The first Convention prepared the Charter of Fungamental Rights of the European Union, and it was solemnly adopted as politically binding at the European Council in Nice, in December 2000.
Later it was incorporated into the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, as Part II, and published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 16.12.2004 C 310.
When the ratification processes of the Constitutional Treaty had petered out, the Treaty of Lisbon proposed to make the Charter legally binding, but the text was published separately, OJEU 14.12.2007 C 303/1.
Cf. Article 6 of the amended Treaty on European Union, OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/19.
In other words, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights enters into force if the Lisbon Treaty does, but one should bear in mind that the United Kingdom and Poland opted out of the Charter. (The UK has embarked upon a disconnected exercise to craft a national Bill of Rights.)
The differences between the versions are small, so if you have no need for a certain version, it is convenient to use the latest one.
***
Monitoring
The Commission, which drafts legislative proposals, systematically check them against fundamental rights.
The Commission has now published an appraisal of its monitoring activities: The Report on the practical operation of the methodology for a systematic and rigorous monitoring of compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Brussels, 29.4.2009 COM(2009) 205 final).
The Commission stresses the growing importance of fundamental rights issues in the area of justice, freedom and security (page 3), and it names the so called asylum package as a case in point. The obligations are not only procedural, but substantive as well.
The Commission then goes on to discuss improvements to the monitoring process.
The Commission concludes by underlining the need to foster a fundamental rights culture and that the respect for fundamental rights must be a common goal of all the institutions involved in the legislative process.
Ralf Grahn
Showing posts with label drafting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drafting. Show all posts
Sunday, 3 May 2009
Friday, 27 February 2009
European Parliament: Committees ─ parliamentary engine
Many are content to see the more or less shiny exteriors of a car, but some want to understand how the engine works. The committees of the European Parliament are essential parts of the parliamentary engine.
Plenary sittings are the tip of the iceberg, but the preparatory work takes place in specialised committees, most of them standing (permanent).
The names of the committees give a fair indication of their areas of activity. In Eurospeak the committees are known under their acronyms.
***
Overview
The European Parliament’s web pages offer a listing on the existing committees, and from there you can access information about the work of each of them:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/committeesList.do?language=EN
Standing committees
AFET
Foreign Affairs
Sub-committee DROI Human Rights
Sub-committee SEDE Security and Defence
DEVE
Development
INTA
International Trade
BUDG
Budgets
CONT
Budgetary Control
ECON
Economic and Monetary Affairs
EMPL
Employment and Social Affairs
ENVI
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
ITRE
Industry, Research and Energy
IMCO
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
TRAN
Transport and Tourism
REGI
Regional Development
AGRI
Agriculture and Rural Development
PECH
Fisheries
CULT
Culture and Education
JURI
Legal Affairs
LIBE
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
AFCO
Constitutional Affairs
FEMM
Women's Rights and Gender Equality
PETI
Petitions
Temporary committees
CLIM
Climate Change
***
Common rules
The first paragraph of Article 197 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (and Article 14(4) of the Treaty on European Union as presented in the consolidated version of the Treaty of Lisbon) leave most of the internal organisation to be decided by the European Parliament itself.
The EP’s Rules of Procedure (16th edition, October 2008) constitute the backbone of its internal organisation:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+RULES-EP+20081022+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN
***
Committee procedures
Here we are going to sample the common rules on procedure in committee, dealt with in Chapter 2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Legislative report
The committee chair proposes the procedure to follow and the committee appoints a rapporteur to draft the report. The rapporteur drafts amendments to the legislative proposal (with short justifications) and a draft legislative resolution (with an explanatory statement including financial impact):
CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURE IN COMMITTEE
Rule 42 Legislative reports
1. The chair of the committee to which a Commission proposal has been referred shall propose to the committee the procedure to be followed.
2. Following a decision on the procedure to be followed, and if Rule 43 does not apply, the committee shall appoint a rapporteur on the Commission proposal from among its members or permanent substitutes if it has not yet done so on the basis of the annual legislative programme agreed under Rule 33.
3. The committee's report shall comprise:
a) draft amendments, if any, to the proposal, accompanied, if appropriate, by short justifications which shall be the responsibility of the rapporteur and shall not be put to the vote;
b) a draft legislative resolution, in accordance with Rule 51(2);
c) if appropriate, an explanatory statement including a financial statement which establishes the magnitude of any financial impact of the report and its compatibility with the financial perspective.
