Refugee emergency: temporary EU relocation

Yesterday, the interior ministers of the EU member states reached a decision on one important solidarity measure in the face of the refugee emergency: temporary relocation to alleviate the burden of Greece and Italy.

International protection – temporary measures

On 17 September 2015 the European Parliament had adopted its favourable opinion (text here P8_TA-PROV(2015)0324) on the emergency proposal for temporary relocation, and yesterday (22 September) theJustice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council adopted this important proposal from the refugee and migration agenda of the European Commission.

With regard to solidarity it is worth noticing that Ireland has expressed its intention to participate, while Denmark and the United Kingdom remain bystanders.

We note that Hungary was intended to be a beneficiary in the Commission proposal for a Council decision establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy, Greece and Hungary, COM(2015) 451 final (plus annexes).

At the time of writing the adopted decision – renamed and adapted after Hungary declined help - had not been published in the OfficialJournal of the European Union (OJEU), but available through a link on the web page of the JHA Council meeting:

COUNCIL DECISION establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece (document 12098/15)

In a nutshell

The web page of the JHA Council meeting explains the decision in a nutshell:

This decision establishes a temporary and exceptional relocation mechanism over two years from the frontline member states Italy and Greece to other member states. It will apply to 120 000 persons in clear need of international protection who have arrived or are arriving on the territory of those member states as from six months before the entry into force until two years after the entry into force.

According to the decision, 66 000 persons will be relocated from Italy and Greece (15 600 from Italy and 50 400 from Greece) . The remaining 54 000 persons will be relocated from Italy and Greece in the same proportion after one year of the entry into force of the decision.

During the press conference (video) Jean Asselborn, Luxembourg's minister for immigration and asylum, admitted that the Council did not achieve consensus, but the qualified majority went well beyond the requirements of the treaties.

As for other legal acts, all member states are expected to implement the decision. However, the decision can be adapted for a member state facing an emergency situation.

European Council

Today, 23 September 2015, the members of the European Council meet informally to discuss an overall approach to the refugee crisis and the necessity to establish a credible European migration policy.

In his invitation letter, EUCO president Donald Tusk is also appealing to EU leaders to urgently provide financial donations to the World Food Programme for food support to the 11 million people in Syria and in the region.

Ralf Grahn

More backing for Junckers' State of the European Union #SOTEU

After response and feedback to Commission president Junckers' State of the European Union (SOTEU) 2015 address, we turn to an assessment from civil society, another from research and education, as well as the political will of the European Parliament.

Go to the European Commission's SOTEU page for the full version in English or French, or material available in other languages. Check Twitter #SOTEU for old and possible new sources of interest.

Apiceuropa

Finally the Europe of good will we have been waiting for a while, Franco Chittolina concluded in a comment on Apiceuropa: Juncker e l'Europa della buona volontà. The Commission president spoke frankly, repeatedly declaring: ”There is not enough Europe in this Union. And there is not enough Union in this Union.”

The clear and courageous message from the political Commission was directed particularly at the scattered member states with little sense of union and few references to the European founding values and to its tradition of solidarity and reception.

Just a few days after Junckers' speech in Strasbourg, the meeting of the EU home affairs ministers 14 September revealed the deep split among the member states, but also with regard to the Commission and the European Parliament.

Faced with such incompetence from the states, Adriana Longoni fixed her hope on growing numbers of welcoming citizens: La grande faglia dell'Europa.

Maastricht blog

This year's State of the Union was entitled: Time for Honesty, Unity and Solidarity. And the key concepts were: more Europe in the Union, and more Union in Europe.

Aalt Willem Heringa, in the Maastricht blog article The First State of the Union of Juncker, found it appealing that Juncker discussed the major issues, what the EU must stand for and must try to achieve, and not the nitty gritty details, but the broader perspectives.

More problematic is how to get 28 member states to work in the common interest, as well as how to involve EU citizens and national parliaments.

European Parliament

The interior ministers appeared pretty empty-handed and behind the curve, when they emerged from their meeting 14 September 2015. Consequently a new Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council has been called for 22 September to deal with a more equitable settlement of 120,000 refugees. And in anticipation of JHA failure, the members of the European Council (EUCO) have been convened to an informal meeting the next day.

Admittedly, it is easier to opine than to decide, but one week from Junckers' State of the Union address the European Parliament urged the Commission to show strong leadership (press release 16 September 2015).

