House of Lords or European Single Market?

Is there a difference between the internal market defined by the EU treaties and the internal market the respected European Union Committee of the House of Lords campaigns for?

Single Market Act background

During the preparatory stage leading up to the Single Market Act SMA, actors and students had access to materials, notably:

The study by professor Mario Monti: A new strategy for the single market at the service of Europe’s economy and society (9 May 2010; 107 pages)

The European Parliament resolution of 20 May 2010 on delivering a single market to consumers and citizens P7_TA(2010)0186, based on the IMCO report drafted by Louis Grech  

The consultation paper (green paper) from the European Commission:

Towards a Single Market Act

For a highly competitive social market economy

50 proposals for improving our work, business and exchanges with one another

Brussels, 11.11.2010 COM(2010) 608 final/2 (45 pages)

In addition, more than 800 contributions to the public consultation, conclusions of the Council of the European Union and the European Council, as well as three late resolutions by the European Parliament vied in order to influence the communication:  

   

Single Market Act

Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence

"Working together to create new growth"

Brussels, 13.4.2011 COM(2011) 206 final (26 pages)  

Re-launching the Single Market

The European Union Committee of the House of Lords - @LordsEUCom on Twitter - has a long track record of clear and informative reports on strategically important EU subjects.

On 4 April 2011, less than two weeks before the publication of the Single Market Act (SMA), the House of Lords, European Union Committee, issued its 15th Report of Session 2010–11:

Re-launching the Single Market; HL Paper 129 (63 pages)

Much of the text is admirably readable on the earlier development of the common market, later officially the internal market, but most often - perhaps aspirationally - referred to as the single market in English.

Published so close to the SMA communication from the European Commission, the report from the UK select committee was less of a contribution to the EU Commission and more of a British policy paper on how to deal with internal market issues in the future.  

The EU Committee was honest enough to discuss (pages 14-17) the “historic compromise” Mario Monti had proposed in order to get market fundamentalists and proponents of a social model to join forces in order to re-ignite the single market. The EU Committee rejected this approach (page 17):

36. The relationship between the economic and social aspects of the EU is complex and politically charged. While the social aspect is important, we believe that it should not be seen as trade-off against market liberalisation. Any proposal on either aspect should be treated strictly on its merits. The case should be made separately for the economic benefits of the Single Market, especially given the urgent need for all Member States to stimulate growth in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

37. We believe a more fruitful approach is that advocated by the European Parliament Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Affairs, in regarding citizens simultaneously as entrepreneurs, workers and consumers, and therefore as beneficiaries of the Single Market. Member States and the European Institutions should make the case strongly that it presents an opportunity rather than a threat.  

Britain seems to have a long tradition of national consensus regarding a single market designed for enterprises. Market reforms lead to jobs and economic growth, which decreases resistance to functioning markets. A dynamic labour market with high employment brings in more taxes for public services and requires less income transfers to compensate for unemployment.

Social market economy

Correct as these assumptions may be, I wonder if the EU Committee and Britain more generally have not evaded presenting the development of European Union as agreed among the member states through treaties, recently the Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force 1 December 2009.  

Increasingly individuals, in various shapes and roles, are seen as the beneficiaries of EU legislation and actions.

A few quotes from the preamble of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which acts as the sextant for navigating the union:

---

CONFIRMING their attachment to fundamental social rights as defined in the European Social Charter signed at Turin on 18 October 1961 and in the 1989 Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers,

---

DETERMINED to promote economic and social progress for their peoples, taking into account the principle of sustainable development and within the context of the accomplishment of the internal market and of reinforced cohesion and environmental protection, and to implement policies ensuring that advances in economic integration are accompanied by parallel progress in other fields,

---

RESOLVED to facilitate the free movement of persons, while ensuring the safety and security of their peoples, by establishing an area of freedom, security and justice, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

The union’s compass is nowadays Article 3 TEU, which sets out the main aims of the EU.  The Lisbon Treaty set the internal market on a new course, encapsulated as a “highly competitive social market economy”, more focused on the individual, in Article 3(3) TEU:

3. The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.

It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.

It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.

It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.   

A social market economy, social progress, social justice and protection, economic and social cohesion, solidarity, just to name a few key words.

