We have looked at the growing protests online and on the ground against the Anti-Counterfeiting (and much more) Trade Agreement ACTA. The anti-ACTA feelings run high, but there is also a need for deliberation on the official policies of ever more draconian IPR enforcement, including ACTA (in 22 EU languages).
ACTA sources
The continuing #ACTA stream on Twitter offers you almost real time updates (if you wait a few moments), but the original contributions and gems are easily drowned by the the repetitive messages and the hype.
The decisive discussions are going to take place in the European Parliament and national parliaments, where arguments have to be based on hard facts and cool analysis in order to pierce through defensive armour, such as preordained government positions, party discipline and prior EU Council arrangements.
Here are a few gateways to critical networks and sources to help you steer towards more reasoned opposition.
You can follow @StopActaNow on Twitter for information including noteworthy blog posts and articles. The stopacta.info website contains both facts about ACTA and promotional items for activists. There are links to critical civil society websites and selected documents for further study.
You can advance to the ACTA dossier of La Quadrature du Net, the ACTA blog posts by professor Michael Geist, the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastrucure FFII ACTA blog, the What's Wrong With ACTA Week at EDRI (with five short briefing papers), the Access website for global digital freedom and the section on trade agreements at Infojustice.org.
More quality analysis is needed, but these websites are worth following for troubling questions and reasonable solutions regarding IPR enforcement.
Freedom and justice for all.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Between the global issues and the national level, the European Union shapes our digital future and online freedoms. Is your blog already listed among the more than 900 euroblogs aggregated by multilingual Bloggingportal.eu?
Showing posts with label Member State. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Member State. Show all posts
Friday, 3 February 2012
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Stability, convergence and EU2020 compliance: EU member states and Commission
The spring meeting of the European Council 24 to 25 March 2011 (EUCO 10/11, paragraph 2 and footnote 1) outlined the the next steps within the framework of the European semester and endorsed the the priorities for fiscal consolidation and structural reform ”in line with” the Council's conclusions of 15 February and 7 March 2011 and further to the Commission's Annual Growth Survey, while also referring to the synthesis report of 16 March 2011 by the Hungarian presidency of the Council of the European Union.
The conclusions of the Ecofin Council (Economic and Financial Affairs) 15 February 2011 on the European Semester stated that the Stability and Convergence Programmes and National Reform Programmes for the period 2011/2012 were to be submitted by the EU member states preferably by mid-April or end April at the latest (paragraph 1).
During our pre-deadline peek on 22 April 2011 we found both programmes, but mainly in the national languages, from four countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland) plus the Stability programme of Slovenia posted on the web pages of DG Economic and Financial Affairs (Ecfin) of the European Commission.
The next day we looked for updates on the website of the Europe 2020 strategy, but found none.
However, by searching for documents from the EU member states, we unearthed and provided links to the posted language versions of the first Stability Programmes, Convergence Programmes or National Reform Programmes stashed away on the website (Germany, Bulgaria, Belgium and Hungary).
We also provided direct links to the different language versions of the programmes posted on the Ecfin web page.
In part, different sets had been posted on the two Commission websites. At the time, even after combining the EU2020 and Ecfin websites, we still had no programmes from 21 out of 27 EU member states, and only one programme each from two of the six countries posted on the websites of the European Commission. Only Hungary and Finland offered both programmes in English.
Submission deadline
We have passed the 30 April 2011 deadline and we have entered what the Elisabethan writer Thomas Dekker called ”The Merry Month of May”.
The final version of the Stability Programme of each eurozone country or the Convergence Programme from each EU member progressing towards euro adoption, plus the National Reform Programme for every member, is its main contribution towards fulfilling its obligations according to the Stability and Growth Pact, the European Semester and the growth-enhancing reforms in line with the EU2020 strategy.
The drafts were submitted last autumn, but have been under wraps. It is high time for the European public to be able to access the final programmes, the new language versions (especially English) and possible related improvements and updates on the EU2020 and Ecfin websites.
Europe 2020 improvements and updates
The latest updates on the EU2020 website are press releases from the Commission.
If we search for Latest documents, the last addition is from 25 March 2011, namely a link to the conclusions of the [European] Council, which include the agreed text on the Euro Plus Pact.
In other words, the Commission has not improved its presentation since our latest visit.
In my humble opinion, on a pan-EU website such as Europe 2020, all the EU institutions and the member states should be treated on an equal basis.
Forewarned, or inspired enough to search for Member states' documents, you find six NRPs added to the ones we found on our previous visit: from Poland (in Polish), Lithuania (in English), Luxembourg (in French), the Czech Republic (in Czech), Ireland (in English) and the United Kingdom (in English).
Eight National Reform Programmes out of 27 EU member states, but only four programmes in English.
Ecfin improvements and updates
Through the Ecfin web page 'Stability and Convergence programmes (or updates) and National Reform Programmes 2011 – programmes received to date' we find thirteen Stability or Convergence programmes and nine NRPs, but most English versions are not yet available.
The DG Ecfin offers a dedicated web page and the available programmes can be seen at a glance. In addition to the submitted programmes, the page contains space for the later stages: Staff Working Paper, Commission recommendation and Council recommendation.
Clearly, someone has done some thinking. Perhaps the people responsible for the Europe 2020 strategy and website could pay a visit.
The missing Swedish version of the NRP from Finland I remarked about has not been added in the meantime.
***
Hopefully, we are going to see improvements within the next few days, by the EU member states as well as the Commission, because the deadline for proposed recommendations is approaching (late May, early June).
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Infopolitics.eu is a public service dedicated to news and opinion concerning netizens' rights and freedoms. It is a joint project by the Greens-EFA in the European Parliament and Piratpartiet.
The conclusions of the Ecofin Council (Economic and Financial Affairs) 15 February 2011 on the European Semester stated that the Stability and Convergence Programmes and National Reform Programmes for the period 2011/2012 were to be submitted by the EU member states preferably by mid-April or end April at the latest (paragraph 1).
During our pre-deadline peek on 22 April 2011 we found both programmes, but mainly in the national languages, from four countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland) plus the Stability programme of Slovenia posted on the web pages of DG Economic and Financial Affairs (Ecfin) of the European Commission.
The next day we looked for updates on the website of the Europe 2020 strategy, but found none.
However, by searching for documents from the EU member states, we unearthed and provided links to the posted language versions of the first Stability Programmes, Convergence Programmes or National Reform Programmes stashed away on the website (Germany, Bulgaria, Belgium and Hungary).
We also provided direct links to the different language versions of the programmes posted on the Ecfin web page.
In part, different sets had been posted on the two Commission websites. At the time, even after combining the EU2020 and Ecfin websites, we still had no programmes from 21 out of 27 EU member states, and only one programme each from two of the six countries posted on the websites of the European Commission. Only Hungary and Finland offered both programmes in English.
Submission deadline
We have passed the 30 April 2011 deadline and we have entered what the Elisabethan writer Thomas Dekker called ”The Merry Month of May”.
The final version of the Stability Programme of each eurozone country or the Convergence Programme from each EU member progressing towards euro adoption, plus the National Reform Programme for every member, is its main contribution towards fulfilling its obligations according to the Stability and Growth Pact, the European Semester and the growth-enhancing reforms in line with the EU2020 strategy.
The drafts were submitted last autumn, but have been under wraps. It is high time for the European public to be able to access the final programmes, the new language versions (especially English) and possible related improvements and updates on the EU2020 and Ecfin websites.
Europe 2020 improvements and updates
The latest updates on the EU2020 website are press releases from the Commission.
If we search for Latest documents, the last addition is from 25 March 2011, namely a link to the conclusions of the [European] Council, which include the agreed text on the Euro Plus Pact.
In other words, the Commission has not improved its presentation since our latest visit.
In my humble opinion, on a pan-EU website such as Europe 2020, all the EU institutions and the member states should be treated on an equal basis.
Forewarned, or inspired enough to search for Member states' documents, you find six NRPs added to the ones we found on our previous visit: from Poland (in Polish), Lithuania (in English), Luxembourg (in French), the Czech Republic (in Czech), Ireland (in English) and the United Kingdom (in English).
Eight National Reform Programmes out of 27 EU member states, but only four programmes in English.
Ecfin improvements and updates
Through the Ecfin web page 'Stability and Convergence programmes (or updates) and National Reform Programmes 2011 – programmes received to date' we find thirteen Stability or Convergence programmes and nine NRPs, but most English versions are not yet available.
The DG Ecfin offers a dedicated web page and the available programmes can be seen at a glance. In addition to the submitted programmes, the page contains space for the later stages: Staff Working Paper, Commission recommendation and Council recommendation.