The encouraging resolution – adopted by 408 votes to 182, with 23 abstentions – is the contribution of the European Parliament to the Commission's Work Programme (CWP) for 2016, to be adopted on the 27 October and to be presented and discussed in the Parliament on 29 October 2015.

The European Parliament resolution of 16 September 2015 on the Commission Work Programme 2016 (provisional version P8_TA-PROV(2015)0323) started by urging the European Commission to use its right of initiative to its full extent in order to give the Union clear leadership, and in particular to deliver the completion of the single market together with the strategic roadmap for economic union, political union and external action.

Next, the Parliament welcomed the focus of the Commission on its ten priorities and emphasised the need to promote the Community interest and keeping the EU united and cohesive.

Besides as an endorsement for the Commission, including its proposals regarding refugees and migration, the resolution can be read as a detailed compilation of almost all the noble (and often contradictory) aspirations at the European level.

Ralf Grahn 

Response to Junckers' State of the European Union #SOTEU

First, we take a look at the case of the European Commission, as presented in the available materials. Second, we explore the response to the State of the European Union (SOTEU) address from three European think tanks.

State of the European Union debate

The case of president Jean-Claude Juncker and the European Commission is set out in the ”full picture” booklet, now available in English and French:

State of the Union 2015 – by Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission 9 September 2015 [9MB]

État de l'Union 2015 – Discours de Jean-Claude Juncker, président de la Commission européenne devant le Parlement européen le 9 septembre 2015

The broadly favourable response from the political groups and some individual MEPs is included in the multilingual verbatim record of the plenary debate.

Salvador Llaudes

In the post Juncker, el #SOTEU yun año de mandato, on the Blog Elcano, Salvador Llaudes described the commencement of the political and dynamic European Commission under the Spitzenkandidat Jean-Claude Juncker, including his initiatives to solve the Greek crisis and the first and the second refugee crisis. Public opinion is showing some signs of recognition of Junckers' rejection of past 'path dependency' and 'business as usual'.

The EU member states are still divided in this respect, which means that Juncker has to keep working to arrive at a necessary consensus.

Valentin Kreilinger

Valentin Kreilinger, of the Jacques Delors Institut Berlin, began his blog post #SOTEU:Der Kommissionspräsident alsFeuerwhrmann und Architekt by recalling the purpose of the State of the (European) Union address (here the English version, in Annex IV of the inter-institutional agreement):

5. Each year in the first part-session of September, a State of the Union debate will be held in which the President of the Commission shall deliver an address, taking stock of the current year and looking ahead to priorities for the following years. To that end, the President of the Commission will in parallel set out in writing to Parliament the main elements guiding the preparation of the Commission Work Programme for the following year.

The refugee crisis dominated Junckers' address, but he acts as a ”fireman” and an ”architect” to strengthen the ”Community method” regarding the other priorities as well. His architectural aspirations can be seen clearly in the deepening of the economic and monetary union (EMU), building on the five presidents' report.

Right after the SOTEU debate Frans Timmermans and Dimitris Avramopoulos presented the package of proposals to manage the refugee crisis, including resettlement of 120,000 asylum seekers and a permanent relocation system.

Josef Janning

In a Note from Berlin, Josef Janning of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) saw Junckers' address as a missed opportunity, because it failed to confront the slow poison of intergovernmentalism killing the European Union: More Union for the EU.

European media watch political actors struggling with major challenges to the union such as the sovereign debt crisis, the war in Ukraine, and the refugee crisis (each of them clear cases for a common response), and conclude that Europe is failing.

The EU’s underperformance stems from three trends, which seem to reinforce each other: a hybrid deepening, a utilitarian widening, and a fragmentation of the political centre (with description and reasoning about each trend in the blog post).

The refugee crisis is a case in point of the diverging union and the lack of consensus among member states.

Comment

The intergovernmental drift of the European Union towards a confederation of short-sighted and disparate member states is evident, with consequent lack of effective solutions.

For a final verdict the jury can only follow the proceedings until the five years of the European Commission are up. In the interim both Llaudes and Kreilinger attest to Junckers' leadership role.

Janning called Junckers' address a missed opportunity, but analysed the institutional failings of the European Union, viz. the lack of EU powers and the paucity of political will among the member states to act decisively on the ”big issues”.