***
Simplified procedure
If there is overwhelming support in the committee for approving the legislative proposal without amendments, a simplified procedure can be adopted. Likewise if the amendments seem clear enough on the basis of the initial discussion:
Rule 43 Simplified procedure
1. Following a first discussion of a legislative proposal, the chair may propose that it be approved without amendment. Unless at least one-tenth of the members of the committee object, the chair shall present to Parliament a report approving the proposal. Rule 131(1), second subparagraph, (2) and (4) shall apply.
2. The chair may alternatively propose that a set of amendments be drafted by the chair or by the rapporteur reflecting the committee's discussion. If the committee so agrees, these amendments shall be sent to the members of the committee. Unless at least one-tenth of the members of the committee object within a set time limit, which may not be less than twenty-one days from the date of dispatch, the report shall be considered as having been adopted by the committee. In this case the draft legislative resolution and the amendments shall be submitted to Parliament without debate pursuant to Rule 131(1), second subparagraph, (2) and (4).
3. If at least one-tenth of the committee's members object, the amendments shall be put to the vote at the next meeting of the committee.
4. The first and second sentences of paragraph 1, the first, second and third sentences of paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to committee opinions within the meaning of Rule 46.
***
Non-legislative report
The European Parliament does not deal solely with legislative proposals, but expresses its opinion on a variety of Commission consultation papers and requests for opinion:
Rule 44 Non-legislative reports
1. Where a committee draws up a non-legislative report, it shall appoint a rapporteur from among its members or permanent substitutes.
2. The rapporteur shall be responsible for preparing the committee's report and for presenting it to Parliament on behalf of the committee.
3. The committee's report shall comprise:
a) a motion for a resolution;
b) an explanatory statement including a financial statement which establishes the magnitude of any financial impact of the report and its compatibility with the financial perspective;
c) the texts of any motions for resolutions to be included under Rule 113(4).
***
Own-initiative report
The EP may want to express its opinion and request legislative proposals on certain issues, but the Rules of Procedure impose the judicious use report on the EP’s own initiative by the requirement that such a report has to be authorised by the Conference of Presidents.
The official explanations add: The Conference of Presidents shall take a decision on requests for authorisation to draw up reports submitted pursuant to paragraph 1 on the basis of implementing provisions which it shall itself lay down. If a committee's competence to draw up a report for which it has requested authorisation is challenged, the Conference of Presidents shall take a decision within six weeks on the basis of a recommendation from the Conference of Committee Chairs, or, if no such recommendation is forthcoming, from its chair. If the Conference of Presidents fails to take a decision within that period, the recommendation shall be declared to have been approved.
Rule 45 on own-initiative reports:
Rule 45 Own-initiative reports
1. A committee intending to draw up a report and to submit a motion for a resolution to Parliament on a subject within its competence on which neither a consultation nor a request for an opinion has been referred to it pursuant to Rule 179(1) may do so only with the authorisation of the Conference of Presidents. Where such authorisation is withheld the reason must always be stated.
2. Motions for resolutions contained in own-initiative reports shall be examined by Parliament pursuant to the short presentation procedure set out in Rule 131a. Amendments to such motions for resolutions shall not be admissible for consideration in plenary unless tabled by the rapporteur to take account of new information, but alternative motions for resolutions may be tabled in accordance with Rule 151(4). This paragraph shall not apply where the subject of the report qualifies for a key debate in plenary, where the report is drawn up pursuant to the right of initiative referred to in Rule 38a or 39, or where the report can be considered a strategic report according to the criteria set out by the Conference of Presidents. [Cf. Annex XVIc]
3. Where the subject of the report comes under the right of initiative referred to in Rule 38a, authorisation may be withheld only on the grounds that the conditions set out in the Treaties are not met.
4. In the cases referred to in Rule 38a and Rule 39, the Conference of Presidents shall take a decision within two months.
***
Opinions of committees
Reports to be drafted have to be assigned to a responsible committee, but the issues often have implications for other policy areas (and committees). Therefore it is standard parliamentary practice to request opinions from other committees with regard to their remit:
Rule 46 Opinions of committees
1. Should the committee to which a question was first referred wish to hear the views of another committee, or should another committee wish to make known its views on the report of the committee to which a question was first referred, such committees may ask the President that, in accordance with Rule 179(3), one committee be named as the committee responsible and the other as the committee asked for an opinion.
2. In the case of documents of a legislative nature within the meaning of Rule 40(1), the opinion shall consist of draft amendments to the text referred to the committee accompanied, if appropriate, by short justifications. Such justifications shall be the responsibility of the rapporteur for the opinion and shall not be put to the vote. If necessary the committee may submit a short written justification for the opinion taken as a whole.
In the case of non-legislative texts, the opinion shall consist of suggestions for parts of the motion for a resolution submitted by the committee responsible.