Clearly, someone has done some thinking. Perhaps the people responsible for the Europe 2020 strategy and website could pay a visit.
The missing Swedish version of the NRP from Finland I remarked about has not been added in the meantime.
***
Hopefully, we are going to see improvements within the next few days, by the EU member states as well as the Commission, because the deadline for proposed recommendations is approaching (late May, early June).
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Infopolitics.eu is a public service dedicated to news and opinion concerning netizens' rights and freedoms. It is a joint project by the Greens-EFA in the European Parliament and Piratpartiet.
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
Domestic legislation as an embarrassment for the EU (Hungarian media law)
Politically, already serious discussion about the commencement of proceedings is an embarrassment for a wayward government, despite the slender risk of condemnation, I said in my comment regarding the founding values of the European Union in Article 2 TEU and the possible sanctions for serious breaches foreseen in Article 7 TEU: Are EU founding values effective? (Hungarian media law)(11 January 2011).
Governments in the European Union (and beyond) want to be seen as respectable, even when their actions are not. The Hungarian Fidesz government of Viktor Orban moved from angry denial to more conciliatory language in order to defuse the problem, but the embarrassment must be felt by their political friends, such as Wilfried Martens, the president of the European People's Party, who endorsed the Hungarian media law, and EPP group leader Joseph Daul, who belittled and procrastinated instead of taking a principled stand for the rights of EU citizens. .
I have no special desire to see the EPP leadership with egg on its face, but the freedoms and rights of EU citizens are more important to me than misplaced consideration for blatant political misjudgments.
In summary, even when national political leaders think that they can act with impunity domestically, they can cause serious political damage to their country and their ”friends” at the European level.
International repercussions
The potential damage is not limited to intra-European affairs. Internationally the European Union portrays itself as the champion of the universal values of human rights. The foreign, security, defence and trade policy (external action) of the European Union is not based on interests alone, but on acting in accordance with and promoting the founding values of the EU.
This is (or should be) more than wishful thinking, since Title V of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), General provisions on the Union's external action and specific provisions on the foreign and security policy, opens by stating the value based character of all EU action on the world stage, in Article 21(1) TEU:
Evidently, if the European Union, even by individual member states, slips at home, it loses credibility abroad. In other words, a domestic embarrassment becomes a global shame.
Dictators and authoritarian rulers are quick enough to praise their rule(s), if a ”fifth column” inside the EU passes the ammunition.
On the website of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) and in the Social Europe Journal, Susi Dennison made the point about double standards and welcomed a debate at European level (7 January 2011):
Member states and Europarties
In the eyes of EU citizens and the wider world, the acts of national governments can seriously undermine the purposes and credibility of the European Union. The member states who ”own” the union and the Europarties who are supposed to contribute to forming European political awareness and to express the will of the citizens of the union have special responsibilities, including robust peer pressure on bad apples.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Thoughtful analysis, reasoned arguments, European perspectives … already as an undergraduate Conor Slowey aka Eurocentric wrote one of star blogs of the Euroblogosphere, The European Citizen. Now a graduate student in Leiden, he is a generous contributor on Facebook and on Twitter as @EuropeanCitizen. Highly recommended.
Governments in the European Union (and beyond) want to be seen as respectable, even when their actions are not. The Hungarian Fidesz government of Viktor Orban moved from angry denial to more conciliatory language in order to defuse the problem, but the embarrassment must be felt by their political friends, such as Wilfried Martens, the president of the European People's Party, who endorsed the Hungarian media law, and EPP group leader Joseph Daul, who belittled and procrastinated instead of taking a principled stand for the rights of EU citizens. .
I have no special desire to see the EPP leadership with egg on its face, but the freedoms and rights of EU citizens are more important to me than misplaced consideration for blatant political misjudgments.
In summary, even when national political leaders think that they can act with impunity domestically, they can cause serious political damage to their country and their ”friends” at the European level.
International repercussions
The potential damage is not limited to intra-European affairs. Internationally the European Union portrays itself as the champion of the universal values of human rights. The foreign, security, defence and trade policy (external action) of the European Union is not based on interests alone, but on acting in accordance with and promoting the founding values of the EU.
This is (or should be) more than wishful thinking, since Title V of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), General provisions on the Union's external action and specific provisions on the foreign and security policy, opens by stating the value based character of all EU action on the world stage, in Article 21(1) TEU:
GENERAL PROVISIONS ON THE UNION’S EXTERNAL ACTION
Article 21 TEU
1. The Union’s action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles which have inspired its own creation, development and enlargement, and which it seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.
The Union shall seek to develop relations and build partnerships with third countries, and international, regional or global organisations which share the principles referred to in the first subparagraph. It shall promote multilateral solutions to common problems, in particular in the framework of the United Nations.
Evidently, if the European Union, even by individual member states, slips at home, it loses credibility abroad. In other words, a domestic embarrassment becomes a global shame.
Dictators and authoritarian rulers are quick enough to praise their rule(s), if a ”fifth column” inside the EU passes the ammunition.
On the website of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) and in the Social Europe Journal, Susi Dennison made the point about double standards and welcomed a debate at European level (7 January 2011):
... it has to be a positive development that a political conversation has finally started about these matters at a European level. A Union that has in its founding treaties respect for democracy, rule of law and human rights cannot credibly turn a blind eye to potential breaches of these principles by constituent states.
Member states and Europarties
In the eyes of EU citizens and the wider world, the acts of national governments can seriously undermine the purposes and credibility of the European Union. The member states who ”own” the union and the Europarties who are supposed to contribute to forming European political awareness and to express the will of the citizens of the union have special responsibilities, including robust peer pressure on bad apples.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Thoughtful analysis, reasoned arguments, European perspectives … already as an undergraduate Conor Slowey aka Eurocentric wrote one of star blogs of the Euroblogosphere, The European Citizen. Now a graduate student in Leiden, he is a generous contributor on Facebook and on Twitter as @EuropeanCitizen. Highly recommended.
Friday, 24 September 2010
EU future: Member states boon or bane?
The previous blog post covered the opening shots in the renewed, mainly inter-institutional debate about a more parliamentary or an intergovernmental European Union.
Even if the protagonists seem to address each other, the future solutions are far from arcane irrelevancies. They will determine our security and prosperity, the fate of 501 million Europeans in a globalising world.
We have reason to listen to what some protagonists had to say in the European Parliament Wednesday: Herman Van Rompuy, Martin Schulz and Rebecca Harms.
How should we interpret the silence of the European People’s Party (EPP)?
Can a look outside this one EP debate shed more light on Guy Verhofstadt and Daniel Cohn Bendit, and what does the commentator Stanley Crossick add?
Herman Van Rompuy
Two days after his speech in Paris, on 22 September 2010 the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, reported on the 16 September European Council meeting to the European Parliament. He presented his efforts to get the national governments to cooperate more effectively.
Van Rompuy remarked that the heads of state or government want more ownership by the European Council (themselves) in EU foreign policy.
With regard to economic governance, all heads of state or government want to continue the work and to keep the momentum. Van Rompuy will submit a draft of the global report to the Task Force consisting of the ministers of finance on September 27, with the aim to reach an understanding in the middle of October, so that the European Council can conclude in its meeting of the 28th and 29th October.
Later Van Rompuy returned to the discussion about the “Community method” versus “intergovernmental” coordination:
Stanley Crossick
Van Rompuy rallied at least one enthusiastic supporter.
According to Stanley Crossick, on Stanley’s blog yesterday, there is no longer any space for an ideological confrontation between the Community method and intergovernmentalism. ‘Our’ approach should be pragmatic and there should be a mixture of the two approaches, depending on the circumstances. Herman Van Rompuy rightly seeks to bring cohesion within the European Council and between the EU institutions.
Crossick also supported Van Rompuy’s idea of downgrading the European Council summits, with EU leaders meeting more regularly in dialogue as an excellent one.
EPP group dilemma
I failed to find anything immediately relevant in group leader Joseph Daul’s or other press releases on the news page of the largest political group in the European Parliament: the 265 member EPP group.
As the centre-right European People’s Party likes to point out in its press releases:
Actually, they forgot to mention the president of the European Council (Herman Van Rompuy).
Mentioning the Council is more complicated: The prime minister of the caretaker government in Belgium, the current EU Council presidency, is the Christian Democratic and Flemish (EPP) Yves Leterme, although it is a coalition government, so representatives of different parties could be expected to chair various Council ‘configurations’.
In other words, it is somewhat uncomfortable for the EPP to come out strongly in public for or against one of the EU institutions, or most of member states’ governments for that matter.
Socialists and Democrats
I failed to find anything in the newsroom of the second largest political group: the Socialists and Democrats.