My question is: What more could the Commission president have done, given the constraints? What can Juncker do in the future?

Like Chernyshevsky and Lenin we can ask, although this time with regard to the European Union: What Is to Be Done?

Ralf Grahn

Finis Finlandiae?

The anti-EU and anti-immigration True Finns made spectacular progress in the election to the Parliament of Finland, gaining 34 new seats. Just 0.1% behind the vote share of the Social Democrats, the True Finns have the third largest parliamentary group, with 39 seats (out of 200).

This is a sensational outcome in a country known for stability, consensus politics and small shifts.


True Finns – EFD

In the European Parliament, the True Finns are represented in the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group (EFD), together with the UK Independence Party, the Italian Lega Nord, the Greek Popular Orthodox Rally and others.

The election victory of the True Finns is a strong reaction by a large part of the public against the challenges of globalisation, the increasing need for internationalism and the requirements to show European solidarity.


Split country

The country is split. The other side of the coin is that for the first time ever, the pro-European National Coalition Party became the largest party in the Finnish Parliament.

Until the election campaign, the Social Democratic Party, which came in second, was known as a pro-European force in Finnish politics. Now its future role is in doubt.

Piecing together a government coalition may prove difficult for other reasons as well. Two of the current government parties suffered huge losses: the Centre Party of prime minister Mari Kiviniemi and the Green League led by Anni Sinnemäki. The fourth coalition partner, the Swedish People's Party, held its positions.

MEP and True Finns' chairman Timo Soini received the largest number of personal votes in the whole country (43,212). The dichotomy is illustrated by the fact that he was followed by two representatives of the pro-European National Coalition Party: foreign minister Alexander Stubb (41,766) and chairman and finance minister Jyrki Katainen (23,941).


Election results

These are the final results of the parliamentary elections in Finland:


National Coalition Party (EPP Group): 20.4%, 44 seats (-6)
Social Democratic Party (S&D): 19.1%, 42 seats (-3)
True Finns (EFD): 19.0%, 39 seats (+34)
Centre Party (ALDE): 15.8%, 35 seats (-16)
Left Alliance (GUE/NGL): 8.1%, 14 seats (-3)
Green League (Greens/EFA): 7.2%, 10 seats (-5)
Swedish People’s Party (ALDE): 4.3%, 9 seats (0)
Christian Democrats (EPP): 4.0%, 6 seats (-1)
Pirate Party: 0.4%
Others: 1.6%

Source: YLE.fi 'NCP Biggets Party, True Finns Make Huge Gains' and 'Tulospalvelu' (Results)

This morning the euro currency is weaker in Asian trading. Although not the end of Finland (”Finis Finlandiae”) or the EU, Sunday's vote made it harder to sort out the problems in the eurozone and to improve the European Union.



Ralf Grahn

Iceland starts EU membership talks?

Today, 28 May 2009 the government of Iceland is going to put forward a proposal for authority to start negotiations on membership of the European Union.



If the Althingi (Parliament) grants the authority, Iceland is in “pole position” for accession due to its membership in the European Economic Area (EEA). Despite its severe economic crisis, Iceland is a stable democracy. Its Parliament, Althingi, evokes the longest parliamentary tradition in the world. It was established as a legislature and judiciary in 930. Iceland became a member of the Council of Europe in 1950.

Acquis communautaire

The internal market legislation of the European Community (European Union) is already in force. In addition, as an EEA country Iceland participates in a number of other policy areas and EU programmes.

Iceland participates in the Schengen area abolishing internal border controls and improving controls on the external borders, and it is a member of the NATO alliance in common with the mainstream members of the European Union.

In other words, Iceland already fulfils most of the EU membership criteria, although internal political differences and the difficulties concerning fisheries and agriculture should not be underestimated.

We can compare the situation with the EFTA countries Austria, Finland and Sweden. They had negotiated the EEA Agreement, which entered into force at the beginning of 1994. But they went on to upgrade their relationship with the European Union through full membership, which entered into force exactly a year later, in 1995.


***

Membership application: Yes or no?

Today, 28 May 2009 the new Icelandic government is going to propose that the Althingi (Parliament) grants it powers to apply for membership in the European Union.

Iceland’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs offers the following overview in English:



Proposal for a Parliamentary Resolution on Application for Accession to the European Union

(Submitted to the 137th session of Parliament 2009)


The Parliament resolves to empower the Government to submit an application for membership of the European Union and upon the completion of negotiations with the Union to hold a national referendum on a prospective membership agreement.