The committee responsible shall put these draft amendments or suggestions to the vote.
The opinions shall deal solely with those matters that fall under the areas of responsibility of the committee giving an opinion.
3. The committee responsible shall fix a deadline within which the committee asked for an opinion must deliver it if it is to be taken into account in the committee responsible. Any changes to the announced timetable shall be immediately communicated by the committee responsible to the committee(s) asked for an opinion. The committee responsible shall not reach its final conclusions before that time limit has expired.
4. All adopted opinions shall be annexed to the report of the committee responsible.
5. Only the committee responsible may table amendments in Parliament.
6. The chair and rapporteur of the committee asked for an opinion shall be invited to take part in an advisory capacity in meetings of the committee responsible, insofar as these relate to the matter of common concern.
***
Joint responsibility
Borderline cases where a matter falls more or less equally within the remit of more than one committee require rules for cooperation in order to ensure consistency in the reports brought to the floor (and the output of the European Parliament).
The official explanations add: The wording of this Rule does not lay down any limits to its scope. Requests for application of the procedure with associated committees concerning non- legislative reports based on Rules 45(1) and 112(1) and (2) are admissible.
Rule 47 on associated committees:
Rule 47 Procedure with associated committees
Where a question of competence has been referred to the Conference of Presidents pursuant to Rules 179(2) or 45, and the Conference of Presidents, on the basis of Annex VI, considers that the matter falls almost equally within the competence of two or more committees, or that different parts of the matter fall under the competence of two or more committees, Rule 46 shall apply with the following additional provisions:
- the timetable shall be jointly agreed by the committees concerned;
- the rapporteur and the rapporteurs for opinions shall keep each other informed and shall endeavour to agree on the texts they propose to their committees and on their position regarding amendments;
- the chairs, rapporteur and rapporteurs for opinions concerned shall endeavour to jointly identify areas of the text falling within their exclusive or joint competences and agree on the precise arrangements for their cooperation;
- the committee responsible shall accept without a vote amendments from an associated committee where they concern matters which the chair of the committee responsible considers, on the basis of Annex VI, after consulting the chair of the associated committee, to fall under the exclusive competence of the associated committee and which do not contradict other elements of the report. The chair of the committee responsible shall take account of any agreement reached under the third indent;
- in the event of a conciliation procedure taking place on the proposal, Parliament's delegation shall include the rapporteur of any associated committee.
***
Drafting reports
Even if the explanatory statement is the responsibility of the rapporteur, he or she has to respect the rule that it has to accord with the approved draft resolution. At least the total committee vote is recorded as well as a summary of the minority opinion. In some cases a report may not be forthcoming; the committee can appoint a new rapporteur or propose a plenary debate on the basis of an oral report:
Rule 48 Drafting of reports
1. The explanatory statement shall be the responsibility of the rapporteur and shall not be put to the vote. It must, however, accord with the text of the motion for a resolution as adopted and any amendments proposed by the committee. If it fails to do so, the chair of the committee may delete the explanatory statement.
2. The report shall state the result of the vote taken on the report as a whole. In addition, if at least one-third of the members present so request when the vote is taken, the report shall indicate how each member voted.
3. Where the committee's opinion is not unanimous the report shall also give a summary of the minority opinion. Minority opinions shall be expressed when the vote on the text as a whole is taken, and may, at the request of their authors, be the subject of a written declaration not exceeding 200 words in length, annexed to the explanatory statement.
The chair shall settle any disputes which may arise as a result of the application of these provisions.
4. On a proposal from its bureau, a committee may set a deadline within which the rapporteur shall submit the draft report. This deadline may be extended or a new rapporteur appointed.
5. Once the deadline has expired, the committee may instruct its chair to ask for the matter referred to it to be placed on the agenda of one of the next sittings of Parliament. The debates may then be conducted on the basis of an oral report by the committee concerned.
***
The committees are central to the functioning of the European Parliament, and the common rules sampled above cover just a part of nearly forty index references to EP committees in the Rules of Procedure.
Ralf Grahn
Plenary sittings are the tip of the iceberg, but the preparatory work takes place in specialised committees, most of them standing (permanent).
The names of the committees give a fair indication of their areas of activity. In Eurospeak the committees are known under their acronyms.
