Full-bodied EU acquis – the bouquet of EU English

Yesterday’s blog post noted that between 2008 and 2009 the body of European Union legislation had decreased by some 2060 regulations and 80 directives: How much EU legislation in member state UK? Nosemonkey and House of Commons Library (15 October 2010).

As I said, the pure numbers tell us little about the impact or influence of EU legislation.

Since then, I thought about a few trivial or arcane details.

First of all, why did I insert the insider term ‘acquis communautaire’ after referring to the EU statute book? Second, why ‘communautaire’ when the Communities (except for Euratom) have disappeared, through the preordained ‘death’ of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), and the European Community (EC) having been amalgamated into the European Union by the Lisbon Treaty? Third, why use the French term in English and other EU languages?



EU dictionary IATE



One of the excellent EU resources is the IATE website (InterActive Terminology for Europe), an online dictionary between all the official languages of the European Union. My impression is that the website is little known outside the circles of language professionals, such as translators, interpreters and lawyer-linguists, even if many officials, communicators, journalists, students and others who deal with issues of substance would need the services at times.

Why not bookmark the page?

Using French as the source language IATE offered a number of English translations, which varied according to the context. Among them were Acquis Communautaire, the body of EU law, Community acquis, body of existing Community legislation and practice, (adoption of the) acquis communautaire.

In short, there were more translations using the French term than a description in English: the body of EU law, or body of existing Community legislation and practice.

One lesson might be to use a description in plain language whenever we can.



Community method RIP


In a series of blog posts I discussed the obsolete term “Community method” recently used by leading EU politicians (here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

I ended up favouring the “Federal method” to replace the antiquated term, because it had more teeth. The European Citizen preferred “Union method”, Simon Blackley proposed the “ordinary decision process” and Eurogoblin would have been happy to stick with the “Community method” or even endured the “Union method”, as long as the word “Federal” could be kept in confinement on Ventotene, or somewhere.

Why on Earth, after so much discussion about the obsolescence of the term “Community” (except in a historical context) did I make even a fleeting mention of the word “communautaire”?

Intellectual sloth is the only explanation I can come up with. Please, accept my apologies.



“Acquis” in English and other EU languages


The “acquis communautaire” has its place in a historical context, but when we deal with contemporary issues even the French could start referring to the “UE acquis”.

If issues of word count matter, and in the playpens of Brussels insiders, the “EU acquis” (or the comparable expression in the relevant language) could replace the antiquated term.

IMHO the “EU statute book” I used was not bad as a colloquial expression, given the circumstances: the number of legal acts (regulations and directives).

However, the “body of EU law” is wider than the sum of legal acts. Therefore, I find that it is a short and good description in many cases.

The longer “body of existing Community EU legislation and practice” makes the scope clearer. Sometimes we may want to add “jurisprudence” or “case law” to the description to make it even more evident.

When we have room to explain matters to readers or listeners, we could sometimes opt for the “body of EU legislation, practice and case law” or a comparable expression in another language.


Now my next question: Is this a sane way to spend one’s Saturday morning? Please, no spam solicitations from headshrinkers (even if it would balance the extension type of cures abundantly on offer), but perhaps some people interested in languages could comment.




Ralf Grahn




P.S. Speaking about languages, the multilingual blog aggregator Bloggingportal.eu offers you an opportunity to read up on European affairs (EU and Council of Europe) and improve your language skills.



The Euroblogger Vihar Georgiev is a productive writer on EU law and politics. In addition he is one of the relatively few Central and Eastern Europeans visible for blog readers in the old member states, and he does his share of multilingualism by blogging in English on European Union Law and its Bulgarian sister blog. He is also active on Twitter @vihargg.

To The European Citizen: The EUnion is behind us, we shall not be moved

Thoughtful, well reasoned and moderate, The European Citizen is a star among Euroblogs. The posts by Conor Slowey are a pleasure to read and instructive to boot, for those interested in the law and politics of the European Union.




Now there is a special reason to note The European Citizen, who in his blog entry Onward, Community Soldiers replied that the defunct “Community method” could be replaced by the “Union method” for co-decision under the Lisbon Treaty, perhaps opposed by the “Council method” or “Special method” for more intergovernmental forms of decision-making.



After I argued that the “Union method” would be a seamless and (politically) correct shift, but the “Federal method” a better description, The European Citizen returned with a pondered reply: Calling a spade a federal method.

He now proposes the “States’ method” for intergovernmental decision-making, but still favours the “Union method” as a replacement for the “Community method”:

It will probably be a matter of taste - who knows, the Community method label could survive for quite a while longer, and other different variations will probably surface. Avoiding "federal" may be a politically correct option, but I feel that if federal has been rejected from the Treaties in favour of "ever closer union", then adopting the f-word is a declaration of political ideology and aspiration, even if European law has a federal character. I have little problem with the term "federal method" in itself, but I'll stick with the (in my opinion) more neutral "Union method" and "States' method".

The reason for my series of blog posts was that leading EU politicians, such as Herman Van Rompuy and Martin Schulz recently used the old term “Community method”, terminology central to European integration (not only ‘cosmetics’).

Slowey and I seem to be in agreement that a new term to reflect the Treaty of Lisbon is preferable, and our different preferences can be described as a matter of taste.

However, continuing the hymn-like headlines, I do not embrace Slowey’s argument that the choice of the “Federal method” is dictated by political ideology and aspiration, at least in my case (although I am a federalist). I see the term “federal” as a better, though wide, description of co-decision in the European Union, including the ordinary legislative procedure (default mode).

