Thorny questions for Denmark and EU Council

Each EU Council presidency has to confront a number of difficult issues. Denmark is no exception. Here I am going to name but two thorny issues, both relating to the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ), or justice and home affairs (JHA).


Schengen entry: Bulgaria and Romania

Wikipedia offers an overview of the Schengen Area covering 26 countries and 400 million people, with common external border controls, but free travel within.

The challenge for the Danish presidency is the Schengen entry of Bulgaria and Romania, approved by the European Parliament but still not clear of the Council.

On 9 December 2011 the European Council concluded (document EUCO 139/11, paragraph 15, page 6):

15. Recalling its discussions of June and October 2011, the European Council notes that all legal conditions have been met for the decision on Bulgaria's and Romania's accession to the Schengen area to be taken. It calls on the Council to adopt this decision as soon as possible. If necessary, the European Council will return to this issue at its March 2012 meeting.

Finland had dropped its resistance, but the entry was still vetoed by the Netherlands. The Danish Council presidency tries to find a way to clear the last obstacle (Novinite.com).

Can anything be done between now and 1 March 2012?


Hungary

The Fidezs government in Hungary has energetically legislated and governed away an astonishing number of European founding values, fundamental rights and legal rules.

Essentially, when an EU member state starts taking leave of the Copenhagen criteria, the crisis is political, and the responses should be political and principled, while the legal remedies are more limited. Primarily, the Europarties and the governments of the member states should react, but we have seen worrying lacunae and minimalistic approaches.

The Commission has now stated that Hungary has not taken effective action to curb its budget deficit. The Commission is also investigating the compatibility of new Hungarian laws with EU legislation regarding the independence of the national central bank, measures concerning the judiciary and in particular mandatory early retirement of judges and prosecutors at the age of 62 instead of 70 and the independence of the national data protection authority.

Liberal and centre-left parliamentarians in Denmark voiced serious concerns about core values of the European Union being threatened (EurActiv), but leaders of the EU member states have been awkwardly silent and the European People's Party has been legalistic and minimalistic in its belated response.


News and activities

You can follow events through the web pages of the Danish presidency, or subscribe to news by different channels. You can find and participate in Twitter discussion under the hashtag #eu2012dk, as well as follow the presidency @eu2012dk and its spokespersons in Brussels @SpoxBrx_DK.



Ralf Grahn

EU: Stability programme and elections in the Netherlands

On 9 June 2010 the Dutch are going to elect a new House of Representatives after the fall of the government led by Jan Peter Balkenende. Even such a “virtuous” country as the Netherlands was severely hit by the financial and economic crisis, so the new government coalition faces the difficult challenge to find a way to return to economic growth and fiscal prudence. Does this tally with the election campaign and voters' perceptions?



The current market turmoil and the end-of-the-eurozone prophecies raise two questions in my mind:

Are the prescriptions given in the latest spate of Council opinions wrong?

If not, do the governments lack credibility when it comes to restoring sustainable growth and budget discipline?

These questions are especially acute with regard to the PIIGS, but how about the Dutch, often seen as a hard-working Northern breed of the Germanic type?

This long blog series invites readers to judge the Council opinions and the prospects for corrective action for themselves.



Framework

The economic policies of the EU member states are regarded as a matter of common concern, but left to be coordinated among the governments (Article 121 TFEU). Some of these governments were really proud of this, when they announced the contents of the Lisbon Treaty.

With markets suddenly distrustful and many economists appearing as doomsday prophets, the economic policies have become a real concern – for everyone – but potential remedies seem to take a lot of flak.

As it is, stability programmes for eurozone countries on the one hand, and convergence programmes for member states still without the euro on the other hand, are part of the ongoing dialogue between the European Union and the member states.



There are some background remarks on economic policy coordination in the European Union in the blog post EU: Useful stability and convergence programmes? (3 June 2010). For a fuller view, you can read the provisions on economic policy in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as well as the relevant protocols.



The Netherlands

The Council issues its assessments and recommendations individually for each member state.