***
Overview
The European Parliament’s web pages offer a listing on the existing committees, and from there you can access information about the work of each of them:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/committeesList.do?language=EN
Standing committees
AFET
Foreign Affairs
Sub-committee DROI Human Rights
Sub-committee SEDE Security and Defence
DEVE
Development
INTA
International Trade
BUDG
Budgets
CONT
Budgetary Control
ECON
Economic and Monetary Affairs
EMPL
Employment and Social Affairs
ENVI
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
ITRE
Industry, Research and Energy
IMCO
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
TRAN
Transport and Tourism
REGI
Regional Development
AGRI
Agriculture and Rural Development
PECH
Fisheries
CULT
Culture and Education
JURI
Legal Affairs
LIBE
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
AFCO
Constitutional Affairs
FEMM
Women's Rights and Gender Equality
PETI
Petitions
Temporary committees
CLIM
Climate Change
***
Common rules
The first paragraph of Article 197 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (and Article 14(4) of the Treaty on European Union as presented in the consolidated version of the Treaty of Lisbon) leave most of the internal organisation to be decided by the European Parliament itself.
The EP’s Rules of Procedure (16th edition, October 2008) constitute the backbone of its internal organisation:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+RULES-EP+20081022+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN
***
Committee procedures
Here we are going to sample the common rules on procedure in committee, dealt with in Chapter 2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Legislative report
The committee chair proposes the procedure to follow and the committee appoints a rapporteur to draft the report. The rapporteur drafts amendments to the legislative proposal (with short justifications) and a draft legislative resolution (with an explanatory statement including financial impact):
CHAPTER 2 PROCEDURE IN COMMITTEE
Rule 42 Legislative reports
1. The chair of the committee to which a Commission proposal has been referred shall propose to the committee the procedure to be followed.
2. Following a decision on the procedure to be followed, and if Rule 43 does not apply, the committee shall appoint a rapporteur on the Commission proposal from among its members or permanent substitutes if it has not yet done so on the basis of the annual legislative programme agreed under Rule 33.
3. The committee's report shall comprise:
a) draft amendments, if any, to the proposal, accompanied, if appropriate, by short justifications which shall be the responsibility of the rapporteur and shall not be put to the vote;
b) a draft legislative resolution, in accordance with Rule 51(2);
c) if appropriate, an explanatory statement including a financial statement which establishes the magnitude of any financial impact of the report and its compatibility with the financial perspective.
***
Simplified procedure
If there is overwhelming support in the committee for approving the legislative proposal without amendments, a simplified procedure can be adopted. Likewise if the amendments seem clear enough on the basis of the initial discussion:
Rule 43 Simplified procedure
1. Following a first discussion of a legislative proposal, the chair may propose that it be approved without amendment. Unless at least one-tenth of the members of the committee object, the chair shall present to Parliament a report approving the proposal. Rule 131(1), second subparagraph, (2) and (4) shall apply.
2. The chair may alternatively propose that a set of amendments be drafted by the chair or by the rapporteur reflecting the committee's discussion. If the committee so agrees, these amendments shall be sent to the members of the committee. Unless at least one-tenth of the members of the committee object within a set time limit, which may not be less than twenty-one days from the date of dispatch, the report shall be considered as having been adopted by the committee. In this case the draft legislative resolution and the amendments shall be submitted to Parliament without debate pursuant to Rule 131(1), second subparagraph, (2) and (4).
3. If at least one-tenth of the committee's members object, the amendments shall be put to the vote at the next meeting of the committee.
4. The first and second sentences of paragraph 1, the first, second and third sentences of paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to committee opinions within the meaning of Rule 46.
***
Non-legislative report
The European Parliament does not deal solely with legislative proposals, but expresses its opinion on a variety of Commission consultation papers and requests for opinion:
Rule 44 Non-legislative reports
1. Where a committee draws up a non-legislative report, it shall appoint a rapporteur from among its members or permanent substitutes.
2. The rapporteur shall be responsible for preparing the committee's report and for presenting it to Parliament on behalf of the committee.
3. The committee's report shall comprise:
a) a motion for a resolution;
b) an explanatory statement including a financial statement which establishes the magnitude of any financial impact of the report and its compatibility with the financial perspective;
c) the texts of any motions for resolutions to be included under Rule 113(4).
***
Own-initiative report
The EP may want to express its opinion and request legislative proposals on certain issues, but the Rules of Procedure impose the judicious use report on the EP’s own initiative by the requirement that such a report has to be authorised by the Conference of Presidents.
The official explanations add: The Conference of Presidents shall take a decision on requests for authorisation to draw up reports submitted pursuant to paragraph 1 on the basis of implementing provisions which it shall itself lay down. If a committee's competence to draw up a report for which it has requested authorisation is challenged, the Conference of Presidents shall take a decision within six weeks on the basis of a recommendation from the Conference of Committee Chairs, or, if no such recommendation is forthcoming, from its chair. If the Conference of Presidents fails to take a decision within that period, the recommendation shall be declared to have been approved.