However, the S&D group leader Martin Schulz has few of the inhibitions of his EPP counterpart. The summary of the debate published by the EP press service tells us:
Other political groups
The EP press summary was written mostly from the viewpoint of economic governance and the Roma issue, so the extracts concerning Guy Verhofstadt (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats ALDE), Rebecca Harms (Greens/EFA), Timothy Kirkhope (European Conservatives and Reformists ECR), Patrick Le Hyaric(leftist GUE/NGL) and Niki Tzavela (nationalist Europe of Freedom and Democracy EFD) do not enlighten us much in this respect.
I found no press release with more details from ALDE, but co-chair Rebecca Harms for the Green group clearly warned against the growing influence of member states in ‘very European’ issues, while it is the task of the Commission to defend the general interest of Europeans.
We do know that the ALDE group leader Guy Verhofstadt and co-chair Daniel Cohn Bendit (Greens) are among the members of the Spinelli Group for a federal Europe. The Spinelli Group network consists of the signatories of the manifesto, 1052 by now.
Are the member states indispensable for or the bane of an ever closer union?
We are still far from a definitive answer.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. In two days, Sunday 26 September 2010, people all over Europe celebrate the European Day of Languages, organised by the Council of Europe and the European Union as an inspiration to language learning.
For bloggers in Europe there is a special event, which takes place on the Internet: the Day of Multilingual Blogging. The blog post behind the link offers suggestions on how to participate, as well as information about the event, the Facebook page and the Twitter hashtag #babel. For a richer life, please join!
Even if the protagonists seem to address each other, the future solutions are far from arcane irrelevancies. They will determine our security and prosperity, the fate of 501 million Europeans in a globalising world.
We have reason to listen to what some protagonists had to say in the European Parliament Wednesday: Herman Van Rompuy, Martin Schulz and Rebecca Harms.
How should we interpret the silence of the European People’s Party (EPP)?
Can a look outside this one EP debate shed more light on Guy Verhofstadt and Daniel Cohn Bendit, and what does the commentator Stanley Crossick add?
Herman Van Rompuy
Two days after his speech in Paris, on 22 September 2010 the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, reported on the 16 September European Council meeting to the European Parliament. He presented his efforts to get the national governments to cooperate more effectively.
Van Rompuy remarked that the heads of state or government want more ownership by the European Council (themselves) in EU foreign policy.
With regard to economic governance, all heads of state or government want to continue the work and to keep the momentum. Van Rompuy will submit a draft of the global report to the Task Force consisting of the ministers of finance on September 27, with the aim to reach an understanding in the middle of October, so that the European Council can conclude in its meeting of the 28th and 29th October.
Later Van Rompuy returned to the discussion about the “Community method” versus “intergovernmental” coordination:
Dear colleagues, Mr President, meetings of the European Council should not be considered as "summits" but as regular -- even routine -- meetings of a Union institution.
Indeed, allow me to emphasise -- at this time of renewed debate in your Parliament about the "Community method" -- that the European Council is an institution of our Union and not a summit in the manner of the G8 or the G20. It is embedded in the institutional framework of the Union, but it brings to the Union inputs from the highest political level in the member states, and it gives to the member states a sense of ownership and participation in the Union and reinforces their commitment to its success.
Stanley Crossick
Van Rompuy rallied at least one enthusiastic supporter.
According to Stanley Crossick, on Stanley’s blog yesterday, there is no longer any space for an ideological confrontation between the Community method and intergovernmentalism. ‘Our’ approach should be pragmatic and there should be a mixture of the two approaches, depending on the circumstances. Herman Van Rompuy rightly seeks to bring cohesion within the European Council and between the EU institutions.
Crossick also supported Van Rompuy’s idea of downgrading the European Council summits, with EU leaders meeting more regularly in dialogue as an excellent one.
EPP group dilemma
I failed to find anything immediately relevant in group leader Joseph Daul’s or other press releases on the news page of the largest political group in the European Parliament: the 265 member EPP group.
As the centre-right European People’s Party likes to point out in its press releases:
The EPP is the largest and most influential European-level political party of the centre-right, which currently includes 73 member-parties from 39 countries, the Presidents of the Commission, Council, and Parliament, 15 EU and 6 non-EU heads of state and government, 13 members of the European Commission and the largest Group in the European Parliament.
Actually, they forgot to mention the president of the European Council (Herman Van Rompuy).
Mentioning the Council is more complicated: The prime minister of the caretaker government in Belgium, the current EU Council presidency, is the Christian Democratic and Flemish (EPP) Yves Leterme, although it is a coalition government, so representatives of different parties could be expected to chair various Council ‘configurations’.
In other words, it is somewhat uncomfortable for the EPP to come out strongly in public for or against one of the EU institutions, or most of member states’ governments for that matter.
Socialists and Democrats
I failed to find anything in the newsroom of the second largest political group: the Socialists and Democrats.
However, the S&D group leader Martin Schulz has few of the inhibitions of his EPP counterpart. The summary of the debate published by the EP press service tells us:
Socialist Martin Schulz said that…
…the Parliament is calling for the community method in terms of resolving problems. He said his group wanted it to be done at EU level in a community way and that the task of EP is to get the community method through.
Other political groups
The EP press summary was written mostly from the viewpoint of economic governance and the Roma issue, so the extracts concerning Guy Verhofstadt (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats ALDE), Rebecca Harms (Greens/EFA), Timothy Kirkhope (European Conservatives and Reformists ECR), Patrick Le Hyaric(leftist GUE/NGL) and Niki Tzavela (nationalist Europe of Freedom and Democracy EFD) do not enlighten us much in this respect.
I found no press release with more details from ALDE, but co-chair Rebecca Harms for the Green group clearly warned against the growing influence of member states in ‘very European’ issues, while it is the task of the Commission to defend the general interest of Europeans.
We do know that the ALDE group leader Guy Verhofstadt and co-chair Daniel Cohn Bendit (Greens) are among the members of the Spinelli Group for a federal Europe. The Spinelli Group network consists of the signatories of the manifesto, 1052 by now.
Are the member states indispensable for or the bane of an ever closer union?
We are still far from a definitive answer.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. In two days, Sunday 26 September 2010, people all over Europe celebrate the European Day of Languages, organised by the Council of Europe and the European Union as an inspiration to language learning.
For bloggers in Europe there is a special event, which takes place on the Internet: the Day of Multilingual Blogging. The blog post behind the link offers suggestions on how to participate, as well as information about the event, the Facebook page and the Twitter hashtag #babel. For a richer life, please join!
Thursday, 17 June 2010
Background note Europe 2020 strategy: Implementation matters (European Council 17 June 2010)
Exaggerating only slightly: One more decade like the last one and Europe can apply to UNESCO for world heritage status.
Today the European Council confirms the five headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy for jobs and growth. The numerical indicators for the two remaining targets – education levels and social inclusion – will be agreed.
According to the Council’s background note, after finalising the Europe 2020 strategy, the European Council is due to start concentrating on implementation.
Credibility on the line
After the wasted ten years of the Lisbon strategy, the Europe 2020 strategy puts the credibility of the member states and the EU institutions on the line.
Putting (lofty) ambitions into effect is the crux of the matter.
Implementation makes or breaks the Europe 2020 strategy: the promising new jobs and the sweet sound of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
Is there anything to convince us that failure will miraculously be followed by success?
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The Commission proposal is the first chain in the link. This is what we turn to in our next blog post.
Ralf Grahn
Today the European Council confirms the five headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy for jobs and growth. The numerical indicators for the two remaining targets – education levels and social inclusion – will be agreed.
According to the Council’s background note, after finalising the Europe 2020 strategy, the European Council is due to start concentrating on implementation.
Credibility on the line
After the wasted ten years of the Lisbon strategy, the Europe 2020 strategy puts the credibility of the member states and the EU institutions on the line.
Putting (lofty) ambitions into effect is the crux of the matter.
Implementation makes or breaks the Europe 2020 strategy: the promising new jobs and the sweet sound of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
Is there anything to convince us that failure will miraculously be followed by success?
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The Commission proposal is the first chain in the link. This is what we turn to in our next blog post.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 16 November 2009
European Union symbols
The sixteen EU member states Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic have something in common. What could it be?
EU symbols chucked
One of the victims of Lisbon Treaty peeling was Article I-8 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe on the symbols of the European Union:
Article I-8
The symbols of the Union
The flag of the Union shall be a circle of twelve golden stars on a blue background.
The anthem of the Union shall be based on the ‘Ode to Joy’ from the Ninth Symphony by Ludwig van Beethoven.
The motto of the Union shall be: ‘United in diversity’.
The currency of the Union shall be the euro.
Europe day shall be celebrated on 9 May throughout the Union.