Now in turn is the EU Council opinion on the stability programme of the Netherlands, which has been a member of the eurozone since 1999:



COUNCIL OPINION on the updated stability programme of the Netherlands, 2009-2012; published OJEU 4.6.2010 C 146/12


Even if it has taken the European Union more than a month to publish the Council opinions officially in the OJEU, they concern the economic prospects in the medium term. As such, they should be useful with regard to our initial questions.



Economic situation


On 26 April 2010 the Council of the European Union examined the updated stability programme of the Netherlands, which covers the period 2009 to 2012. The Council began its assessment with a brief description of the economic situation:

In 2009, economic activity experienced a severe contraction of 4 %. The fall in world trade hit the Dutch economy relatively hard, resulting in a negative contribution of net exports to growth. Domestic demand also put a drag on growth throughout the year as private consumption decreased due to important negative wealth and confidence effects, and investment suffered from decreasing demand, lower profitability and tightening credit conditions. Government consumption was the only demand component supporting economic activity, mainly due to the 1 % of GDP stimulus package implemented in line with the EERP [European Economic Recovery Plan]. For 2010, GDP growth is expected to be positive again, most likely driven by net exports on the back of the recovery in world trade. Private consumption is set to remain subdued, as real disposable income is negatively affected by lower wage growth and increasing unemployment and investment is expected to suffer from the low capacity utilisation rate, decreased profitability and still difficult credit conditions. The budgetary position eroded very quickly in 2009 from a surplus of 0.7 % of GDP in 2008 to a deficit of 4.9 % of GDP as a result of the recovery measures taken by the government in response to the economic crisis, the full working of the automatic stabilisers, and decreasing gas revenues. For 2010, a further deterioration is foreseen. The 2009 budget deficit in excess of the 3 % of GDP reference value triggered an excessive deficit procedure. In this context, the Council issued recommendations to the Netherlands in December 2009, setting 2013 as the deadline for correcting the excessive deficit. Bringing the deficit below 3 % of GDP by that date will be one of the main policy challenges for the Netherlands. Other challenges include addressing the long-term sustainability of public finances, the continued strengthening of confidence in the financial sector, and ensuring access to finance for the corporate sector.

Council recommendation

After a detailed discussion, and in the light of the recommendation under Article 126 TFEU of 2 December 2009, the Council of the European Union invited the Netherlands to:

(i) in the context of the fundamental budget review, specify the measures supporting the consolidation from 2011 and especially in the following years, further strengthen the consolidation effort to secure the required average annual fiscal effort to bring the deficit below 3 % of GDP by 2013, and throughout the programme period use windfalls related to an improvement of the macroeconomic and fiscal outlook to accelerate the deficit reduction and the decline of the gross debt ratio back towards the reference value;

(ii) further improve the long-term sustainability of public finances by implementing structural reforms that curb the projected increase in age-related expenditure.

The Netherlands are also invited to provide more information on the path and the broad measures underpinning the envisaged consolidation in the outer years as soon as the information becomes available and at the latest in the EDP [excessive deficit procedure] chapter of the forthcoming Stability Programme.

Eurozone financial stability



On 31 May the European Central Bank (ECB) published its Financial Stability Review June 2010, which assesses the stability of the euro area financial system both with regard to the role it plays in facilitating economic processes and with respect to its ability to prevent adverse shocks from having inordinately disruptive impacts (page 7).

The Financial Stability Review (225 pages) offers a view of the inter-related financial markets and the consolidation measures of eurozone governments.




Naturally, the Netherlands is represented in the unofficial Euro Group, which plays an important part in the efforts to restore fiscal stability in the euro area. The Euro Group president is Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg, where the finance ministers of the eurozone countries met today, Monday 7 June 2010.




Ralf Grahn

EU Law: Overseas Association Decision

The detailed rules and procedures for the association of the non-European countries and territories are to be laid down by the Council unanimously, based on experiences and treaty principles. Article 187 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) is the legal base for these rules:


Article 187 TEC

The Council, acting unanimously, shall, on the basis of the experience acquired under the association of the countries and territories with the Community and of the principles set out in this Treaty, lay down provisions as regards the detailed rules and the procedure for the association of the countries and territories with the Community.