Rule 45 on own-initiative reports:
Rule 45 Own-initiative reports
1. A committee intending to draw up a report and to submit a motion for a resolution to Parliament on a subject within its competence on which neither a consultation nor a request for an opinion has been referred to it pursuant to Rule 179(1) may do so only with the authorisation of the Conference of Presidents. Where such authorisation is withheld the reason must always be stated.
2. Motions for resolutions contained in own-initiative reports shall be examined by Parliament pursuant to the short presentation procedure set out in Rule 131a. Amendments to such motions for resolutions shall not be admissible for consideration in plenary unless tabled by the rapporteur to take account of new information, but alternative motions for resolutions may be tabled in accordance with Rule 151(4). This paragraph shall not apply where the subject of the report qualifies for a key debate in plenary, where the report is drawn up pursuant to the right of initiative referred to in Rule 38a or 39, or where the report can be considered a strategic report according to the criteria set out by the Conference of Presidents. [Cf. Annex XVIc]
3. Where the subject of the report comes under the right of initiative referred to in Rule 38a, authorisation may be withheld only on the grounds that the conditions set out in the Treaties are not met.
4. In the cases referred to in Rule 38a and Rule 39, the Conference of Presidents shall take a decision within two months.
***
Opinions of committees
Reports to be drafted have to be assigned to a responsible committee, but the issues often have implications for other policy areas (and committees). Therefore it is standard parliamentary practice to request opinions from other committees with regard to their remit:
Rule 46 Opinions of committees
1. Should the committee to which a question was first referred wish to hear the views of another committee, or should another committee wish to make known its views on the report of the committee to which a question was first referred, such committees may ask the President that, in accordance with Rule 179(3), one committee be named as the committee responsible and the other as the committee asked for an opinion.
2. In the case of documents of a legislative nature within the meaning of Rule 40(1), the opinion shall consist of draft amendments to the text referred to the committee accompanied, if appropriate, by short justifications. Such justifications shall be the responsibility of the rapporteur for the opinion and shall not be put to the vote. If necessary the committee may submit a short written justification for the opinion taken as a whole.
In the case of non-legislative texts, the opinion shall consist of suggestions for parts of the motion for a resolution submitted by the committee responsible.
The committee responsible shall put these draft amendments or suggestions to the vote.
The opinions shall deal solely with those matters that fall under the areas of responsibility of the committee giving an opinion.
3. The committee responsible shall fix a deadline within which the committee asked for an opinion must deliver it if it is to be taken into account in the committee responsible. Any changes to the announced timetable shall be immediately communicated by the committee responsible to the committee(s) asked for an opinion. The committee responsible shall not reach its final conclusions before that time limit has expired.
4. All adopted opinions shall be annexed to the report of the committee responsible.
5. Only the committee responsible may table amendments in Parliament.
6. The chair and rapporteur of the committee asked for an opinion shall be invited to take part in an advisory capacity in meetings of the committee responsible, insofar as these relate to the matter of common concern.
***
Joint responsibility
Borderline cases where a matter falls more or less equally within the remit of more than one committee require rules for cooperation in order to ensure consistency in the reports brought to the floor (and the output of the European Parliament).
The official explanations add: The wording of this Rule does not lay down any limits to its scope. Requests for application of the procedure with associated committees concerning non- legislative reports based on Rules 45(1) and 112(1) and (2) are admissible.
Rule 47 on associated committees:
Rule 47 Procedure with associated committees
Where a question of competence has been referred to the Conference of Presidents pursuant to Rules 179(2) or 45, and the Conference of Presidents, on the basis of Annex VI, considers that the matter falls almost equally within the competence of two or more committees, or that different parts of the matter fall under the competence of two or more committees, Rule 46 shall apply with the following additional provisions:
- the timetable shall be jointly agreed by the committees concerned;
- the rapporteur and the rapporteurs for opinions shall keep each other informed and shall endeavour to agree on the texts they propose to their committees and on their position regarding amendments;
- the chairs, rapporteur and rapporteurs for opinions concerned shall endeavour to jointly identify areas of the text falling within their exclusive or joint competences and agree on the precise arrangements for their cooperation;
- the committee responsible shall accept without a vote amendments from an associated committee where they concern matters which the chair of the committee responsible considers, on the basis of Annex VI, after consulting the chair of the associated committee, to fall under the exclusive competence of the associated committee and which do not contradict other elements of the report. The chair of the committee responsible shall take account of any agreement reached under the third indent;
- in the event of a conciliation procedure taking place on the proposal, Parliament's delegation shall include the rapporteur of any associated committee.