***
Declaration 52
When the symbols of the European Union were left outside the Lisbon Treaty, sixteen EU member states made a joint declaration (52), where they saw the symbols as expressions of a sense of community of the people of the European Union and declared their allegiance to it:
52. Declaration by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic on the symbols of the European Union
Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic declare that the flag with a circle of twelve golden stars on a blue background, the anthem based on the ‘Ode to Joy’ from the Ninth Symphony by Ludwig van Beethoven, the motto ‘United in diversity’, the euro as the currency of the European Union and Europe Day on 9 May will for them continue as symbols to express the sense of community of the people in the European Union and their allegiance to it.
***
Symbols and deeds?
If sixteen EU member states have declared faith in a sense of community, we can ask about the eleven who have not.
What is the view of the outsiders: the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, France, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom with regard to the European project?
Is there a link between endorsing the EU symbols and contributing to European integration in a spirit of solidarity?
Are some member states better Europeans than others?
Are symbols important?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read the Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, and discuss our common European future.
EU symbols chucked
One of the victims of Lisbon Treaty peeling was Article I-8 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe on the symbols of the European Union:
Article I-8
The symbols of the Union
The flag of the Union shall be a circle of twelve golden stars on a blue background.
The anthem of the Union shall be based on the ‘Ode to Joy’ from the Ninth Symphony by Ludwig van Beethoven.
The motto of the Union shall be: ‘United in diversity’.
The currency of the Union shall be the euro.
Europe day shall be celebrated on 9 May throughout the Union.
***
Declaration 52
When the symbols of the European Union were left outside the Lisbon Treaty, sixteen EU member states made a joint declaration (52), where they saw the symbols as expressions of a sense of community of the people of the European Union and declared their allegiance to it:
52. Declaration by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic on the symbols of the European Union
Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic declare that the flag with a circle of twelve golden stars on a blue background, the anthem based on the ‘Ode to Joy’ from the Ninth Symphony by Ludwig van Beethoven, the motto ‘United in diversity’, the euro as the currency of the European Union and Europe Day on 9 May will for them continue as symbols to express the sense of community of the people in the European Union and their allegiance to it.
***
Symbols and deeds?
If sixteen EU member states have declared faith in a sense of community, we can ask about the eleven who have not.
What is the view of the outsiders: the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, France, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom with regard to the European project?
Is there a link between endorsing the EU symbols and contributing to European integration in a spirit of solidarity?
Are some member states better Europeans than others?
Are symbols important?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read the Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, and discuss our common European future.
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
European Union: A short and readable basic law?
Is a short and readable basic law for the European Union pure fantasy, or could it become a reality?
***
Piecemeal amendments and minute compromises between member states under veto threat have resulted in detailed treaties. They are unsystematic, hard to read and contain redundant material.
The draft Constitution by the European Convention and the Constitutional Treaty by the intergovernmental conference made an attempt at reform of the institutions, but they produced updated and more systematic texts as well.
The Treaty of Lisbon meant a backward step, but many of the substantial and systematic improvements were preserved. In the end, the Lisbon Treaty is more readable than the existing treaties.
***
Structure
The Lisbon Treaty is structured in a more logical way than the current treaties. Basic provisions are situated in the amended Treaty on European Union (TEU), while more technical details and policy areas are found in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which replaces the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC).
Clarity is added by abolishing the distinction between the European Union and the European Community.
But the latest intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) baulked at placing the whole of external action into the TFEU. Not only did it preserve the intergovernmental character of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and the common security and defence policy (CSDP); the provisions remained in the TEU, together with general provisions on the European Union’s external action.
The substantial limitations mean that, despite incremental improvements, the European Union will remain unable to speak with one voice in the world.
But here we are more interested in the supposition that the European Union could have a short and readable basic law.
***
Technically possible
Leaving the Table of Contents outside, and shifting the external action including the CFSP and the CSDP to a second order document would leave us with us with a basic document of less than twenty pages.
Even as it is, the TEU text proper is only about thirty pages long.
As a literary document the TEU is nowhere near the level of the US Constitutions, but tolerably readable if ridded from the references to the TFEU and Protocols.
If the US Constitution could be re-written today, including the amendments, it would get rid of redundant provisions, and it would be even more elegant the existing one.
***
Political difficulties
The main problem is not technical, but political. The European Union is based on international treaties between member states, not a union by the people.
About 200 pages of treaty text and about 160 pages of protocols and declarations follow from the member states’ desire to control events in minute detail.
This is the old covenant, European Union 1.0 based on diplomats and technocrats.
The Lisbon Treaty is version EU 1.1 with added powers for the European Parliament and other reforms.
To demand, as Libertas does, a strong TREATY, but short and readable, is not realistic. Where should the detailed provisions be placed? Would the member states suddenly let go their grip?
As long as the basic documents are international treaties between member states, I see no inherent reason to accept the calls for referendums. (Ireland, due to a domestic constitutional interpretation, happens to be the odd man out.)
***
Solution
If the power is vested in the people, the European Union could have a strong, short and readable basic document.
It would not be a treaty, but a basic law or constitution. This would be the new covenant, EU 2.0.
The shift from the old covenant to the new – from EU 1.0 (or 1.1) to EU 2.0 – would leave the detailed legislation to be approved by the European Parliament and the policies to be pursued by an accountable government.
The federation’s Constitution could be short and clear for all to understand.
The move from EU 1.0 (or 1.x) to EU 2.0 would be groundbreaking. Therefore, as a union of people, the new European Union would need the consent of the governed.
In my view, the willing electorates would form the new union, and the states with negative referendum results would stay outside the new union.
But afterwards the Constitution could be amended by the Parliament, probably by a qualified majority. Representative democracy is the norm; referendums the exception.
Ralf Grahn
***
Piecemeal amendments and minute compromises between member states under veto threat have resulted in detailed treaties. They are unsystematic, hard to read and contain redundant material.
The draft Constitution by the European Convention and the Constitutional Treaty by the intergovernmental conference made an attempt at reform of the institutions, but they produced updated and more systematic texts as well.
The Treaty of Lisbon meant a backward step, but many of the substantial and systematic improvements were preserved. In the end, the Lisbon Treaty is more readable than the existing treaties.
***
Structure
The Lisbon Treaty is structured in a more logical way than the current treaties. Basic provisions are situated in the amended Treaty on European Union (TEU), while more technical details and policy areas are found in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which replaces the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC).
Clarity is added by abolishing the distinction between the European Union and the European Community.
But the latest intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) baulked at placing the whole of external action into the TFEU. Not only did it preserve the intergovernmental character of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and the common security and defence policy (CSDP); the provisions remained in the TEU, together with general provisions on the European Union’s external action.
The substantial limitations mean that, despite incremental improvements, the European Union will remain unable to speak with one voice in the world.
But here we are more interested in the supposition that the European Union could have a short and readable basic law.
***
Technically possible
Leaving the Table of Contents outside, and shifting the external action including the CFSP and the CSDP to a second order document would leave us with us with a basic document of less than twenty pages.
Even as it is, the TEU text proper is only about thirty pages long.
As a literary document the TEU is nowhere near the level of the US Constitutions, but tolerably readable if ridded from the references to the TFEU and Protocols.
If the US Constitution could be re-written today, including the amendments, it would get rid of redundant provisions, and it would be even more elegant the existing one.
***
Political difficulties
The main problem is not technical, but political. The European Union is based on international treaties between member states, not a union by the people.
About 200 pages of treaty text and about 160 pages of protocols and declarations follow from the member states’ desire to control events in minute detail.
This is the old covenant, European Union 1.0 based on diplomats and technocrats.
The Lisbon Treaty is version EU 1.1 with added powers for the European Parliament and other reforms.
To demand, as Libertas does, a strong TREATY, but short and readable, is not realistic. Where should the detailed provisions be placed? Would the member states suddenly let go their grip?
As long as the basic documents are international treaties between member states, I see no inherent reason to accept the calls for referendums. (Ireland, due to a domestic constitutional interpretation, happens to be the odd man out.)
***
Solution
If the power is vested in the people, the European Union could have a strong, short and readable basic document.
It would not be a treaty, but a basic law or constitution. This would be the new covenant, EU 2.0.
The shift from the old covenant to the new – from EU 1.0 (or 1.1) to EU 2.0 – would leave the detailed legislation to be approved by the European Parliament and the policies to be pursued by an accountable government.
The federation’s Constitution could be short and clear for all to understand.
The move from EU 1.0 (or 1.x) to EU 2.0 would be groundbreaking. Therefore, as a union of people, the new European Union would need the consent of the governed.
In my view, the willing electorates would form the new union, and the states with negative referendum results would stay outside the new union.