***

Original ToL

Article 2, point 153 of the original Treaty of Lisbon amends Article 187 TEC:


153) In Article 187, the words ‘acting unanimously’ shall be replaced by ‘acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission’ and the following sentence shall be added at the end of the Article:

‘Where the provisions in question are adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, it shall act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament.’.


***

In practice, the decisions have been taken on proposals by the Commission, but the Lisbon Treaty makes it mandatory. The addition of consulting the European Parliament on provisions in accordance with a special legislative procedure was in line with Article III-291 of the Constitutional Treaty.


***

TFEU consolidated


After the amendments Article 203 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) looks like this, published OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/139:

(PART FOUR
ASSOCIATION OF THE OVERSEAS COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES)


Article 203 TFEU
(ex Article 187 TEC)

The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, shall, on the basis of the experience acquired under the association of the countries and territories with the Union and of the principles set out in the Treaties, lay down provisions as regards the detailed rules and the procedure for the association of the countries and territories with the Union. Where the provisions in question are adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, it shall act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament.


***

Overseas Association Decision


The Overseas Association Decision, officially Council Decision 2001/822/EC of 27 November 2001 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community
(‘Overseas Association Decision’), published OJ 30.11.2001 L 314/1, has been amended. The consolidated version (of 26 April 2007) is available here:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2001D0822:20070426:EN:PDF


Article 187 TEC is the legal base for this decision ‘sui generis’. Articles 182 to 186 TEC (and treaty principles in general) form the framework for the detailed provisions of the Overseas Association Decision.

The Overseas Association Decision has been prolonged to be in force until 31 December 2013, which corresponds with the EU’s current financial perspective (long term budget) and the Tenth (intergovernmental) European Development Fund (EDF).

Article 1 of the Overseas Association Decision reiterates the purpose, objectives and principles of the association between the non-European (overseas) countries and territories (OCTs), which have special relations with Denmark, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom:

Article 1
Purpose, objectives and principles

1. The association of the OCTs with the Community, hereinafter referred to as the ‘OCT-EC Association’, shall have as its basis the purpose set out in Article 182 of the Treaty, namely to promote the economic and social development of the OCTs and to establish close economic relations between them and the Community as a whole.

It shall pursue the objectives laid down in Article 183 of the Treaty in accordance with the principles set out in Articles 184 to 188 of the Treaty by focusing on the reduction, prevention and, eventually, eradication of poverty and on sustainable development and gradual integration into the regional and world economies.

2. The association relates to the OCTs listed in Annex I A.

3. In accordance with Article 188 of the Treaty, this Decision shall apply to Greenland subject to the specific provisions set out in the Protocol on the special arrangements for Greenland annexed to the Treaty.


***

Main objectives

Earlier blog posts have looked at the individual treaty provisions referred to. The condensed view of the objectives is (paragraph 1):

1. Poverty reduction
2. Sustainable development and gradual integration into the regional and world economies.


***

Associated OCTs

The OCTs are listed in Annex II of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC). The arrangements for association are not applied to Bermuda in accordance with the wishes of the Government of Bermuda (Recital 22).

Therefore, Annex I A to the Overseas Association Decision lists the following OCTs (Article 1(2)):


ANNEX I A
LIST OF THE COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES (OCTs) REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1

— Greenland,
— New Caledonia and Dependencies,
— French Polynesia,
— French Southern and Antarctic Territories,
— Wallis and Futuna Islands,
— Mayotte,
— St Pierre and Miquelon,
— Aruba,
— Netherlands Antilles:
· Bonaire,
· Curaçao,
· Saba,
· Saint Eustatius,
· Saint Martin (Sint Maarten),
— Anguilla,
— Cayman Islands,
— Falkland Islands,
— South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands,
— Montserrat,
— Pitcairn,
— Saint Helena, Ascension Island, Tristan da Cunha,
— British Antarctic Territory,
— British Indian Ocean Territory,
— Turks and Caicos Islands,
— British Virgin Islands.


***

Greenland

Greenland is a special case. According to Article 188 TEC, Articles 182 to 187 TEC apply to Greenland, subject to the specific provisions for Greenland set out in the Protocol on special arrangements for Greenland, annexed to the treaty.

Article 1(4) of the Overseas Association Decision reiterates these principles.