***
Drafting reports
Even if the explanatory statement is the responsibility of the rapporteur, he or she has to respect the rule that it has to accord with the approved draft resolution. At least the total committee vote is recorded as well as a summary of the minority opinion. In some cases a report may not be forthcoming; the committee can appoint a new rapporteur or propose a plenary debate on the basis of an oral report:
Rule 48 Drafting of reports
1. The explanatory statement shall be the responsibility of the rapporteur and shall not be put to the vote. It must, however, accord with the text of the motion for a resolution as adopted and any amendments proposed by the committee. If it fails to do so, the chair of the committee may delete the explanatory statement.
2. The report shall state the result of the vote taken on the report as a whole. In addition, if at least one-third of the members present so request when the vote is taken, the report shall indicate how each member voted.
3. Where the committee's opinion is not unanimous the report shall also give a summary of the minority opinion. Minority opinions shall be expressed when the vote on the text as a whole is taken, and may, at the request of their authors, be the subject of a written declaration not exceeding 200 words in length, annexed to the explanatory statement.
The chair shall settle any disputes which may arise as a result of the application of these provisions.
4. On a proposal from its bureau, a committee may set a deadline within which the rapporteur shall submit the draft report. This deadline may be extended or a new rapporteur appointed.
5. Once the deadline has expired, the committee may instruct its chair to ask for the matter referred to it to be placed on the agenda of one of the next sittings of Parliament. The debates may then be conducted on the basis of an oral report by the committee concerned.
***
The committees are central to the functioning of the European Parliament, and the common rules sampled above cover just a part of nearly forty index references to EP committees in the Rules of Procedure.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 14 January 2008
Sack the spin doctor!
Someone must have given the European leaders bad advice on how to present the Treaty of Lisbon to the public.
The drafting technique is a deliberate choice. Therefore, I will quote one example of the amendments made by the Reform Treaty to the existing EU Treaty:
31)”Article 14 shall be amended as follows:
(a) in paragraph 1, the first two sentences shall be replaced by the following sentence: "Where the international situation requires operational action by the Union, the Council shall adopt the necessary decisions.";
(b) paragraph 2 shall become the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, and the other paragraphs shall be renumbered accordingly. In the first sentence, the words "to joint action," shall be replaced by "to such a decision," and the words "that action" shall be replaced by "that decision". The last sentence shall be deleted;
(c) in paragraph 3, renumbered 2, the words "Joint actions" shall be replaced by "Decisions referred to in paragraph 1";
(d) the current paragraph 4 shall be deleted and the remaining paragraphs shall be renumbered accordingly;
(e) in the first sentence of paragraph 5, renumbered 3, the words "pursuant to a joint action, information shall be provided in time to allow," shall be replaced by "pursuant to a decision as referred to in paragraph 1, information shall be provided by the Member State concerned in time to allow,";
(f) in the first sentence of paragraph 6, renumbered 4, the words "failing a Council decision," shall be replaced by "failing a review of the Council decision as referred to in paragraph 1," and the words "of the joint action" shall be replaced by "of that decision";
(g) in paragraph 7, renumbered 5, the words "joint action" in the first sentence shall be replaced by "decision as referred to in this Article" and in the second sentence by "decision referred to in paragraph 1".”
***
In spite of the fairly insignificant amendments, the drafting technique leads to time consuming comparison for anyone trying to fix the exact wording of the Article. Even after checks, mistakes are probable. Clear amendments could have been written once, centrally by the Council, instead of the unnecessary multiplication of work all around Europe caused by the reader-unfriendly drafting.
With even a token of regard for readers, Article 14 TEU and many others like it could have been written ‘in extenso’. The end result in Article 14 EUT, does not differ much from the present Article 14 TEU, but it looks a lot like the Constitutional Treaty. Surprised, anybody?
It is as if everyone interested in European affairs should be punished for wanting to read, understand or use the Reform Treaty.
***
The drafting technique would not have caused major problems, if the Council had published reader-friendly consolidated versions at the same time, in every official language of the EU. But the real disaster became clear by the Council’s deliberate refusal to produce timely consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty, the Union’s most important document in 2007 and 2008 and, perhaps, beyond that.
Has the presentational technique eliminated the phantasmagorical allegations against the contents of the Lisbon Treaty? Not as far as I know, but a lot of ordinary citizens have been alienated by the antics of the Council.
There is a lot more re-engaging to do, now.
If anybody wants a schoolbook example of how not to communicate with the public, it is here. I hope it finds extensive use in time for the needed replacements, namely:
Somebody’s spin doctor should be sacked!