Comments on the Proposal for a Parliamentary Resolution

The proposal on application for membership of the European Union is submitted in order to give the Icelandic people an opportunity to reject or accept an agreement on accession to the EU once negotiations have been concluded.

The application to the European Union is thus not equivalent to membership, upon which, indeed, it is for the Icelandic nation to take the final decision. In addition, a legislative proposal will be submitted on the holding of national referendums on important matters that the Government or Parliament decides to submit to the nation.

Prior to the start of negotiations, extensive consultations will take place with interest groups on agreement objectives in various sectors, such as fisheries, agriculture and regional issues, in the field of public services, the environment, equal rights and currency matters, and the broadest possible consensus will be sought on the basis for negotiations. The possibility of closer monetary cooperation will be explored in parallel to the negotiations on possible accession in order to support the Icelandic krona. Emphasis is placed on an open and transparent process and regular information sharing with the general public and interest groups.

A Committee of professionals will be appointed by the Government of Iceland to carry out the negotiations with the European Union. The Committee will be supported by a broad-based consultative body representing different interest groups, from which the Committee will seek advice and which the Committee will keep informed on the ongoing progress of negotiations. Iceland as a European nation wishes to take an active part in the development of a democratic Europe built on the foundations of social justice, equality and the respect for human dignity and the environment. Europe is the cornerstone of human rights in the world, and an advocate for stability, sustainable development, justice and prosperity throughout the world.
Parties concerned reserve the right to advocate for or against any final agreement, bearing in mind that possible support is contingent upon various provisos.

Iceland’s vital interests include:

• ensuring the sovereign control of water and energy resources and their utilization.

• ensuring the sovereign control of the fisheries resources, the sustainable utilization of these resources, and a share of straddling stocks and as much representation of national interests in international agreements on fisheries as possible.

• ensuring thriving Icelandic agriculture based on food security and safety.

• ensuring the democratic right to manage public services based on social principles.

• defending the rights of workers and labour.

• achieving a favourable and growth based competitive environment for business in Iceland while at the same time taking account of unique factors owing to specific circumstances.

It is foreseen that Parliament will establish a special European Parliamentary Committee, in which all the political parties will be represented, to consult with the Negotiating Committee to the European Union.


***


Iceland’s international relations


The (previous) Government of Iceland presented a report on Iceland’s international relations to the Althingi in March 2009. (The link is to an 11 page excerpt available in English.)





Ralf Grahn

Finland’s EU policy: New report

We have posted earlier that the Government of Finland had promised an EU policy paper to Parliament this spring. It has now been published.

Here is the text of the Government’s press release:


Government Communications Unit

8.4.2009 14.05

Government Report on Finland’s EU Policy to be submitted to Parliament
The Government has, on Wednesday, 8 April, adopted a Report on Finland’s EU Policy. The report discusses the impact of EU membership on Finland, sets out basic guidelines and key objectives for Finland’s EU policy, considers ways to develop the exercise of influence in the EU, and analyses the development of the European Union.

In addition, the report takes a more far-reaching approach to the development of the European Union, presenting visions for the 2020s. The objective is to promote wide-ranging discussion on Finland’s EU policy in Parliament and in the Finnish society as a whole, with a view to issues such as the forthcoming European Parliament elections to be held in summer.

”This is the Government’s opening of discussion on Finland’s EU policy. Not least because of voting activity, I challenge the opposition, labour market organisations and NGOs to put forward their views on the type of EU policy that Finland should pursue,” Prime Minister Vanhanen said in connection with the release of the report.

According to the report, the effects of EU membership have been very positive in Finland. The membership has provided support for the economic environment in Finland and opened a variety of significant channels to exert influence. Membership in the EU has also brought clear advantages to citizens.

Finland’s priorities in the European Union focus on aspects such as the citizens’ Europe, the economic success of Europe and the EU's role as a prominent global actor. Special attention should be paid on determined efforts to eliminate obstacles to the mobility of people: Moving from one Member State to another should not be more complicated than moving within a country. Internal markets, a solid, level playing field and the euro lay the EU’s economic foundations. In the future, too, the EU's economic success will be dependant on the high level of knowledge and skills. A European Union acting in unison is best equipped to influence global development.