But afterwards the Constitution could be amended by the Parliament, probably by a qualified majority. Representative democracy is the norm; referendums the exception.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 13 April 2009
EU: Special legislative procedure (IV)
European politics on the never-never plan.
The dynamics – if you can call them that – of European integration are such that 26 member states may see the need for common legislation, but a treaty has to be concluded by every member.
Enter Political Fudge.
One stubborn member state holds out, while the rest manage to consecrate the principle of future legislation, subject to unanimity and a special legislative procedure.
The European Union can proudly proclaim the potential to act, but nothing comes of it as long as even one member state invokes its veto. The directly elected European Parliament is marginalised.
We continue our Odyssey of the Council of the European Union and the special legislative procedure, as laid down in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2008 C 115.
***
Indirect taxes
Harmonisation of VAT and other indirect taxes requires unanimity and a special legislative procedure.
Article 113 TFEU
(ex Article 93 TEC)
The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.
***
Harmonisation of taxes, free movement and workers’ rights
Without qualified majority decisions there would be no working internal market, just a nice principle in the Treaty of Rome (EEC).
The ordinary legislative procedure applies to the approximation (harmonisation) of legislation aimed at the establishment and functioning of the internal market, with the exception of fiscal provisions, the free movement of persons and the rights and interests of employed persons (Article 114).
Unanimity and a special legislative procedure apply to the exceptions.
Article 115 TFEU
(ex Article 94 TEC)
Without prejudice to Article 114, the Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, issue directives for the approximation of such laws, regulations or administrative provisions of the Member States as directly affect the establishment or functioning of the internal market.
***
European intellectual property rights
The Treaty of Lisbon would allow the creation of European intellectual property rights according to the ordinary legislative procedure, but the language arrangements have proven to be as vexed as ever (Article 118).
Article 118 TFEU, second subparagraph
The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall by means of regulations establish language arrangements for the European intellectual property rights. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
***
The European Union is as strong as its weakest link.
Ralf Grahn
The dynamics – if you can call them that – of European integration are such that 26 member states may see the need for common legislation, but a treaty has to be concluded by every member.
Enter Political Fudge.
One stubborn member state holds out, while the rest manage to consecrate the principle of future legislation, subject to unanimity and a special legislative procedure.
The European Union can proudly proclaim the potential to act, but nothing comes of it as long as even one member state invokes its veto. The directly elected European Parliament is marginalised.
We continue our Odyssey of the Council of the European Union and the special legislative procedure, as laid down in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2008 C 115.
***
Indirect taxes
Harmonisation of VAT and other indirect taxes requires unanimity and a special legislative procedure.
Article 113 TFEU
(ex Article 93 TEC)
The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.
***
Harmonisation of taxes, free movement and workers’ rights
Without qualified majority decisions there would be no working internal market, just a nice principle in the Treaty of Rome (EEC).
The ordinary legislative procedure applies to the approximation (harmonisation) of legislation aimed at the establishment and functioning of the internal market, with the exception of fiscal provisions, the free movement of persons and the rights and interests of employed persons (Article 114).
Unanimity and a special legislative procedure apply to the exceptions.
Article 115 TFEU
(ex Article 94 TEC)
Without prejudice to Article 114, the Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, issue directives for the approximation of such laws, regulations or administrative provisions of the Member States as directly affect the establishment or functioning of the internal market.
***
European intellectual property rights
The Treaty of Lisbon would allow the creation of European intellectual property rights according to the ordinary legislative procedure, but the language arrangements have proven to be as vexed as ever (Article 118).
Article 118 TFEU, second subparagraph
The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall by means of regulations establish language arrangements for the European intellectual property rights. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
***
The European Union is as strong as its weakest link.
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
EU: Broad economic policy guidelines I
EU economic policy coordination tries to bridge the gap between the single currency, the euro, and national economic policies.
The Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) treats the economic policies of the member states as a common concern. The Council coordinates the economic policies by adopting broad economic policy guidelines (BEPG). The Commission reports on and the Council monitors the economic developments.
If the economic policies of an EU member state are inconsistent with the guidelines or risk the economic and monetary union (EMU), the Council can adopt recommendations, which may be made public.
***
Article 99 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) is found in the latest consolidated version of the current treaties, published in the Official Journal of the European Union 29.12.2006 C 321 E/82-83:
Part Three – Community policies
Title VII – Economic and monetary policy
Chapter 1 – Economic policy
Article 99
1. Member States shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and shall coordinate them within the Council, in accordance with the provisions of Article 98.
2. The Council shall, acting by a qualified majority on a recommendation from the Commission, formulate a draft for the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Community, and shall report its findings to the European Council.
The European Council shall, acting on the basis of the report from the Council, discuss a conclusion on the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Community.
On the basis of this conclusion, the Council shall, acting by a qualified majority, adopt a recommendation setting out these broad guidelines. The Council shall inform the European Parliament of its recommendation.
3. In order to ensure closer coordination of economic policies and sustained convergence of the economic performances of the Member States, the Council shall, on the basis of reports submitted by the Commission, monitor economic developments in each of the Member States and in the Community as well as the consistency of economic policies with the broad guidelines referred to in paragraph 2, and regularly carry out an overall assessment.
For the purpose of this multilateral surveillance, Member States shall forward information to the Commission about important measures taken by them in the field of their economic policy and such other information as they deem necessary.
4. Where it is established, under the procedure referred to in paragraph 3, that the economic policies of a Member State are not consistent with the broad guidelines referred to in paragraph 2 or that they risk jeopardising the proper functioning of economic and monetary union, the Council may, acting by a qualified majority on a recommendation from the Commission, make the necessary recommendations to the Member State concerned. The Council may, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, decide to make its recommendations public.
The President of the Council and the Commission shall report to the European Parliament on the results of multilateral surveillance. The President of the Council may be invited to appear before the competent committee of the European Parliament if the Council has made its recommendations public.
5. The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 252, may adopt detailed rules for the multilateral surveillance procedure referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article.
***
We notice that the Council acts on a recommendation by the Commission, when the economic policies of a member state are not consistent with the broad guidelines.
Next, we look at the corresponding proposal of the European Convention.
Ralf Grahn
The Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) treats the economic policies of the member states as a common concern. The Council coordinates the economic policies by adopting broad economic policy guidelines (BEPG). The Commission reports on and the Council monitors the economic developments.
If the economic policies of an EU member state are inconsistent with the guidelines or risk the economic and monetary union (EMU), the Council can adopt recommendations, which may be made public.
***
Article 99 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) is found in the latest consolidated version of the current treaties, published in the Official Journal of the European Union 29.12.2006 C 321 E/82-83:
Part Three – Community policies
Title VII – Economic and monetary policy
Chapter 1 – Economic policy
Article 99
1. Member States shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and shall coordinate them within the Council, in accordance with the provisions of Article 98.
2. The Council shall, acting by a qualified majority on a recommendation from the Commission, formulate a draft for the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Community, and shall report its findings to the European Council.
The European Council shall, acting on the basis of the report from the Council, discuss a conclusion on the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Community.
On the basis of this conclusion, the Council shall, acting by a qualified majority, adopt a recommendation setting out these broad guidelines. The Council shall inform the European Parliament of its recommendation.
3. In order to ensure closer coordination of economic policies and sustained convergence of the economic performances of the Member States, the Council shall, on the basis of reports submitted by the Commission, monitor economic developments in each of the Member States and in the Community as well as the consistency of economic policies with the broad guidelines referred to in paragraph 2, and regularly carry out an overall assessment.
For the purpose of this multilateral surveillance, Member States shall forward information to the Commission about important measures taken by them in the field of their economic policy and such other information as they deem necessary.
4. Where it is established, under the procedure referred to in paragraph 3, that the economic policies of a Member State are not consistent with the broad guidelines referred to in paragraph 2 or that they risk jeopardising the proper functioning of economic and monetary union, the Council may, acting by a qualified majority on a recommendation from the Commission, make the necessary recommendations to the Member State concerned. The Council may, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, decide to make its recommendations public.
The President of the Council and the Commission shall report to the European Parliament on the results of multilateral surveillance. The President of the Council may be invited to appear before the competent committee of the European Parliament if the Council has made its recommendations public.
5. The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 252, may adopt detailed rules for the multilateral surveillance procedure referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article.
***
We notice that the Council acts on a recommendation by the Commission, when the economic policies of a member state are not consistent with the broad guidelines.
Next, we look at the corresponding proposal of the European Convention.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 30 April 2008
EU TFEU: Police and criminal justice initiatives
The Treaty of Lisbon retains a right for member states – at least a quarter of them – to take initiatives in the fields of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation.
Is the extension of the ‘Community method’ a welcome reform in the EU area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ) or justice and home affairs (JHA)? Is the residual right of initiative for member states a positive contribution or the sign of a timid approach to reform?