Ralf Grahn
The drafting technique is a deliberate choice. Therefore, I will quote one example of the amendments made by the Reform Treaty to the existing EU Treaty:
31)”Article 14 shall be amended as follows:
(a) in paragraph 1, the first two sentences shall be replaced by the following sentence: "Where the international situation requires operational action by the Union, the Council shall adopt the necessary decisions.";
(b) paragraph 2 shall become the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, and the other paragraphs shall be renumbered accordingly. In the first sentence, the words "to joint action," shall be replaced by "to such a decision," and the words "that action" shall be replaced by "that decision". The last sentence shall be deleted;
(c) in paragraph 3, renumbered 2, the words "Joint actions" shall be replaced by "Decisions referred to in paragraph 1";
(d) the current paragraph 4 shall be deleted and the remaining paragraphs shall be renumbered accordingly;
(e) in the first sentence of paragraph 5, renumbered 3, the words "pursuant to a joint action, information shall be provided in time to allow," shall be replaced by "pursuant to a decision as referred to in paragraph 1, information shall be provided by the Member State concerned in time to allow,";
(f) in the first sentence of paragraph 6, renumbered 4, the words "failing a Council decision," shall be replaced by "failing a review of the Council decision as referred to in paragraph 1," and the words "of the joint action" shall be replaced by "of that decision";
(g) in paragraph 7, renumbered 5, the words "joint action" in the first sentence shall be replaced by "decision as referred to in this Article" and in the second sentence by "decision referred to in paragraph 1".”
***
In spite of the fairly insignificant amendments, the drafting technique leads to time consuming comparison for anyone trying to fix the exact wording of the Article. Even after checks, mistakes are probable. Clear amendments could have been written once, centrally by the Council, instead of the unnecessary multiplication of work all around Europe caused by the reader-unfriendly drafting.
With even a token of regard for readers, Article 14 TEU and many others like it could have been written ‘in extenso’. The end result in Article 14 EUT, does not differ much from the present Article 14 TEU, but it looks a lot like the Constitutional Treaty. Surprised, anybody?
It is as if everyone interested in European affairs should be punished for wanting to read, understand or use the Reform Treaty.
***
The drafting technique would not have caused major problems, if the Council had published reader-friendly consolidated versions at the same time, in every official language of the EU. But the real disaster became clear by the Council’s deliberate refusal to produce timely consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty, the Union’s most important document in 2007 and 2008 and, perhaps, beyond that.
Has the presentational technique eliminated the phantasmagorical allegations against the contents of the Lisbon Treaty? Not as far as I know, but a lot of ordinary citizens have been alienated by the antics of the Council.
There is a lot more re-engaging to do, now.
If anybody wants a schoolbook example of how not to communicate with the public, it is here. I hope it finds extensive use in time for the needed replacements, namely:
Somebody’s spin doctor should be sacked!
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 24 December 2007
EU Treaty of Lisbon: breach of values with sanctions
The values of the European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon (in the Treaty on European Union, TEU) are:
Article 1a
The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.
***
These values should guide every action by the EU, both internal and external. Countries applying for EU membership have to show that they fulfil the criteria.
The values of the Union apply to the present member states, too. Backsliding on, e.g. democracy, the rule of law or human rights is not allowed. Already a clear risk of a serious breach may be determined, and the procedure may lead to recommendations being issued to the member state.
If a serious and persistent breach is determined, this may lead to sanctions against the culprit. These include suspension of voting rights of the member state in question, but this state is still bound by its membership obligations.
From a citizen’s point of view, the procedures and sanctions mentioned in both the present and the amended Article 7 strengthen democratic and legal rights.
***
The changes between the existing TEU Article 7, Article I-59 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe and the TEU Article 7, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, are of minor importance.
The wording is altered to a degree, e.g. the values referred to are found in Article 1a (presently Article 6), the European Parliament gives its consent (not assent), the European Commission replaces the Commission, and the European Council replaces the Council, meeting in the composition of the Heads of State or Government. The more technical voting arrangements (amended paragraph 5) are moved to Article 309 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
***
The drafting technique used in Article 7, despite the relative simplicity of the amendments, is a convincing example of extreme reader-unfriendliness, with horizontal amendments and minor changes being listed separately from the text of the Article. Not even the paragraphs amended are written in full.
Try yourself to write down the exact contents of this one Article, and multiply the efforts needed by all the teachers and students and other interested citizens all over Europe trying to construct the exact wording of Article 7 (and many more like it), and you understand why centrally compiled, consolidated versions of the Treaty of Lisbon in all the official languages are absolute necessities.