It is natural that Finland, as a prosperous Member State, belongs to the net contributors in the Union. The Government Report suggests that the EU budget be simplified, and the EU’s regional and structural policies be more particularly targeted at regions affected by poverty and special circumstances.

Finland’s EU policy is based on constructive exercise of influence, and Finland considers it important that the EU is strong and able to act. It is in the interest of Finland that matters be discussed at the EU level as this practise involves Finland in the decision-making process.

Further information: Jukka Salovaara, State Under-Secretary for EU Affairs, Government Secretariat for EU Affairs, tel. +358 9 1602 2182

***

Report

The 42 page Report is available in Finnish and in Swedish. An English translation will be published soon, hopefully here.




Ralf Grahn

EU summits: One voice not enough for Finland?

Unclear Constitution sows confusion.

Helsingin Sanomat has brought it up again, this time in its international edition: President Halonen defends system of two representatives at EU summits.



“Two plates”

The issue has been dubbed the problem of two dinner plates by the media. Finland has been on a slow Constitutional trajectory from a royalist to a presidential and towards a parliamentarian form of democracy.

Generally, Finland can be seen as a stable and harmonius democracy, but the existing Constitution is a compromise, which embodies a directly elected President as main responsible for foreign policy with a Government in charge of EU affairs.

Every President and serious presidential hopeful since the beginning of Finland’s membership in the European Union has defended his or her participation in questions pertaining to the foreign and security policy of the European Union, and thus the meetings of the European Council.

Hence, the problem of two dinner plates at the meetings of EU heads of state OR government.


***

Constitution

The Constitution of Finland 11 June 1999 (731/1999) presents the fudge in Chapter 8 on international relations. The President is the foreign policy leader, but nowadays in co-operation with the Government.

On the other hand, the Government prepares all EU measures and executes them, possibly with the approval of Parliament:




Chapter 8 - International relations

Section 93 - Competence in the area of foreign policy issues

The foreign policy of Finland is directed by the President of the Republic in co-operation with the Government. However, the Parliament accepts Finland's international obligations and their denouncement and decides on the bringing into force of Finland's international obligations in so far as provided in this Constitution. The President decides on matters of war and peace, with the consent of the Parliament.

The Government is responsible for the national preparation of the decisions to be made in the European Union, and decides on the concomitant Finnish measures, unless the decision requires the approval of the Parliament. The Parliament participates in the national preparation of decisions to be made in the European Union, as provided in this Constitution.

The communication of important foreign policy positions to foreign States and international organisations is the responsibility of the Minister with competence in foreign affairs.


***

Parliamentary scrutiny

When Finland became a member of the European Union, it adopted a system of interactive parliamentary scrutiny built on the Danish model (and in many respects similar to the Swedish one).

Ahead of every Council meeting the responsible Minister discusses the issues with the Grand Committee (EU Committee), with the possibility to issue political guidance to the Government. Debriefings of the Council meetings take place afterwards.

All legislative and other EU proposals are communicated to Parliament and dealt with by the Grand Committee and special committees.

The Prime Minister discusses the meetings of the European Council before and reports afterwards.

The Government (not the President) is responsible for informing Parliament on both EU affairs and foreign affairs:


Section 96 - Participation of the Parliament in the national preparation of European Union matters

The Parliament considers those proposals for acts, agreements and other measures which are to be decided in the European Union and which otherwise, according to the Constitution, would fall within the competence of the Parliament.

The Government shall, for the determination of the position of the Parliament, communicate a proposal referred to in paragraph (1) to the Parliament by a communication of the Government, without delay, after receiving notice of the proposal. The proposal is considered in the Grand Committee and ordinarily in one or more of the other Committees that issue statements to the Grand Committee. However, the Foreign Affairs Committee considers a proposal pertaining to foreign and security policy. Where necessary, the Grand Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee may issue to the Government a statement on the proposal. In addition, the Speaker's Council may decide that the matter be taken up for debate in plenary session, during which, however, no decision is made by the Parliament. with the

The Government shall provide the appropriate Committees with information on the consideration of the matter in the European Union. The Grand Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee shall also be informed of the position of the Government on the matter.