***
Article 76 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the last of Chapter 1 with general provisions, is presented as it stands after the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) in the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL), then renumbered and provisionally consolidated by the Council of the European Union (document 6655/08; page 98), with the location of the provision added from the table of equivalences (page 460 to 462):
Part Three ‘Policies and internal actions of the Union’
Title V TFEU ‘Area of freedom, security and justice’
Chapter 1 ‘General provisions’
Article 76 TFEU
The acts referred to in Chapters 4 and 5, together with the measures referred to in Article 74 which ensure administrative cooperation in the areas covered by these Chapters, shall be adopted:
(a) on a proposal from the Commission, or
(b) on the initiative of a quarter of the Member States.
***
In Article 2, points 62 and 64, of the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) agreed on the wording (as above) of the new Article 61i TFEU (ToL), which became Article 76 TFEU after renumbering in the consolidated version (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/58).
The referral to the measures which ensure administrative cooperation in the original Lisbon Treaty was to Article 61g TFEU (ToL), which became Article 74 TFEU in the consolidated treaty (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/209).
***
There are no directly corresponding provisions in the current Treaty on European Union (TEU) or the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC). Cf. the latest consolidated version of the current treaties, in (OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/1).
But in the existing TEU Title VI on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, Article 34(2) TEU spells out that the Council shall take measures and promote cooperation acting unanimously on the initiative of any member state of the Commission (OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/26).
***
The European Convention modified the move of intergovernmental police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (third pillar) to the unified EU structure (where the ‘Community method’ or ‘third pillar’ principles reigned) by retaining a residual right of initiative for a quarter of member states. The proposed Article III-165 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe served this purpose (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/58):
Article III-165 Draft Constitution
The acts referred to in Sections 4 and 5 of this Chapter shall be adopted:
(a) on a proposal from the Commission, or
(b) on the initiative of a quarter of the Member States.
***
The IGC 2004 took over the text proposed by the European Convention, but added the regulations which ensured administrative cooperation in the areas of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters to the scope of the provision (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/114):
Article III-264 Constitution
The acts referred to in Sections 4 and 5, together with the European regulations referred to in Article III-263 which ensure administrative cooperation in the areas covered by these Sections, shall be adopted:
(a) on a proposal from the Commission, or
(b) on the initiative of a quarter of the Member States.
***
If we disregard the technical changes, we see that the IGC 2007 adopted the text of its predecessor, the IGC 2004, in accordance with the general rule on amendments to the TEC in the IGC 2007 Mandate: ‘The innovations as agreed in the 2004 IGC will be inserted into the Treaty by way of specific modifications in the usual manner.’ (See Council document 11218/07, point 18, page 7.)
***
The main rule within the European Community (future European Union), as part of the so called institutional balance, is the Commission’s monopoly to propose legislative acts (except where the treaties provide otherwise). In addition, the Commission proposes other acts where the treaties so provide.
The most up-to-date expression of these principles, which set the European Community (European Union) apart from traditional treaty based international organisations, is Article 17(2) TEU in the Council’s consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty (document 6655/08, page 32).
***
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) discussed the right of initiative on page 123 and 124. The report presents the general background, the right of initiative for member states under Article 76 TFEU and the witnesses’ views on the problems connected with member states’ initiatives.
For the convenience of readers I quote the text here:
“The right of initiative
6.67. Under the Treaty of Lisbon the right to propose EU legislation—the right of initiative—will generally rest with the Commission, although in some circumstances Member States (and in limited cases other institutions) have the power to make a proposal for legislation.
i. Arrangements under the existing Treaties
6.68. While Title IV is subject to the “Community method” and therefore the Commission has exclusive right of initiative in respect of proposals for Community legislation, in Title VI the right of initiative is shared by the Commission and the Member States. In practice the majority of proposals emanate from the Commission, but any Member State may make a proposal for a Framework Decision and many have done so.
ii. Position post-Treaty of Lisbon
6.69. New Article 76 provides that measures in Chapters 4 and 5 of new Title V TFEU (i.e. measures relating to police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters—old Title VI TEU) shall be adopted on a proposal from the Commission or on the initiative of a quarter of the Member States. Thus some element of the Member States’ right of initiative has been retained, albeit in a more limited form.
6.70. The Law Societies welcomed the change. They considered that this would ensure a more coordinated and coherent approach to legislation, planned in line with long-term EU strategies rather than being based on topical national considerations (pp E99, E163).
6.71. Maria Fletcher regretted the retention of any right of initiative for Member States under the Treaty of Lisbon. She pointed to practical experience of Member States’ proposals, which in her view had been problematic to date: Member States tended to make proposals reflecting, to a disproportionate degree, domestic problems and proposals were often inadequately drafted. She considered that the Commission was better placed to submit proposals given that it acted in the interests of the Union and had the capacity and expertise to consult widely and conduct impact assessments (p E150). This was a view shared by FTI, which expressed regret that Member States would not be required to produce similar assessments when making use of their right of initiative (p E147).
6.72. Not all proposals in the area of FSJ, whether they emanate from Member States or the Commission, are supported by the statistical and other evidence critical for assessing the need for proposed legislation, and especially its compliance with the subsidiarity principle. The problem is greater with Member States’ initiatives: while the Commission always provides an explanatory memorandum and sometimes provides an impact assessment, Member States rarely provide either.”
The report is accessible at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/62/62.pdf
Ralf Grahn
Consolidated EU Treaties:
If you want to read or download the Council’s consolidated Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, the original Treaty of Lisbon, the current TEU and TEC, the Draft Constitution, the Constitutional Treaty, or other consolidated language versions of the Lisbon Treaty TEU and TFEU, you find the needed information and links in the blawg post ‘Consolidated Treaty of Lisbon and other EU materials’ of 21 April 2008:
http://grahnlaw.blogspot.com/2008/04/consolidated-treaty-of-lisbon-and-other.html
In addition, two ‘private’ annotated and consolidated versions including the Treaty of Lisbon amendments can be pointed out.
Peadar ó Broin, of the Institute of International and European Affairs (Dublin), has edited a consolidated and annotated version of the EU treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. The highlighted IIEA shows the differences between different stages. It is available through the web page of the European Policy Institutes Netword (EPIN):
http://www.epin.org/new/files/AnnotatedTreaties.pdf
Jens-Peter Bonde has issued a ‘Consolidated Reader-Friendly Edition’ of the TEU and the TFEU as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. There are remarks about changes are in the margin and symbols are used to show amendments. The consolidation is available at:
http://www.j.dk/exp/images/bondes/Consolidated_LISBON_TREATY_3.pdf
The Irish Referendum Commission is gathering speed in its campaign to inform the public ahead of the 12 June 2008 Lisbon Treaty referendum. At this point in time it is possible to find information about the essential treaty changes boiled down to a few pages for the busy reader:
http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie
Is the extension of the ‘Community method’ a welcome reform in the EU area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ) or justice and home affairs (JHA)? Is the residual right of initiative for member states a positive contribution or the sign of a timid approach to reform?
***
Article 76 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the last of Chapter 1 with general provisions, is presented as it stands after the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) in the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL), then renumbered and provisionally consolidated by the Council of the European Union (document 6655/08; page 98), with the location of the provision added from the table of equivalences (page 460 to 462):
Part Three ‘Policies and internal actions of the Union’
Title V TFEU ‘Area of freedom, security and justice’
Chapter 1 ‘General provisions’
Article 76 TFEU
The acts referred to in Chapters 4 and 5, together with the measures referred to in Article 74 which ensure administrative cooperation in the areas covered by these Chapters, shall be adopted:
(a) on a proposal from the Commission, or
(b) on the initiative of a quarter of the Member States.
***
In Article 2, points 62 and 64, of the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) agreed on the wording (as above) of the new Article 61i TFEU (ToL), which became Article 76 TFEU after renumbering in the consolidated version (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/58).
The referral to the measures which ensure administrative cooperation in the original Lisbon Treaty was to Article 61g TFEU (ToL), which became Article 74 TFEU in the consolidated treaty (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/209).
***
There are no directly corresponding provisions in the current Treaty on European Union (TEU) or the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC). Cf. the latest consolidated version of the current treaties, in (OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/1).
But in the existing TEU Title VI on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, Article 34(2) TEU spells out that the Council shall take measures and promote cooperation acting unanimously on the initiative of any member state of the Commission (OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/26).
***
The European Convention modified the move of intergovernmental police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (third pillar) to the unified EU structure (where the ‘Community method’ or ‘third pillar’ principles reigned) by retaining a residual right of initiative for a quarter of member states. The proposed Article III-165 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe served this purpose (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/58):
Article III-165 Draft Constitution
The acts referred to in Sections 4 and 5 of this Chapter shall be adopted:
(a) on a proposal from the Commission, or
(b) on the initiative of a quarter of the Member States.