Why has no one stepped forward to claim responsibility for these choices?
Why has no one offered reasons for these choices?
Failing that, the IGC 2007 drafting and the Council’s refusal to publish consolidated versions of the TEU and the TFEU can hardly be seen as inspired by other than an evil genius.
The citizens of the European Union have simply been told to wait for consolidated versions until the ratification processes are over and the Treaty of Lisbon has entered into force.
***
The Treaty on European Union (latest consolidated version OJ 29.12.2006, C 321 E/1) is amended by the Treaty of Lisbon (OJ 17.12.2007, C 306/1), with Article 7 amended and consolidated to read as follows:
Article 7
1. On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the European Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 1a. Before making such a determination, the Council shall hear the Member State in question and may address recommendations to it, acting in accordance with the same procedure.
The Council shall regularly verify that the grounds on which such a determination was made continue to apply.
2. The European Council, acting by unanimity on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the European Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 1a, after inviting the Member State in question to submit its observations.
3. Where a determination under paragraph 2 has been made, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council. In doing so, the Council shall take into account the possible consequences of such a suspension on the rights and obligations of natural and legal persons.
The obligations of the Member State in question under the Treaties shall in any case continue to be binding on that State.
4. The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide subsequently to vary or revoke measures taken under paragraph 3 in response to changes in the situation which led to their being imposed.
5. The voting arrangements applying to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council for the purposes of this Article are laid down in Article 309 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
***
My next look at the Treaty of Lisbon is going to concern the Union’s neighbourhood policy.
Ralf Grahn
Article 1a
The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.
***
These values should guide every action by the EU, both internal and external. Countries applying for EU membership have to show that they fulfil the criteria.
The values of the Union apply to the present member states, too. Backsliding on, e.g. democracy, the rule of law or human rights is not allowed. Already a clear risk of a serious breach may be determined, and the procedure may lead to recommendations being issued to the member state.
If a serious and persistent breach is determined, this may lead to sanctions against the culprit. These include suspension of voting rights of the member state in question, but this state is still bound by its membership obligations.
From a citizen’s point of view, the procedures and sanctions mentioned in both the present and the amended Article 7 strengthen democratic and legal rights.
***
The changes between the existing TEU Article 7, Article I-59 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe and the TEU Article 7, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, are of minor importance.
The wording is altered to a degree, e.g. the values referred to are found in Article 1a (presently Article 6), the European Parliament gives its consent (not assent), the European Commission replaces the Commission, and the European Council replaces the Council, meeting in the composition of the Heads of State or Government. The more technical voting arrangements (amended paragraph 5) are moved to Article 309 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
***
The drafting technique used in Article 7, despite the relative simplicity of the amendments, is a convincing example of extreme reader-unfriendliness, with horizontal amendments and minor changes being listed separately from the text of the Article. Not even the paragraphs amended are written in full.
Try yourself to write down the exact contents of this one Article, and multiply the efforts needed by all the teachers and students and other interested citizens all over Europe trying to construct the exact wording of Article 7 (and many more like it), and you understand why centrally compiled, consolidated versions of the Treaty of Lisbon in all the official languages are absolute necessities.
Why has no one stepped forward to claim responsibility for these choices?
Why has no one offered reasons for these choices?
Failing that, the IGC 2007 drafting and the Council’s refusal to publish consolidated versions of the TEU and the TFEU can hardly be seen as inspired by other than an evil genius.
The citizens of the European Union have simply been told to wait for consolidated versions until the ratification processes are over and the Treaty of Lisbon has entered into force.
***
The Treaty on European Union (latest consolidated version OJ 29.12.2006, C 321 E/1) is amended by the Treaty of Lisbon (OJ 17.12.2007, C 306/1), with Article 7 amended and consolidated to read as follows:
Article 7
1. On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the European Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 1a. Before making such a determination, the Council shall hear the Member State in question and may address recommendations to it, acting in accordance with the same procedure.
The Council shall regularly verify that the grounds on which such a determination was made continue to apply.
2. The European Council, acting by unanimity on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the European Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 1a, after inviting the Member State in question to submit its observations.
3. Where a determination under paragraph 2 has been made, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council. In doing so, the Council shall take into account the possible consequences of such a suspension on the rights and obligations of natural and legal persons.
The obligations of the Member State in question under the Treaties shall in any case continue to be binding on that State.
4. The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide subsequently to vary or revoke measures taken under paragraph 3 in response to changes in the situation which led to their being imposed.
5. The voting arrangements applying to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council for the purposes of this Article are laid down in Article 309 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
***
My next look at the Treaty of Lisbon is going to concern the Union’s neighbourhood policy.
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