Section 97 - Parliamentary right to receive information on international affairs

The Foreign Affairs Committee of the Parliament shall receive from the Government, upon request and when otherwise necessary, reports of matters pertaining to foreign and security policy. Correspondingly, the Grand Committee of the Parliament shall receive reports on the preparation of other matters in the European Union. The Speaker's Council may decide on a report being taken up for debate in plenary session, during which, however, no decision is made by the Parliament.

The Prime Minister shall provide the Parliament or a Committee with information on matters to be dealt with in a European Council beforehand and without delay after a meeting of the Council. The same applies when amendments are being prepared to the treaties establishing the European Union.

The appropriate Committee of the Parliament may issue a statement to the Government on the basis of the reports or information referred to above.


***

European Union

The common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and the common security and defence policy (CSDP) are increasingly normal EU policy areas, and they encompass relations with the rest of the world. Member states’ foreign relations (hopefully) increasingly pooled through the European Union. The Treaty of Lisbon would be a modest but significant further step in this direction.

The border between EU foreign policy and ‘other’ foreign relations issues is becoming more artificial by the day.


***

Parliamentary scrutiny

Parliamentary scrutiny seems to work only in relation to a politically accountable Government.


The half-baked compromise of the Finnish Constitution needs to be reformed: Responsible Government and ceremonial President.


***

One voice in the world

Europe can hope to influence world events only if it learns to speak with one voice. How can a small state like Finland hope to influence anything if it refuses to speak with one voice even within the EU?



Ralf Grahn

Future EU policy: Finland

The Government of Finland hosts a seminar on 2 February 2008 about future Finnish EU policy.

The report being drafted is a policy paper addressed to the Parliament. At the conclusion of the debate on a government report, the report shall be referred to a Committee for preparation, unless the Parliament decides to revert to the agenda without such referral. After the Committee has considered the government report, it shall in its report propose a formula for the Parliament’s opinion on the government report; the Parliament shall decide the final content of the formula and revert to the agenda.

Here is the text of the Government’s press release:


Government Communications Unit
26.1.2009 12.19

Broad-based seminar to consider Finland’s future EU policy

Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen has convened a seminar to discuss the vision for Finland’s EU policy on Monday, 2 February. The aim of the seminar is to map out priorities for EU policy and support the preparation of the Government report on EU policy currently being drafted.

The seminar ‘Vision for Finland’s EU policy in the 2010s’ to be held at Finlandia Hall will be attended by some 300 participants representing NGOs, interest groups, parties, administration and the media.

Prime Minister Vanhanen will address the seminar with an opening speech and a conclusion of the discussions at the end of the day. All participants have been asked to determine three priorities for Finland’s EU policy in the 2010s. A summary of the results of the advance enquiry will be heard at the seminar.

Two themes have been chosen to provoke discussion. Presentations on the internal strength and efficiency of the Union will be held by Chairman of the Finnish Social Democratic Party Jutta Urpilainen, President of the Finnish Confederation of Professionals STTK Mikko Mäenpää and Minister for Foreign Affairs Aleksander Stubb. The theme ‘EU as a global actor’ will be addressed by President Martti Ahtisaari, Member of the European Commission Olli Rehn and Vice-Chair of the Reflection Group on EU’s future Jorma Ollila.

The entire seminar will be filmed. The webcast will be available after the seminar on the Government website at www.valtioneuvosto.fi.

Further information: Jukka Salovaara, State Under-Secretary for EU Affairs, Government Secretariat for EU Affairs, tel. +358 9 1602 2182 and Mikko Norros, Chief Communications Specialist, Government Communications Unit, tel. +358 9 1602 4008

***

Source: Government press release Press release 24/2009 (in English):
http://www.valtioneuvosto.fi/ajankohtaista/tiedotteet/tiedote/fi.jsp?oid=251975

The press release is also available in Finnish and Swedish.


Ralf Grahn

Sweden: Lisbon Treaty cleared for plenary

The Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Swedish Parliament (Sveriges Riksdag) has cleared the EU Treaty of Lisbon for ratification by the plenary session planned for 20 November 2008.

According to the press release, Utrikesutskottet säger ja till Lissabonfördraget (13 November 2008), five of the seven political parties represented favour ratification.

The Lisbon Treaty does not require any amendment to the Swedish Constitution, but a majority of three fourths of the votes is needed to let the amending treaty pass during this legislature.

The press release (in Swedish) is available at:

http://www.riksdagen.se/Webbnav/index.aspx?nid=45&sq=1&ID=flccvp7D8_B_B

The Committee report has not been published yet.