Not only for businesses and money, Article 26 TFEU aims for the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital.

Addressed to the member states as well as the EU institutions, Article 4(3) TEU lays down the principle of sincere (loyal) cooperation, encompassing both active and passive obligations regarding the objectives of the union.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, legally binding on the EU, reminds us of various rights of humans (not only corporations and property), relevant to the internal market.

Horizontal clauses

Article 18 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality.

In addition, Title II of Part One contains a number of provisions having general application (horizontal clauses), some of which are relevant to legislating for the internal market and to the application of its rules.

Here I am going to quote the social clause, which calls for integrating these aspects into EU legislation and administration:  

Article 9 TFEU

In defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health.  

Politics is often partisan, but given the Treaty of Lisbon, is it legitimate for a member state deliberately to bypass a loyal presentation of the treaties or to try to exclude social aspirations from the creation of a dynamic single market, defined as a social market economy?  

Forgetting social

On 18 March 2011 the UK prime minister David Cameron and eight other EU heads of government sent a letter (reproduced in the HL Paper pages 60-62) to the president of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy and the president of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso, calling for the delivery of the full and untapped potential of the Single Market.

The letter remains a valuable reminder of concrete priorities just ahead of the SMA  in order to create more pan-European markets, but the prime ministers - including three Nordic ones - did not find a kind word to say about social aspects or the reasons for business regulation.

Social market economy: And they twain shall be one flesh.   

Ralf Grahn

EU materials: House of Lords and Sweden

Legal acts of the European Union are not always from the master class of clarity. Especially first time readers often have a hard time understanding the meaning. There is a need for explanation and clarification, as well as evaluation outside the partly opaque processes leading to EU legislation.

Where to find help?




House of Lords



In the United Kingdom, we have the European Union Committee of the House of Lords, producing thoughtful reports on EU issues, evaluating important policy areas. But the patchy participation of Britain in EU activities influences the choice of subjects, and it affects the reasoning to a degree.

Where a fresh report of the HL European Union Committee exists, it is usually a valuable source for understanding the subject matter.




Sweden




Sweden is an EU member state somewhat more in line with the EU mainstream (exceptions: euro currency and NATO membership).

The Swedish government’s web design is exemplary. You can easily find the subject matters, and you can advance from web pages with brief information to detailed documents without a hitch.



You can access the document search for all types of publications from the front page, and the search function actually works (which cannot be said about many government or EU websites).

Sweden has a tradition of thorough preparation of legislation, including matters related to the European Union. Each step on the way is documented and accessible, from committee directives to updated legal acts.

Sweden has invested a lot of effort to make public communications, including official documents, clear and readable (“klarspråk”).


Without changing the intrinsic nature of the European Union, Sweden managed to set the gold standard for EU Council communications during its presidency, including the design of its website and the use of social media.


The main limit to the wider use of Swedish EU and general legal materials is the language. There are about 20 million native speakers of Swedish, Norwegian and Danish, able to read information in Swedish.

But it should not stop the European Union and member state governments from emulating and improving on Swedish style communications.




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

Unelected Lords support unelected Brussels bureaucrats

During the last weeks there have been lively exchanges on this blog about the reasons for the European Union and its future nature. I want to thank the commentators for many valuable remarks from various viewpoints.

Time to glance at the European as it is, for a change.

Let us now present an outside contribution with regard to European Union legislation, one of the main areas of EU activity. Specifically, it looks at the process to initiate EU legislation.

The European Union Committee of the UK House of Lords has published a report ‘Initiation of EU Legislation – Report with Evidence’ (22nd Report of Session 2007–08, published 24 July 2008, HL Paper 150), available at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/150/150.pdf

The 216 page report continues the tradition of thematic analysis not only of British interest, but generally within the European Union, by the Committee. At the centre, naturally, is the European Commission’s right of legislative initiative concerning Community law, with the Lords largely supportive of the monopoly of initiative of the Commission within the present institutional set-up.

Ergo, the headline of this blog post is true.