***
The IGC 2004 took over the text proposed by the European Convention, but added the regulations which ensured administrative cooperation in the areas of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters to the scope of the provision (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/114):
Article III-264 Constitution
The acts referred to in Sections 4 and 5, together with the European regulations referred to in Article III-263 which ensure administrative cooperation in the areas covered by these Sections, shall be adopted:
(a) on a proposal from the Commission, or
(b) on the initiative of a quarter of the Member States.
***
If we disregard the technical changes, we see that the IGC 2007 adopted the text of its predecessor, the IGC 2004, in accordance with the general rule on amendments to the TEC in the IGC 2007 Mandate: ‘The innovations as agreed in the 2004 IGC will be inserted into the Treaty by way of specific modifications in the usual manner.’ (See Council document 11218/07, point 18, page 7.)
***
The main rule within the European Community (future European Union), as part of the so called institutional balance, is the Commission’s monopoly to propose legislative acts (except where the treaties provide otherwise). In addition, the Commission proposes other acts where the treaties so provide.
The most up-to-date expression of these principles, which set the European Community (European Union) apart from traditional treaty based international organisations, is Article 17(2) TEU in the Council’s consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty (document 6655/08, page 32).
***
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) discussed the right of initiative on page 123 and 124. The report presents the general background, the right of initiative for member states under Article 76 TFEU and the witnesses’ views on the problems connected with member states’ initiatives.
For the convenience of readers I quote the text here:
“The right of initiative
6.67. Under the Treaty of Lisbon the right to propose EU legislation—the right of initiative—will generally rest with the Commission, although in some circumstances Member States (and in limited cases other institutions) have the power to make a proposal for legislation.
i. Arrangements under the existing Treaties
6.68. While Title IV is subject to the “Community method” and therefore the Commission has exclusive right of initiative in respect of proposals for Community legislation, in Title VI the right of initiative is shared by the Commission and the Member States. In practice the majority of proposals emanate from the Commission, but any Member State may make a proposal for a Framework Decision and many have done so.
ii. Position post-Treaty of Lisbon
6.69. New Article 76 provides that measures in Chapters 4 and 5 of new Title V TFEU (i.e. measures relating to police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters—old Title VI TEU) shall be adopted on a proposal from the Commission or on the initiative of a quarter of the Member States. Thus some element of the Member States’ right of initiative has been retained, albeit in a more limited form.
6.70. The Law Societies welcomed the change. They considered that this would ensure a more coordinated and coherent approach to legislation, planned in line with long-term EU strategies rather than being based on topical national considerations (pp E99, E163).
6.71. Maria Fletcher regretted the retention of any right of initiative for Member States under the Treaty of Lisbon. She pointed to practical experience of Member States’ proposals, which in her view had been problematic to date: Member States tended to make proposals reflecting, to a disproportionate degree, domestic problems and proposals were often inadequately drafted. She considered that the Commission was better placed to submit proposals given that it acted in the interests of the Union and had the capacity and expertise to consult widely and conduct impact assessments (p E150). This was a view shared by FTI, which expressed regret that Member States would not be required to produce similar assessments when making use of their right of initiative (p E147).
6.72. Not all proposals in the area of FSJ, whether they emanate from Member States or the Commission, are supported by the statistical and other evidence critical for assessing the need for proposed legislation, and especially its compliance with the subsidiarity principle. The problem is greater with Member States’ initiatives: while the Commission always provides an explanatory memorandum and sometimes provides an impact assessment, Member States rarely provide either.”
The report is accessible at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/62/62.pdf
Ralf Grahn
Consolidated EU Treaties:
If you want to read or download the Council’s consolidated Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, the original Treaty of Lisbon, the current TEU and TEC, the Draft Constitution, the Constitutional Treaty, or other consolidated language versions of the Lisbon Treaty TEU and TFEU, you find the needed information and links in the blawg post ‘Consolidated Treaty of Lisbon and other EU materials’ of 21 April 2008:
http://grahnlaw.blogspot.com/2008/04/consolidated-treaty-of-lisbon-and-other.html
In addition, two ‘private’ annotated and consolidated versions including the Treaty of Lisbon amendments can be pointed out.
Peadar ó Broin, of the Institute of International and European Affairs (Dublin), has edited a consolidated and annotated version of the EU treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. The highlighted IIEA shows the differences between different stages. It is available through the web page of the European Policy Institutes Netword (EPIN):
http://www.epin.org/new/files/AnnotatedTreaties.pdf
Jens-Peter Bonde has issued a ‘Consolidated Reader-Friendly Edition’ of the TEU and the TFEU as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. There are remarks about changes are in the margin and symbols are used to show amendments. The consolidation is available at:
http://www.j.dk/exp/images/bondes/Consolidated_LISBON_TREATY_3.pdf
The Irish Referendum Commission is gathering speed in its campaign to inform the public ahead of the 12 June 2008 Lisbon Treaty referendum. At this point in time it is possible to find information about the essential treaty changes boiled down to a few pages for the busy reader:
http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie
Thursday, 7 February 2008
EU Treaty of Lisbon: Geographical scope I
Where are the Treaties of the European Union (EU) applicable? If a citizen of the EU manages to answer “In the member states”, it is a good answer. If he is able to name the member states, his response would be excellent for everyday purposes.
But we, as students of European integration, want to dig a little deeper. Therefore, we turn to the fresh accord between European governments, the Treaty of Lisbon. For comparison, we present the main provision in the current Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) and mention the intermediary stages for those who want to follow the modifications step by step.
Since the territorial or geographical applicability of the EU Treaties is tied up with the membership of the Union, we recapitulate the different enlargement stages of the European Communities and the European Union.
Then, we add a few comments about the scope of the Reform Treaty. This is how far we go in part I.
After the proposed main provision in the Lisbon Treaty, we advance to the detailed provisions in a second part of this article, to be published later.
***
The intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) agreed to insert the following Article 49c into the Lisbon Treaty version of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/40):
An Article 49 C shall be inserted:
Article 49c
1. The Treaties shall apply to the Kingdom of Belgium, Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The territorial scope of the Treaties is specified in Article 311a of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
***
The current corresponding Article is found in Article 299 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) (latest consolidated version of the TEU and TEC in OJ C 321 E/174 and 175, but amended by the 2003 Act of Accession regarding the latest entrants Bulgaria and Romania):
Article 299 TEC
1. This Treaty shall apply to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The provisions of this Treaty shall apply to the French overseas departments, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands.
However, taking account of the structural social and economic situation of the French overseas departments, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands, which is compounded by their remoteness, insularity, small size, difficult topography and climate, economic dependence on a few products, the permanence and combination of which severely restrain their development, the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, shall adopt specific measures aimed, in particular, at laying down the conditions of application of the present Treaty to those regions, including common policies.
The Council shall, when adopting the relevant measures referred to in the second subparagraph, take into account areas such as customs and trade policies, fiscal policy, free zones, agriculture and fisheries policies, conditions for supply of raw materials and essential consumer goods, State aids and conditions of access to structural funds and to horizontal Community programmes.
The Council shall adopt the measures referred to in the second subparagraph taking into account the special characteristics and constraints of the outermost regions without undermining the integrity and the coherence of the Community legal order, including the internal market and common policies.
3. The special arrangements for association set out in Part Four of this Treaty shall apply to the overseas countries and territories listed in Annex II to this Treaty.
This Treaty shall not apply to those overseas countries and territories having special relations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which are not included in the aforementioned list.
4. The provisions of this Treaty shall apply to the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible.
5. The provisions of this Treaty shall apply to the Åland Islands in accordance with the provisions set out in Protocol 2 to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden.
6. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs:
(a) this Treaty shall not apply to the Faeroe Islands;
(b) this Treaty shall not apply to the United Kingdom Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus except to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements set out in the Protocol on the Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Cyprus annexed to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union and in accordance with the terms of that Protocol;
(c) this Treaty shall apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man only to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements for those islands set out in the Treaty concerning the accession of new Member States to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Community signed on 22 January 1972.
***
I refer the reader who wants to compare the evolvement of the scope of the Treaties to the main provisions of the following intermediary stages:
The European Convention proposed an Article IV-4 Scope, under Part IV General and final provisions, with three dots at the end of paragraph 1 in anticipation of the ten entrants of May 2004. See draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/91 and 92.
The IGC 2004 signed up to Article IV-440 Scope, under Part IV General and final provisions, with modifications in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. See OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/188 and 189.