***

Overseas Association Decision overview

The structure and the contents of the Overseas Association Decision at a glance by looking at the headlines:



PART ONE
GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF THE OCTs WITH THE COMMUNITY


C h a p t e r 1 General provisions

Article 1 Purpose, objectives and principles

Article 2 Basic elements

Article 3 The least-developed OCTs


C h a p t e r 2 Actors of cooperation in the OCTs

Article 4 Principles

Article 5 The different actors involved

Article 6 Responsibilities of the non-governmental actors


C h a p t e r 3 Principles and Procedures of the OCT-EC Partnership

Article 7 Dialogue and Partnership

Article 8 ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly

Article 9 Management



PART TWO THE AREAS OF OCT-EC COOPERATION

Article 10 Areas of cooperation

Article 11 Productive sectors

Article 12 Trade development

Article 13 Trade in services

Article 14 Trade-related areas

Article 15 Social sectors

Article 16 Regional cooperation and integration

Article 17 Cultural and social cooperation



PART THREE INSTRUMENTS OF OCT-EC COOPERATION


TITLE I DEVELOPMENT FINANCE COOPERATION


C h a p t e r 1 General provisions

Article 18 Objectives

Article 19 Principles

Article 20 Single Programming Documents

Article 21 Scope of financing

Article 22 Eligibility for financing

Article 23 Programming and implementation

Article 24 The EDF-OCT Committee


C h a p t e r 2 Resources made available to the OCTs

Article 25 Financial assistance


C h a p t e r 3 Private Sector Investment Support

Article 26 Investment promotion

Article 27 Investment support and financing


C h a p t e r 4 Additional support in the event of fluctuations in export earnings

Article 28 Additional support


C h a p t e r 5 Support for other actors of cooperation

Article 29 Objectives and financing


C h a p t e r 6 Support for humanitarian and emergency aid

Article 30 Objectives and means


C h a p t e r 7 Implementation Procedures

Article 31 Technical assistance

Article 32 Financial control


C h a p t e r 8 Transition from previous European Development Funds (EDFs) to the 9th EDF

Article 33 Implementing the previous EDFs and the transitional phase

Article 33a


TITLE II ECONOMIC AND TRADE COOPERATION

Article 34 Objective


C h a p t e r 1 Arrangements for trade in goods

Article 35 Free access for originating products

Article 36 Transhipment of non-originating products in free circulation in the OCTs

Article 37 Committee procedure

Article 38 Quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect

Article 39 Waste

Article 40 Measures adopted by the OCTs

Article 41 Surveillance clause

Article 42 Safeguard measures

Article 43 Committee procedure


C h a p t e r 2 Trade in services and rules of establishment

Article 44 General objective

Article 45 General principles of establishment and the provision of services

Article 46 Maritime transport


C h a p t e r 3 Trade-related areas

Article 47 Current payments and capital movements

Article 48 Competition policies

Article 49 Protection of intellectual property rights

Article 50 Standardisation and certification

Article 51 Trade and the environment

Article 52 Trade and labour standards

Article 53 Consumer policy and consumer health protection

Article 54 Prohibition of disguised protectionist measures


C h a p t e r 4 Monetary and tax matters

Article 55 Tax carve-out clause

Article 56 Tax and customs arrangements for Community-funded contracts


C h a p t e r 5 Vocational training, eligibility for Community programmes and other provisions

Article 57 Vocational training

Article 58 Programmes open to the OCTs

Article 59 Euro-Info Correspondence Centres (EICC)

Article 60 CDE and CTA


PART FOUR FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 61 Change of status

Article 62 Review

Article 63 Entry into force

Article 64 Publication


***



Implementing Commission Regulation


Implementing rules are set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2304/2002 of 20 December 2002 implementing Council Decision 2001/822/EC on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community ('Overseas Association Decision'), published OJ 21.12.2002 L 348/82. The Implementing Regulation has been amended, so here is a link to the consolidated version (of 5 December 2007):

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2002R2304:20071205:EN:PDF


The subject matter of the Implementing Regulation is:


Article 1
Subject matter

This Regulation lays down the procedures for the programming, implementation and control of the Community financial assistance to the overseas countries and territories (OCTs) managed by the Commission under the Tenth European Development Fund (EDF), in accordance with the provisions of the Overseas Association Decision and the Financial Regulation applicable to the 10th EDF.