Ralf Grahn

Cyprus approves Lisbon Treaty

The Earth Time reported that the parliament in Cyprus approved the EU Treaty of Lisbon with 31 votes against 18 opposing votes by the communist AKEL party. See:

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/216778,cyprus-parliament-approves-lisbon-treaty.html

This means that 20 member states have completed the essentials of the Lisbon Treaty ratification, namely approval by parliament.

Of the seven remaining countries Sweden sent the ratification bill to parliament today, 3 July 2008, as reported in the previous post.


Ralf Grahn

Finland: Lisbon Treaty ratification

The Finnish government’s bill to ratify the EU Treaty of Lisbon has now returned to the full house. In April the plenary session remitted the bill and accompanying draft act (23/2008 vp) to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which drafted the report (UaVM 6/2008 vp).

The Grand Committee (which acts as the parliament’s EU committee) and the Constitutional Law Committee were asked to deliver opinions to the drafting committee, and their statements are relatively detailed (SuVL 1/2008 vp and PeVL 13/2008 vp, respectively).

Most of the special committees made use of the opportunity to give statements to the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The Foreign Affairs Committee proposes that the parliament (Eduskunta) approves the Treaty of Lisbon and the Act on bringing its provisions into force. According to Section 95(2) of the Constitution of Finland (731/1999), the approval of an international treaty of constitutional relevance needs a majority of two thirds of the votes cast:

“Section 95 - Bringing into force of international obligations

The provisions of treaties and other international obligations, in so far as they are of a legislative nature, are brought into force by an Act. Otherwise, international obligations are brought into force by a Decree issued by the President of the Republic.

A Government bill for the bringing into force of an international obligation is considered in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure pertaining to an Act. However, if the proposal concerns the Constitution or a change to the national territory, the Parliament shall adopt it, without leaving it in abeyance, by a decision supported by at least two thirds of the votes cast.

An Act may state that for the bringing into force of an international obligation its entry into force is provided by a Decree. General provisions on the publication of treaties and other international obligations are laid down by an Act.”

***

The Foreign Affairs Committee’s report endorsing ratification comes as no surprise, because Finland was one of the 18 or two thirds of the EU member states to approve the Constitutional Treaty, in the autumn 2006.

As everywhere, there have been some calls for a referendum by opponents of the Treaty of Lisbon and the European Union, but normal parliamentary ratification was chosen for the full Constitutional Treaty, so there was even less reason to submit the Constitution ‘minus’ or ‘light’ to such an extraordinary procedure.

In true ‘Man bites dog’ style European media attention has centred on the problematic member states, so Finland has appeared on the news screens only with regard to one question: the possible rejection of the Lisbon Treaty by the Åland Islands (pop. 27,000).

***

The first reading of the bill ended a short while ago, with the contents approved as proposed by the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The Lisbon Treaty returns to the plenary for a second reading, when the bill is either approved or rejected (but can not be amended). The second reading can take place, at the earliest, on the third day from the first reading.


Ralf Grahn

Sweden: Lisbon Treaty ratification process

The Swedish government has embarked on the first leg of the process to ratify the EU Treaty of Lisbon. The government has published two tomes of about 400 pages each. The first one contains the legislative proposals and an extensive presentation of the amendments to the existing Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), to be called the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The second tome contains seven appendixes: the final documents of the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007).

Sweden did not ratify the Constitutional Treaty of 2004, but left it hanging. Thus, the present stage is a wide-ranging consultation exercise, with 214 government bodies and civil society actors being offered the possibility to express their views. The dead-line for contributions is 25 March 2008.

This clearly means that Sweden is not going to be among the first member states to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, although the government mentions the target date of 1 January 2009 in its press release.

The government of Sweden has clearly stated that the ratification procedure is going to be parliamentary.


Ralf Grahn


Source:

Regeringskansliet: Lissabonfördraget – Ds 2007:48; Press release, 20 December 2007 and downloadable pdf files; Part I with proposals and presentation, Part II with appendixes: 1. the Treaty of Lisbon, 2. Protocols and appendices, 3. the Final Act, 4. Articles with ordinary legislative procedure, 5. Articles with special legislative procedures, 6. Articles with unanimous decision making, 7. the Charter of Fundamental Rights (all in Swedish; I found no information in English);
http://www.regeringen.se