***
The IGC 2007 was a tidying-up exercise in at least two respects, as far as Article 49c(1) TEU of the Treaty of Lisbon is concerned. The Article introduces a complete list of the member states of the European Union, all 27 of them, by including the latest accession countries Bulgaria and Romania.
The second clarification is the choice to mention only the member states in the more basic of the basic treaties, the TEU. The TEU and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) are equally binding, but the TEU could be described as being more equal than the other.
The general reader finds the needed information, the names of the member states, in the future TEU. The gritty detail is shifted to the TFEU for those want to delve deeper. This is done by the referral in Article 49c(2) to Article 311a TFEU.
***
Let us start with the main point, the spectacular enlargement of the European Communities. First there was the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), established by the Treaty of Paris 1951, which expired in 2002 after 50 years in force.
When only five of the six original members showed maturity enough to launch the European Defence Community and the European (Political) Community and the effort failed, the relaunch of European construction was achieved by the six founding members on a more modest scale by the Treaties of Rome 1957, establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom).
The six founding members of the ECSC, the EEC and Euratom were Belgium, France, (West) Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom joined in 1973, bringing the membership to nine.
The Mediterranean enlargement followed in two phases, first Greece in 1981 and then Portugal and Spain in 1986. A Europe of twelve was born.
The first Eastern enlargement was not technically an accession, since the Federal Republic of Germany absorbed the German Democratic Republic in 1990.
A flavour of neutrality and non-alignment was added in 1995 with the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden to what had become the European Union (EU) and the European Community (EC).
The abbreviation EU-15 started to make its appearance with increasing frequency as the EU headed towards the big bang of Eastern (and Mediterranean) enlargement. In May 2004 ten new states became EU members:
Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia (EU-25).
Bulgaria and Romania completed this enlargement round by joining the EU in 2007, raising the number of members to 27 and the population of the EU to around 490 million, some would say ‘an internal market of’, others ‘citizens’. (Of course, the internal market comprising the European Economic Area, EEA, is slightly larger than the EC, if we want to make the distinction.)
***
A few comments by your glossator:
As a treaty based organisation, the European Union has no territory primarily its own. The geographical extent of the EU is derived from its member states, being in principle the sum of its member states’ (European) territories.
Three things seem worth mentioning:
First, according to the wording, the Treaties do not apply “in” but primarily “to” the member states mentioned. Applicability “in” their territories could be said to be incidental.
Second, from the applicability of primary law (the Treaties) follows that the secondary legislation – regulations, directives and decisions – is applicable, too.
Third, international treaties concluded by the European Community (in the future the European Union) within its powers, are applied in the same territory.
Thus far, the scope of EU law looks pretty clear. We are ready to answer most of the questions most of the time, but we have yet to face the small print, which will be the subject of instalment II.
Ralf Grahn
But we, as students of European integration, want to dig a little deeper. Therefore, we turn to the fresh accord between European governments, the Treaty of Lisbon. For comparison, we present the main provision in the current Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) and mention the intermediary stages for those who want to follow the modifications step by step.
Since the territorial or geographical applicability of the EU Treaties is tied up with the membership of the Union, we recapitulate the different enlargement stages of the European Communities and the European Union.
Then, we add a few comments about the scope of the Reform Treaty. This is how far we go in part I.
After the proposed main provision in the Lisbon Treaty, we advance to the detailed provisions in a second part of this article, to be published later.
***
The intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) agreed to insert the following Article 49c into the Lisbon Treaty version of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/40):
An Article 49 C shall be inserted:
Article 49c
1. The Treaties shall apply to the Kingdom of Belgium, Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The territorial scope of the Treaties is specified in Article 311a of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
***
The current corresponding Article is found in Article 299 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) (latest consolidated version of the TEU and TEC in OJ C 321 E/174 and 175, but amended by the 2003 Act of Accession regarding the latest entrants Bulgaria and Romania):
Article 299 TEC
1. This Treaty shall apply to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The provisions of this Treaty shall apply to the French overseas departments, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands.
However, taking account of the structural social and economic situation of the French overseas departments, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands, which is compounded by their remoteness, insularity, small size, difficult topography and climate, economic dependence on a few products, the permanence and combination of which severely restrain their development, the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, shall adopt specific measures aimed, in particular, at laying down the conditions of application of the present Treaty to those regions, including common policies.
The Council shall, when adopting the relevant measures referred to in the second subparagraph, take into account areas such as customs and trade policies, fiscal policy, free zones, agriculture and fisheries policies, conditions for supply of raw materials and essential consumer goods, State aids and conditions of access to structural funds and to horizontal Community programmes.
The Council shall adopt the measures referred to in the second subparagraph taking into account the special characteristics and constraints of the outermost regions without undermining the integrity and the coherence of the Community legal order, including the internal market and common policies.
3. The special arrangements for association set out in Part Four of this Treaty shall apply to the overseas countries and territories listed in Annex II to this Treaty.
This Treaty shall not apply to those overseas countries and territories having special relations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which are not included in the aforementioned list.
4. The provisions of this Treaty shall apply to the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible.
5. The provisions of this Treaty shall apply to the Åland Islands in accordance with the provisions set out in Protocol 2 to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden.
6. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs:
(a) this Treaty shall not apply to the Faeroe Islands;
(b) this Treaty shall not apply to the United Kingdom Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus except to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements set out in the Protocol on the Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Cyprus annexed to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union and in accordance with the terms of that Protocol;
(c) this Treaty shall apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man only to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements for those islands set out in the Treaty concerning the accession of new Member States to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Community signed on 22 January 1972.
***
I refer the reader who wants to compare the evolvement of the scope of the Treaties to the main provisions of the following intermediary stages:
The European Convention proposed an Article IV-4 Scope, under Part IV General and final provisions, with three dots at the end of paragraph 1 in anticipation of the ten entrants of May 2004. See draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/91 and 92.
The IGC 2004 signed up to Article IV-440 Scope, under Part IV General and final provisions, with modifications in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. See OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/188 and 189.
***
The IGC 2007 was a tidying-up exercise in at least two respects, as far as Article 49c(1) TEU of the Treaty of Lisbon is concerned. The Article introduces a complete list of the member states of the European Union, all 27 of them, by including the latest accession countries Bulgaria and Romania.
The second clarification is the choice to mention only the member states in the more basic of the basic treaties, the TEU. The TEU and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) are equally binding, but the TEU could be described as being more equal than the other.
The general reader finds the needed information, the names of the member states, in the future TEU. The gritty detail is shifted to the TFEU for those want to delve deeper. This is done by the referral in Article 49c(2) to Article 311a TFEU.
***
Let us start with the main point, the spectacular enlargement of the European Communities. First there was the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), established by the Treaty of Paris 1951, which expired in 2002 after 50 years in force.
When only five of the six original members showed maturity enough to launch the European Defence Community and the European (Political) Community and the effort failed, the relaunch of European construction was achieved by the six founding members on a more modest scale by the Treaties of Rome 1957, establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom).
The six founding members of the ECSC, the EEC and Euratom were Belgium, France, (West) Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom joined in 1973, bringing the membership to nine.
The Mediterranean enlargement followed in two phases, first Greece in 1981 and then Portugal and Spain in 1986. A Europe of twelve was born.
The first Eastern enlargement was not technically an accession, since the Federal Republic of Germany absorbed the German Democratic Republic in 1990.
A flavour of neutrality and non-alignment was added in 1995 with the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden to what had become the European Union (EU) and the European Community (EC).
The abbreviation EU-15 started to make its appearance with increasing frequency as the EU headed towards the big bang of Eastern (and Mediterranean) enlargement. In May 2004 ten new states became EU members:
Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia (EU-25).
Bulgaria and Romania completed this enlargement round by joining the EU in 2007, raising the number of members to 27 and the population of the EU to around 490 million, some would say ‘an internal market of’, others ‘citizens’. (Of course, the internal market comprising the European Economic Area, EEA, is slightly larger than the EC, if we want to make the distinction.)
***
A few comments by your glossator:
As a treaty based organisation, the European Union has no territory primarily its own. The geographical extent of the EU is derived from its member states, being in principle the sum of its member states’ (European) territories.
Three things seem worth mentioning:
First, according to the wording, the Treaties do not apply “in” but primarily “to” the member states mentioned. Applicability “in” their territories could be said to be incidental.
Second, from the applicability of primary law (the Treaties) follows that the secondary legislation – regulations, directives and decisions – is applicable, too.
Third, international treaties concluded by the European Community (in the future the European Union) within its powers, are applied in the same territory.
Thus far, the scope of EU law looks pretty clear. We are ready to answer most of the questions most of the time, but we have yet to face the small print, which will be the subject of instalment II.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 16 December 2007
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