***

Financing OCT association


Council Decision 2007/549/EC of 16 July 2007 modifying the Internal Agreement of 17 July 2006 between the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on the financing of Community aid under the multiannual financial framework for the period 2008-2013 in accordance with the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement and the allocation of the financial assistance for the Overseas Countries and Territories to which part Four of the EC Treaty applies (published OJEU 3.8.2007 L 202/35), took account of the EU accession of Bulgaria and Romania and modified the Internal Agreement. It contains the references necessary for the interested reader:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:202:0035:0036:EN:PDF





Ralf Grahn

Netherlands: Lisbon Treaty ratification 21

The Second Chamber of the Netherlands Parliament or the Dutch House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal) had approved the EU Treaty of Lisbon 5 June 2008 by an overwhelming majority, 111 against 39. From there the ratification bill went to the Senate.

Today, 8 July 2008, the indirectly elected Dutch First Chamber or Senate (Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal) voted to approve the Lisbon Treaty.

Source NOS ‘Eerste Kamer akoord met EU-verdrag’:

http://www.nos.nl/nos/artikelen/2008/07/art000001C8E0E8A41A39C4.html

The Dutch Senate vote concludes the parliamentary ratification process in the Netherlands, which becomes the 21st EU member state to approve the reform treaty.

***

The five remaining member states more or less on course are:

Belgium, with its manifold parliaments

The Czech Republic, a source of uncertainty and notably the next rotating EU Council president after France

Italy, where the new Berlusconi government after the elections has issued its ratification bill

Spain, where the Senate has yet to vote, but the Congress of Deputies voted a crushing 322 to 6 for approval

Sweden, with its slow timetable, where the government has issued its ratification bill only last week; notably the third EU Council president of the 18 month troika or trio: France, Czech Republic, Sweden


For details on dates and votes you can check for instance Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#Ratification

***

The sixth member state, off course, is ‘pro-European’ Ireland where the Lisbon Treaty was rejected by a referendum.

***

Two questions to think about:

Has anyone found even one pro-European reason for the Irish ‘no’ vote?

Has anybody detected generally sustainable arguments for the use of national referenda?



Ralf Grahn

EU: Complete Dutch consolidated Lisbon Treaty

I want to thank Anonymous who brought to our attention that the government of the Netherlands has published a complete Dutch version of the Treaty of Lisbon on the web pages of the Foreign Ministry,

www.minbuza.nl

The web pages offer us the TEU, TFEU, Euratom Treaty, the Protocols and the Final Act:

1. Verdrag betreffende de Europese Unie

2. Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie (voorheen EG-Verdrag)

3. Verdrag tot oprichting van de Europese Gemeenschap voor Atoomenergie (Euratom)

4. Protocollen gehecht aan het Verdrag betreffende de Europese Unie, het Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie en/of het Verdrag tot oprichting van de Europese Gemeenschap voor Atoomenergie

5. Slotakte bij het Verdrag van Lissabon, inclusief Verklaringen

Earlier we reported on the private Dutch consolidation compiled by René Barents.

For this and the other consolidated language versions I am aware of, see the latest comprehensive update, the post Consolidated Lisbon Treaty Update (16 February 2008).

Additional information from you, dear readers, is eagerly awaited.


Ralf Grahn

Source:

Nederlands Ministerie van Buitenlands Zaken: Geactualiseerde versies van de Verdragen van de Europese Unie nu beschikbaar; 22 feb 2008;
http://www.minbuza.nl/verdragen/nl/Geconsolideerde_EU_en_EG_Verdragen

EU Treaty of Lisbon Geographical scope II

At least from a Nordic perspective, this kind of lawmaking is like a return decades back in time. It is as if they had invented an inverted open method of coordination with worst practice benchmarking.

The ‘conference of representatives of the Member States’ (IGC 2007) has been convened to impart that the territorial scope of the Treaties is to be deduced by combining parts of a current Article with a set of prescribed amendments.

The text is gibberish or Volapûk for the reader of the Treaty of Lisbon, a completely unnecessary obfuscation of the information to be imparted, when it would have been simpler to write down the complete Article as amended.

