages) offers a brief view of the EP political groups. After an introduction and a look at the structure of the EP groups, the note deals with the various benefits connected with the groups (material, procedural, committee composition, decision-making using co-decision, a comment and a comparison with Westminster).



***


Higher hurdle after European elections 2009

On page 3, the note correctly quotes the existing minimum requirements for a political group. According to Rule 29(2) of the EP’s Rules of Procedure the current minima for the formation of a political group are:

Rule 29(2)

2. A political group shall comprise Members elected in at least one-fifth of the Member States. The minimum number of Members required to form a political group shall be twenty.


***

Given the proximity of the European elections and the formation of new groups, it would however have been helpful to mention the new rules entering into force at the first sitting of the new parliamentary term.

When the newly elected European Parliament convenes after the June 2009 elections, the requirements for forming a political group are going to be higher, according to the Decision on amendment of Rule 29 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure ─ Formation of political groups; Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2008)0351.

As voted by the EPP and the PES, MEPs from at least a quarter of the member states will be needed; seven instead of six. The minimum number of MEPs rises from twenty to twenty-five.



Therefore it will be harder for motley crews of MEPs to the right of the centre-right (EPP) and to the left of the centre-left (PES) to find enough soul-mates to form political groups after the European elections.

The new Rule 29(2) sets the following requirements:

Rule 29(2) amended

2. A political group shall comprise Members elected in at least one-quarter of the Member States. The minimum number of Members required to form a political group shall be twenty-five.

***

One of the interesting questions after the European elections in June 2009 is going to be how the British Tories align themselves in the European Parliament, given the unquestionable importance of political groups in the running of the political business of the EP.


Ralf Grahn

EU: Broad economic policy guidelines V

What has been said about Article 121 TFEU? Here are some references for the eager reader.


United Kingdom

Professor Steve Peers covered the Treaty of Lisbon in a number of Statewatch Analyses. ‘EU Reform Treaty Analysis no. 3.4: Revised text of Part Three, Titles VII to XVII of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC): Other internal EC policies (Version 2, 24 October 2007) includes the current Title VII Economic and monetary policy.

Peers presented the numbering of Article 99 TFEU (ToL), to be renumbered Article 121 TFEU in the consolidated version, and highlighted the changes, with the following comment (page 6):

“The co-decision procedure is extended to this Article, in place of the ‘cooperation’ procedure (a halfway house between consultation and co-decision, which is to be abolished). The amendment to paragraph 4 gives the Commission a new power to address a warning to the Member State concerned, and the Member State which is the subject of a procedure may not vote.”


The analysis 3.4 and other useful Statewatch analyses are available through:

http://www.statewatch.org/euconstitution.htm


***

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) offers a convenient source of brief annotations on Lisbon Treaty amendments in ‘A comparative table of the current EC and EU treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon’ (Command Paper 7311, published 21 January 2008). It offers the following comment on Article 121 TFEU, Article 99 TFEU (ToL) in the original Lisbon Treaty (page 12):

“Draws on Article 99 TEC. New power for Commission to issue a warning to Member States, and the Member State concerned is excluded from voting. Paragraph 6 QMV already applies, decision-making moves to co-decision.”



The FCO comparative table is available at:

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7311/7311.asp

***

The UK House of Commons Library Research Paper 07/86 ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: amendments to the Treaty establishing the European Community’ (published 6 December 2007) discussed ‘H. Economic and Monetary Policy’ on pages 61 to 64.

Article 99 TFEU (ToL) was given the following explanation, on page 61:

“In amended Article 99 (Constitution Article III-179) the Commission may now “address a warning” to Member States if they are not following the broad economic guidelines. This is in addition to the Council being able to make recommendations to the Member State in question, a right which currently exists. The vote of the Member State being considered will not be counted in the Council and in the OLP to be used for mulitilateral surveillance rules a qualified majority will be defined under Article 205(3)(a) of the TFEU (at least 55% of the other voting Council members, representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of voting Council members).”


The Library Research Paper 07/86 is available at:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2007/rp07-086.pdf

***

The House of Lords European Union Committee report ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: an impact assessment, Volume I: Report’ (HL Paper 62-I, published 13 March 2008) is a valuable resource on the Treaty of Lisbon, but it mentioned economic policies only in passing.

The report is accessible at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/62/62.pdf


***

The next part will add some comments and materials.


Ralf Grahn

Human Rights: UK exceptionalism

The Joint Committee on Human Rights of the House of Lords and the House of Commons has published a report called ’A Bill of Rights for the UK? Twenty-ninth Report of Session 2007–08’ (HL Paper 165-I, HC 150-I; published 10 August 2008):

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtrights/165/165i.pdf

The report outlines a future UK Bill of Rights.

***

Browsing the report, you would have to be a genius to detect that the United Kingdom is a member state of the European Union, or that its government has politically signed up to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, or that the United Kingdom has ratified the Treaty of Lisbon, or taken the trouble to opt out of the Charter, as adapted on 12 December 2007.

I have no desire to deprive UK residents of modern human rights protection, but even by British standards the presentation seems to reach new heights of tunnel vision.