Ralf Grahn

EU TFEU CAP: Common agricultural policy objectives

The main objectives of common agricultural policy (CAP) of the European Economic Community (EEC) were fixed in the Treaty of Rome in 1957, and the Treaty of Lisbon fifty years later would actually ultimately restore the original Article number, without changing the slightest detail of the contents.

In spite of this immovable background the CAP is a hotly contested policy area and historically the greatest user of Community funds.

The CAP “Helath Check” in 2008, the Budget Review in 2008/09 and the next financial perspective from 2014 are all played out within the framework of the basic treaty provisions.

***

The intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) had nothing specific to say after Article 32 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), point 47, until Article 36 TEC, point 48 (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/33).

The Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) changes the name of the treaty, which becomes the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Part Three becomes ‘Policies and internal actions of the Union’ and fisheries are added to Title II (renumbered Title III) which consequently becomes ‘Agriculture and fisheries’ (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/207).

No horizontal amendments seem to apply to Article 33 TEC, which becomes Article 33 in the Treaty of Lisbon version of the TFEU, but destined for later renumbering to become Article 39 TFEU.

Thus, we present the new setting and retrieve the wording of the provision from the latest consolidated version of the treaties (OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/54):

Part Three Policies and internal actions of the Union

Title II (renumbered Title III) Agriculture and fisheries

Article 33 TFEU (ToL), renumbered Article 39 TFEU

1. The objectives of the common agricultural policy shall be:

(a) to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, in particular labour;

(b) thus to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture;

(c) to stabilise markets;

(d) to assure the availability of supplies;

(e) to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices.

2. In working out the common agricultural policy and the special methods for its application, account shall be taken of:

(a) the particular nature of agricultural activity, which results from the social structure of agriculture and from structural and natural disparities between the various agricultural regions;

(b) the need to effect the appropriate adjustments by degrees;

(c) the fact that in the Member States agriculture constitutes a sector closely linked with the economy as a whole.

***

The European Convention did not change a comma of corresponding provision of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, Article III-123 (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/51).

The IGC 2004’s Article III-227 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe observed the same degree of orthodoxy.

More than that, strict observance is highlighted through the fact that, word for word, the renumbered Article 39 TFEU would be the same as Article 39 of the original Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (Treaty of Rome, 1957).

***

Those who want to understand the present common agricultural policy and its future can turn to the UK House of Lords European Union Committee’s report ‘The Future of the Common Agricultural Policy’, with Volume I: Report (HL Paper 54-I) and Volume II: Evidence (HL Paper 54-II) (7th Report of Session 2007-08, published 6 March 2008):

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/54/54.pdf

The French think tank Notre Europe runs projects which aim at budget reform and CAP reform post 2013. Among a plethora of policy papers there is a fresh one by Eulalia Rubio ‘EUBudget Review: Addressing the Thorny Issues’, published 7 March 2008. The CAP 2013 project is preparing proposals. A presentation including links to preparatory work is offered in English on the following web page (although the French page has been updated later):

http://www.notre-europe.eu/en/axes/competition-cooperation-solidarity/projects/projet/proposals-for-the-cap-post-2013/

An official tour of CAP legislation and the budget can start from the Commission’s SCADPlus web page Agriculture: General framework:

http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/s04018.htm


Ralf Grahn

EU TFEU: Free movement of goods

The European Community is more than a free trade area. The EC (in the future the EU) is a customs union with a common customs border in relation to third countries. Once a product has legally entered the EC, it can circulate freely within the Community.

Customs duties between the member states are prohibited. So are all charges having equivalent effect (including penalising taxes) as well as quantitative restrictions (quotas) on goods from member states or emanating from third countries but in free circulation in member states.

The Treaty of Lisbon preserves and protects these fundamental principles of the free movement of goods, with some changes of order and terminology.

***

In the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) added the following light touches to Article 23 of the Treaty on establishing the European Community (TEC), renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Official Journal, OJ, 17.12.2007 C 306/52):

43) Title I on the free movement of goods shall become Title Ia.

44) In Article 23(1), the words ‘shall be based upon’ shall be replaced by ‘shall comprise’.