***

In part one we saw that the Treaties apply to the member states, and we recapitulated the enlargement process and the consequent widening territorial or geographical scope of the Treaties. In this second part of the article we can turn our attention to more arcane details of applicability in the light of the Lisbon Treaty, although naming concrete territories and the expounding the limits of applicability would require further study.

Our next stop is obvious, Article 311a of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) where we see that the IGC is back at its enlightening best (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/132):

293) Article 311 shall be repealed. A new Article 311a shall be inserted, with the wording of Article 299(2), first subparagraph, and Article 299(3) to (6); the text shall be amended as follows:

(a) the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 and paragraphs 3 to 6 shall be renumbered 1 to 5 and the following new introductory wording shall be inserted at the beginning of the Article:

‘In addition to the provisions of Article 49 C of the Treaty on European Union relating to the territorial scope of the Treaties, the following provisions shall apply:’;

(b) at the beginning of the first subparagraph of paragraph 2, renumbered 1, the words ‘the French overseas departments,’ shall be replaced by ‘Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion, Saint-Barthélemy, Saint-Martin’ and the words ‘in accordance with Article 299’ shall be added at the end;

(c) in paragraph 3, renumbered 2, the words ‘of this Treaty’ shall be deleted;

(d) in paragraph 6, renumbered 5, the introductory words ‘Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs:’ shall be replaced by ‘Notwithstanding Article 49 C of the Treaty on European Union and paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article:’;

(e) the following new paragraph shall be added at the end of the Article:

‘6. The European Council may, on the initiative of the Member State concerned, adopt a decision amending the status, with regard to the Union, of a Danish, French or Netherlands country or territory referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2. The European Council shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission.’.

***

We already saw the current Article 299 TEC in part one. While the application of the Treaties to the member states was elevated to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the rest was left in the more mundane TFEU, but given a new number. Following the instructions given by our games organizers, we should end up with an Article 311a TFEU looking like this:

Article 311a TFEU

In addition to the provisions of Article 49c of the Treaty on European Union relating to the territorial scope of the Treaties, the following provisions shall apply:

1. The provisions of this Treaty shall apply to Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion, Saint-Barthélemy, Saint-Martin, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands in accordance with Article 299.

2. The special arrangements for association set out in Part Four shall apply to the overseas countries and territories listed in Annex II.

The Treaties 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.

3. The provisions of the Treaties shall apply to the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible.

4. The provisions of the Treaties shall apply to the Åland Islands in accordance with the provisions set out in Protocol 2 to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden.

5. Notwithstanding Article 49c of the Treaty on European Union and paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article:

(a) the Treaties 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) the Treaties 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.

6. The European Council may, on the initiative of the Member State concerned, adopt a decision amending the status, with regard to the Union, of a Danish, French or Netherlands country or territory referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2. The European Council shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission.

***

We start with the rule that the Treaties apply to the territories of the member states (Article 49c TEU).


Territories outside Europe

Article 311a(1) TFEU includes the French, Portuguese and Spanish extra-European territories: Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion, Saint-Barthélemy, Saint-Martin, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands.

As territories the Treaties are applicable pursuant to the main rule, but in accordance with the amended Article 299 TFEU the structural and economic situation of these territories is taken into account.

The situation is said to be 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. Therefore specific measures are allowed, aimed at laying down the conditions of application of the Treaties, including common policies.

The measures may concern particularly 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 Union programmes.


Associated overseas territories

According to Article 311a(2) special arrangements for association apply to the following overseas countries and territories listed in Annex II (taken from OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/186):

ANNEX II
OVERSEAS COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES
to which the provisions of Part Four of the Treaty apply
— Greenland
— New Caledonia and Dependencies
— French Polynesia
— French Southern and Antarctic Territories
— Wallis and Futuna Islands
— Mayotte
— Saint Pierre and Miquelon
— Aruba

— Netherlands Antilles:
— Bonaire
— Curaçao
— Saba
— Sint Eustatius
— Sint Maarten

— Anguilla
— Cayman Islands
— Falkland Islands
— South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
— Montserrat
— Pitcairn
— Saint Helena and Dependencies
— British Antarctic Territory
— British Indian Ocean Territory
— Turks and Caicos Islands
— British Virgin Islands
— Bermuda

The association system is described in the current Articles 182 to 186 TEC, which live on with minimal change in the TFEU.