Ralf Grahn

British consolidated Lisbon Treaty

The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office has published a consolidated version of the Treaty of Lisbon. The ratification debate in the House of Commons started this week and is expected to continue for four more weeks.

The FCO web pages on Britain in the EU contain both general information on the Reform Treaty and answers on specific questions in addition to the consolidation I just mentioned. For the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty, go to:

http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/FCO_PDF_CM7310_ConsolidatedTreaties.pdf


***

There are other consolidated English language versions of the Lisbon Treaty. Here is a reminder:

IIEA

Peadar ó Broin at the Institute of International and European Affairs (Dublin, Ireland) has produced a complete consolidation of the amended treaties, including the protocols and annexes, in a format easy to read

Treaty on European Union
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Annexes to the EU and FEU Treaties
Protocols to the EU and FEU Treaties and, where appropriate, to the EAEC Treaty

Go to http://www.iiea.com/


Statewatch

Professor Steve Peers has painstakingly compiled a version consisting of several files for the Statewatch Observatory on the EU Constitution and the Reform Treaty, where likenesses and differences between the different reform stages are highlighted

Go to http://www.statewatch.org/


Markus Walther


Markus Walther, a German student who produced and published a German consolidated version of the EU Treaty of Lisbon on his web site, has posted an English readable consolidated version as well (a preliminary document without protocols and charter).

Go to http://www.mwalther.net/europa/eulaw-lisbon-mwalther.pdf


Open Europe

Open Europe has produced a consolidated version with the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe presented side by side for convenient comparison.

Open Europe: The Lisbon Treaty and the European Constitution: A side-by-side comparison; January 2008;

Go to http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/comparative.pdf


***

I refer those who look for other language versions to my earlier posts.


Ralf Grahn


P.S The FCO has also published Command Paper 7311 A comparative table of the current EC and EU Treaties as amended by the treaty of Lisbon, which briefly sets out the similarities and differences between the Lisbon Treaty and the other relevant Treaties. Available through the Official Documents web page (as is Cm 7310 mentioned above):

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/

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

CAP reform camp

The vast majority of EU citizens, the consumers and taxpayers, have few friends among the member states’ governments. The UK House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee spoke of a well-established core group of reform-minded countries (UK, Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden). The Committee welcomes the accord signed with Italy on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Not much to go on in a European Union of 27 member states.

Still, democracy should be about valid reasons and informed debate leading to accountable policies for acceptable results.

Some of the conclusions of the Committee bear repeating, because they challenge the governments in the anti-reformist camp to think through their stance and improve their justifications and, ultimately, their positions:

“Further reform of the CAP is both necessary and inevitable.”

“The only long-term justification for future expenditure of taxpayers’ money in the agricultural sector is for the provision of public goods. Payments should represent the most efficient means by which society can purchase the public goods – environmental, rural, social – it wishes to enjoy. For these payments to remain publicly acceptable, it is essential that they relate directly to the public goods provided and that, in turn, these public goods are measurable and capable of evaluation.”

“The objectives of the CAP have remained unchanged for the last 50 years and now seem dated. European agricultural policy has moved on since then, encompassing issues such as rural development, protection of the environment and animal welfare. The UK Government should begin negotiating, at the earliest opportunity, for a redrafting of the existing Article which lays out the objectives of the CAP – Article 33(1) – with the new text reflecting the wider context of modern rural policy.”

“Some of the key issues the UK Government must address in devising and pursuing such a rural policy for the EU should include:

· The prioritisation of objectives (for example, between environmental and rural development considerations)
· The degree of subsidiarity embodied in the new policy
· The relative advantages and disadvantages of financing such a policy – at least to some extent (i.e. co-financing) – at the Member State level
· How much of the current expenditure on the CAP would be required to fulfil the policy objectives chosen
· How best to manage the transition from the current CAP to this new ‘Rural Policy for the EU’
· The extent to which this new rural policy can contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change”

***

The Reform Treaty or Lisbon Treaty is going to be as unreformed, and anachronistic, as ever concerning the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy (although fisheries are added under the same heading). The earliest opportunity seems to be in a distant future.

For an outsider the Committee made a puzzling choice in leaving out consumers’ interests from its discussion altogether and relating to taxpayers mostly indirectly, as the logically necessary payers for and receivers of the public goods mentioned. If the interests of the voters as a whole do not concern the governments of the status quo group inordinately, they could be seen as potential allies and beneficiaries of the pro reform camp’s agenda.

Since the Commission Green Paper for the CAP review 2008 promises to be little more than a health check without serious diagnosis or treatment, the importance of the overall budget review 2008/9 grows.

The December 2005 European Council and, formally, the inter-institutional agreement in May 2006 invited the Commission to undertake “a full, wide-ranging review covering all aspects of EU spending, including the Common Agricultural Policy, and of resources, including the United Kingdom rebate, and to report in 2008/9”.

This promise might have been a joke for Jacques Chirac, but it is extremely important for the citizens of Europe.


Ralf Grahn


Sources:

House of Commons, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: The UK Government’s “Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy”; Published on 23 May 2007

Interinstitutional agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management; Official Journal 14.6.2006, C 139/1