***

The less is said about an amended Article, the more we are dependent on the current provision. Article 23 TEC looks like this (in the latest consolidated version of the TEU and the TEC, in OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/51):

PART THREE
COMMUNITY POLICIES

TITLE I
FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS

Article 23 TEC

1. The Community shall be based upon a customs union which shall cover all trade in goods and which shall involve the prohibition between Member States of customs duties on imports and exports and of all charges having equivalent effect, and the adoption of a common customs tariff in their relations with third countries.

2. The provisions of Article 25 and of Chapter 2 of this title shall apply to products originating in Member States and to products coming from third countries which are in free circulation in Member States.

***

The context and the contents of the amended Article should be the following when the Lisbon Treaty is consolidated, after replacing ‘Community’ by ‘Union’ according to horizontal amendment 2(a), replacing the words as instructed above and checking the referrals in the second paragraph:

Part Three Policies and internal actions of the Union

Title 1a TFEU (ToL), new numbering Title II Free movement of goods

Article 23 TFEU (ToL), after renumbering Article 28 TFEU

1. The Union shall comprise a customs union which shall cover all trade in goods and which shall involve the prohibition between Member States of customs duties on imports and exports and of all charges having equivalent effect, and the adoption of a common customs tariff in their relations with third countries.

2. The provisions of Article 25 [TFEU (ToL, renumbered Article 30 TFEU] and of Chapter 2 [TFEU (ToL), after renumbering Chapter 3 Prohibition of quantitative restrictions between Member States, TFEU] of this title shall apply to products originating in Member States and to products coming from third countries which are in free circulation in Member States.

***

For the sake of easy comparison we look up the corresponding Article in the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe proposed by the European Convention (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/33):

SECTION 3
Free movement of goods

Subsection 1
Customs union

Article III-36

1. The Union shall comprise a customs union which shall cover all trade in goods and which shall involve the prohibition between Member States of customs duties on imports and exports and of all charges having equivalent effect, and the adoption of a common customs tariff in their relations with third countries.

2. Article III-38 and Subsection 3 of this Section shall apply to products originating in Member States and to products coming from third countries which are in free circulation in Member States.

***

Without disturbing the contents, the IGC 2004 chose to present the customs union differently, building the equivalent of Articles 23 to 27 TEC and Articles III-36 to III-40 Draft Constitution into one long Article. Although only the first and the second paragraph correspond directly with the provisions we are presenting, offering the full contents of Article III-151 Constitution allows the reader to see a greater whole at a glance (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/64-65):


SECTION 3
FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS

Subsection 1
Customs union

Article III-151

1. The Union shall comprise a customs union which shall cover all trade in goods and which shall involve the prohibition between Member States of customs duties on imports and exports and of all charges having equivalent effect, and the adoption of a common customs tariff in their relations with third countries.

2. Paragraph 4 and Subsection 3 on the prohibition of quantitative restrictions shall apply to products originating in Member States and to products coming from third countries which are in free circulation in Member States.

3. Products coming from a third country shall be considered to be in free circulation in a Member State if the import formalities have been complied with and any customs duties or charges having equivalent effect which are payable have been levied in that Member State, and if they have not benefited from a total or partial drawback of such duties or charges.

4. Customs duties on imports and exports and charges having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States. This prohibition shall also apply to customs duties of a fiscal nature.

5. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt the European regulations and decisions fixing Common Customs Tariff duties.

6. In carrying out the tasks entrusted to it under this Article the Commission shall be guided by:

(a) the need to promote trade between Member States and third countries;

(b) developments in conditions of competition within the Union insofar as they lead to an improvement in the competitive capacity of undertakings;

(c) the requirements of the Union as regards the supply of raw materials and semi-finished goods; in this connection the Commission shall take care to avoid distorting conditions of competition between Member States in respect of finished goods;

(d) the need to avoid serious disturbances in the economies of Member States and to ensure rational development of production and an expansion of consumption within the Union.

***

The UK House of Lords European Union Committee has a wonderful introduction, both general and topical, to the single market in its report “The Single Market: Wallflower or Dancing Partner? Inquiry into the European Commission’s Review of the Single Market”.


Ralf Grahn


Recommended reading:

UK House of Lords European Union Committee: The Single Market: Wallflower or Dancing Partner? Inquiry into the European Commission’s Review of the Single Market; Volume I: Report; 5th Report of Session 2007-08; HL Paper 36-I; Published 8 February 2008.