The Treaties do not apply to overseas countries and territories having special relations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland not included in the list.


Responsibility for external relations

The Treaties apply to the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible.


Åland Islands

A European territory, the Åland Islands form an autonomous region of Finland with extended legislative powers and self-rule.

The relationship with the European Union was agreed in a protocol attached to the Accession Treaty of 1994, and one could speak of modified applicability.


European territories outside the Treaties

Although European, the territories mentioned in 311a(5) are not applicable to the Faeroe Islands and only marginally to the UK bases in Cyprus and to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

***

While waiting for the (hopefully complete) consolidated versions of the Treaty of Lisbon, the student who wants to find general guidance on additional questions of applicability could find some useful information in Protocol (number 8) on the Treaties and Acts of Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the Hellenic Republic, of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, and of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, in the form they were attached to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/274).

There are, for instance, provisions on Gibraltar, the Faroe Islands, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, Ceuta and Melilla and the Åland Islands.

Protocol (number 9) to the Constitutional Treaty contains, i.a. provisions on the sovereign base areas of the UK in Cyprus (page 328) as well as the suspension of the EU and EC ‘acquis’ in the areas of Cyprus outside the effective control of the government (page 341).


Ralf Grahn

On publishing the Lisbon Treaty

I expect fair play from European governments, at home and when they work jointly through the Council of the European Union. I accept that our political system is based on representative democracy entailing accountability of the elected, and the right of the voters to change government.

Actually, I am more worried when I see political parties, potential holders of office, at election times or otherwise, giving in to populist pressures, be they substantial or procedural: cutting taxes needed for ongoing programmes, or new benefits without corresponding financing, or rash promises of referendums, to name a few.

With representative democracy comes responsibility towards the electorate, what I call fair play: openness and transparency giving the tools for democratic debate, more or less enlightened, but perhaps a bit more sane if the facts and reasons are out in the open.

These are reasons why I have such problems stomaching the conduct of the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007), which gave us the much needed reform treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon. Modest as it was, the end result meant breaking the deadlock and giving the European project a push forward. But the IGC 2007, and the intergovernmental Council in general, are sores in our democratic system.

Since the European Union, at its present stage of development, is like a house of cards, based on international treaties between states, not a real Constitution founded on the citizens of the EU, unanimity between 27 member state governments plus ratification by all 27 members are hurdles high enough, in my opinion.

Nothing wrong in parliamentary ratification, then, but I understand the frustration of people who have waited for a promised referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in order to wreck the process, and the squirming of politicians who abdicated their responsibility when they promised a dose of ‘direct democracy’ and now have seen where purely domestic referendum debates lead.

***

If the men and women who signed the Treaty of Lisbon are hard-headed enough to pursue the route of parliamentary ratification (wherever possible), they should at least be proud enough to communicate their achievement openly and fully to all the citizens of the European Union.

By producing gibberish, and by refusing to publish consolidated versions of the Treaty of Lisbon, they sent the subliminal message that something was rotten in the contents of what they had agreed on, that it could not withstand the light of day.

Their decision and refusal not only sent the wrong message to the citizens, it was ultimately futile:

Parliamentary ratification would proceed anyway, regardless of what the public could read and debate. Even the minimum published was enough for dedicated think-tanks and individual to reconstruct the treaties as they would stand after entry into force.

But the ill-judged stonewalling of our leaders has had clear negative consequences:

There are, as far as I know, consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty out in the open only in a minority of the official languages of the European Union. The Council, if it deigned to discuss openly, might contend that offering no consolidated version entails equal treatment of EU citizens, since all are equally disserved. But what about openness, transparency, accountability, citizenship and decisions taken as closely as possible to the citizens?


The lack of readable texts is filled by myth and rumour. Since debate is inevitable, wouldn’t it be better if it was more closely based on facts, or at least that the ones who read the most preposterous arguments can check the real contents and judge the alleged catastrophic effects themselves?

Consolidating the treaties or deciphering their contents has lead to unnecessary duplication of work. The treaties are the fundamental documents of the European Union. Not only are they the basis for democratic debate, they are tools in daily use all over Europe.

Students who want to know the EU they are going to work in, teachers preparing lectures, researchers who could confront the questions directly, journalists checking their facts, public and private organisations operating in an EU environment and politicians at every level, all of them need accessible and readable versions of the single most important piece of legislation to emanate from the European Union since 2004.

My modest blog sees the demand for consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty daily, by the number of visitors who arrive from every corner of as a result of web searches for a readable text and end up here as a result of my numerous postings on the subject. Many of those who lack a readable treaty in their own language, are forced to look for a version in another idiom.

***

My message to the European Council is: Relent. Publish.

***

Not much less sad are the acquiescence of the other EU institutions and the negligible publishing efforts of most of the member states.

Is the general interest subservient to the machinations of governments and is the representation of the citizens of the Union subordinate to the underhand dealings of our national leaders?

The Constitutional Committee of the European Parliament was content to “look forward to” consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty they well know aren’t forthcoming presently.

To my knowledge Jens-Peter Bonde is the only member of the European Parliament who actually has done something to publish the contents of the Lisbon Treaty in a readable format.

Even the European parties seem to be part of this conspiracy of silence, at least the four I contacted by e-mail well before Christmas asking why there are no consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty. Do they actively want to discourage any illusion that they have the citizens’ interests at heart?

***

As long as the Council refuses to publish readable versions of the Treaty of Lisbon, I rejoice every time I find that some think-tank or individual has assumed the burden of producing and publishing a consolidated version.

If the United Kingdom and the Netherlands were most vocally opposed to publishing consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty (as reported by the DJ Nozem blog), it is almost hilarious to know that of at least four consolidations in English, one has been produced by Her Majesty’s government. As far as I know it is the only version published directly by a government.

And as Nanne (DJ Nozem) reported on his blog, René Barents has produced a consolidated Dutch language version of the Treaty of Lisbon, which fills a gap for about 20 million Dutch speaking EU citizens.

***

If an English and a Dutch consolidated version of the Treaty of Lisbon were deemed especially subversive by the governments in question, I find it extremely satisfying that parliamentary pressure (presumably) and private initiative, respectively, has perforated the premeditated policies of ignorance.

Now there is even less reason to uphold the counter-productive ban on publishing the rest of the language versions.


Ralf Grahn


P.S. The Dutch consolidated Treaty of Lisbon has not been mentioned on this blog before. Here are the details:

René Barents: Geconsolideerde teksten van het Verdrag betreffende de Europese Unie en het Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie zoals gewijzigd door het Verdrag van Lissabon
http://www.nrc.nl/redactie/Europa/verdraglissabon_barents.doc

DJ Nozem Blog (Nanne)
http://djnozem.blogspot.com

Dear Reader,

Please tell me if you know about a new consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty, or about official documents, books, research papers and other secondary literature, both popular and scholarly. The web offers us possibilities to share information.
News on the ratification processes is welcome, too.
Help me to help others. Thank you.

European Union of minds?

Politicians with severe symptoms of reform fatigue have hailed the Reform Treaty or Lisbon Treaty as a victory for the European Union, prepared themselves for parliamentary ratification in most member states and vowed to dedicate their efforts to more rewarding causes for a long time to come.

In Poland a new government promises to become a more constructive team player than its predecessor and a new Danish government is thinking about a referendum on abolishing opt-outs from the treaties. In France and in the Netherlands the main parties look set to choose parliamentary ratification, although there are pockets of resistance with roots in the no-camps of the 2005 referendum campaigns.

In contrast, British media, public opinion, the Conservatives and campaigners seem to continue in the vein of Groucho Marx: Please accept my resignation. I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.

Even the UK government seems to laud what it managed to scrap of its 2004 signature, what it did not sign up to now and what sets Britain apart from the other members of the club. What is Britain’s role in Europe going to be? Even after Gordon Brown’s and David Miliband’s speeches we cannot be sure.

Is there going to be a meeting of minds any time soon?


Ralf Grahn