Available at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/36/36.pdf

Read from the Foreword to Chapter 4: General Conclusions (pages 1 – 21). In addition, the report looks in depth at three important sectors: energy, telecommunications and financial services. Volume II (HL Paper 36-I) contains the evidence (which is not restricted to national sources).

British consolidated Lisbon Treaty promised

The UK government has promised a consolidated version of the EU Treaty of Lisbon, but the answer does not specify when the consolidation is going to be available to the House of Lords and, presumably, to the public. This is from the parliamentary record of 4 December 2007:

“EU: Reform Treaty
Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that a full official consolidated text of the European Union reform treaty signed in Lisbon showing all changes to previous treaties in readable form is made available before the ratification process begins in Parliament. [HL11]
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): I apologise to the noble Lord for the delay in answering this Question. The House of Lords European Union Select Committee has proposed to conduct its assessment of the impact of the reform treaty on the basis of the changes it makes to the treaties which are currently in force. As the committee has requested, we will provide a comparison of the reform treaty with the existing treaties and a consolidated text of the treaties as amended by the reform treaty.”

***

If the House of Lords needs consolidated versions of the amending Treaties, so do the interested citizens.

If a consolidated version of the Treaty of Lisbon is needed in English, so do consolidations in every official language of the European Union.


Ralf Grahn

Lords demand EU treaty consolidation

The EU Council having declined to publish consolidated versions of the Treaty of Lisbon, I called for consolidations of the Reform Treaty by member state governments and non-governmental organisations, such as think-tanks, research institutes or commercial publishers (although legislation including proposals should be accessible to all citizens without cost). I also discussed different reasons for publication, including Treaty provisions, agreed practices and policies of transparency and openness.

As far as I know, there are now three consolidated language versions: French, Spanish and English (all mentioned in earlier postings).

Although there is now a consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty in English, the unjustified reticence of EU institutions and national governments merits further discussion.

I note, with satisfaction, the recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee on European Union in its Thirty-Fifth Report, Chapter 1:

“15. We accordingly recommend that, as soon as possible, the Government deposit in Parliament a full and thorough analysis of the changes which the Reform Treaty, on the basis of existing texts, would bring about, drawing attention to the differences from existing Treaty provisions. This should include both a consolidated version of the Treaties as amended by the Reform Treaty and an in-depth policy analysis of the effect of the changes. We expect that all Departments would be involved in the preparation of this material.”

***

If the Lords find a consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty necessary, why should the citizens of the European Union be denied consolidations in their own languages?

Students, teachers, researchers; local, regional, national and EU officials; non-governmental organisations; politicians at every level; journalists; lobbyists; active citizens; in every member state of the European Union there are people who need (more) accessible texts of the Treaty to be signed.


Ralf Grahn


Source:

House of Lords Select Committee on European Union: Thirty-Fifth Report;
http://www.publications.parliament.uk

Fundamental rights monitoring: Commission

Fundamental rights as shared values of the European Union and as solemn declarations are all very well, but how about their practical effects?

There is, clearly, rising awareness within the EU institutions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The Commission of the European Communities monitors compliance of its legislative proposals with fundamental rights according to the principles the Commission adopted in its 27 April 2005 Communication: Compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights in Commission legislative proposals – Methodology for systematic and rigorous monitoring, COM(2005) 172 final.

The Commission has integrated fundamental rights scrutiny into the pre-existing instrument of impact assessment, which looks at economic, social and environmental impacts of proposals.

Proposals with a special link with fundamental rights have a special recital, which formally state that they respect fundamental rights.

Further reasons may be given in an explanatory memorandum which accompanies the proposal.

Generally, the Commission guidelines have been welcomed, but many human rights activists have pointed out that fundamental rights ought to be made a fourth category (heading) in impact assessments, since economic, social or environmental aspects do not necessarily catch these aspects.

The interested reader can find an intelligent discussion in the House of Lords European Union Committee’s report: Human Rights Proofing EU Legislation (16th Report of Session 2005-06).

Ralf Grahn