I don’t buy ‘ever closer union’ as a supportive argument either. All the Treaties have stated this phrase about the latest leg of the journey, while leaving the ultimate goal (finalité) undisclosed, but this is a slightly different issue. In addition, we have the various forms of intergovernmental decision-making, so “federal” describes only a part of the functioning of the European Union, not the whole.

A rhetorical question, if you like: Do you want a physician to offer a politically or clinically correct diagnosis?

Politicians and officials may, or may not, prefer politically correct terms, in order to evade sensitive issues, especially when the ‘liberum veto’ forces them to adopt the lowest common denominator, but I see no reason why researchers, teachers, students, practitioners or other free citizens should.

Ergo, at this stage I still prefer the “Federal system” to replace the antiquated “Community system”.

The “States’ system” can, in my view, be tested as a headline concept for more or less intergovernmental decisions relating to the EU.

Perhaps there are others in the EU related online community thinking about these tools of trade(?)




Ralf Grahn

EU politics and law: “Community method” dead and reburied – What instead?

Almost two decades ago, from 1 November 1993, the Treaty on European Union (TEU; Maastricht Treaty, 1992) established the European Union (EU) as the overall term and as the framework for intergovernmental second pillar foreign and security policy, as well as third pillar justice and home affairs.

However, the European Community (EC) carried on the activities of the European Economic Community (EEC), and these manifold policy areas were lumped together under the so called first pillar.

Only the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon sent the European Community to kingdom come, when the reform treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009. The pillar structure was formally abolished, although many intergovernmental traits remain, under two distinct Treaties.



Therefore, the easy part was the Coroner’s renewed verdict on the death of the EC and ordering the reburial, when leading EU politicians had recently exhumed the body of the “Community method”, which had become a historical term. This was done in the blog post “EU: Community method RIP – or a stake through its heart!” (25 September 2010), because the first pronouncement had not been heeded.

Now the more difficult part remains. We need to settle the succession and we need a Baptist for the newborn.

At present, we have only the European Union, as in the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). What should we call the process when the Commission proposes and the Council and the European Parliament jointly dispose?

Officially, we have the “ordinary legislative procedure”, which can be boiled down to “EU legislation” or “EU lawmaking” in everyday speech.

But the scope of decisions and processes is wider (formally: regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions; Article 288 TFEU). There are budgetary issues and a host of administrative matters, such as plans, reports, duties to inform, comitology procedures and scrutiny processes.

There is need for a wider, more political term.

The directly elected European Parliament represents the citizens of the European Union and the Council represents the (special interests of the) member states. When the EP and the Council decide on an equal basis, on a proposal from the Commission (duty bound to promote the general interest), they act as a first chamber and a second chamber of representatives in a federal system.



Should we stretch the term “parliamentary” to encompass at least this part of the EU political system?

The president of the Commission is, in practice, appointed by the European Council, although taking into account the elections to the European Parliament. Formally, the candidate is elected by the European Parliament, even if I consider the term “elected” in Article 17(7) TEU to be a misnomer for the right of refusal.

The other members of the Commission are, effectively, nominated by the governments of the member states, although by common accord with the president-elect. The Commission as a body needs the consent of the EP and it can be deposed by a vote of censure.

In other words, there are elements of normal parliamentary political accountability in play, but not rule by a simple majority in Parliament.

Where the Commission makes formal proposals, it is difficult for the EP and the Council to vote them down or amend them, if the Commission does not change its opinion. (In intergovernmental matters the role of the Commission varies from recommendations to almost non-existent.)

Does this mean that we have to discard the “parliamentary method” as well? If the EU is ‘sui generis’ enough to escape existing terms in this respect as well, which concept should we adopt to replace the outdated “Community method”?

Are you going to be our Baptist? How would you name the baby?

Your help is needed.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. The multilingual aggregator for EU related blogs keeps growing. There are now 668 Euroblogs, or blogs related to EU (and CoE) affairs, listed on Bloggingportal.eu. You can take a look at the stream of all new posts, or follow the editors’ choices on the front page. You can also subscribe to the streams (all or highlighted) and the newsletters (daily or weekly) without cost.



Bloggingportal.eu needs a few more voluntary editors for the daily tagging of posts according to subjects. Why not keep informed by reading about European affairs, improve your language skills and do something useful by joining the team of editors?

EU materials: European Union terminology, procedures and sources 2010

Much of the existing literature on the European Union was published before the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force on 1 December 2009.

Outdated references to institutions, powers, procedures, legal bases, terms etc. tend to obscure the discussion on European Union affairs.

In the United Kingdom, the House of Commons Library does a great public service by producing Standard Notes on various subjects.

With regard to the European Union, I would like to draw attention to a Standard Note, which was updated recently, with the following aim:

This Note aims to clarify some of the terminology used to describe the institutions, laws and procedures of the European Union. It also provides links to useful sources of information on the EU.

UK House of Commons Library Note: The European Union: a guide to terminology, procedures and sources (Standard Note SN/IA/3689; last updated 24 March 2010; 14 pages; authors Vaughne Miller and Emma Clark)



Contents

1 Introduction 3

2 European ‘Community’, ‘Communities’ and ‘Union’ 3

3 The three ‘Pillars’ 4

4 EC law or EU law? 4

5 Treaty of Rome or Treaty of Lisbon? What to call the Treaty 5

6 Referencing Treaty articles 5

7 “Member State”: use of capital letters 5

8 European Council, Council of Ministers, Council of Europe 6
8.1 The European Council 6
8.2 The Council 6
8.3 The Council of Europe 7

9 European Courts 7

10 Legal instruments 7

11 Council and Commission legislation 8

12 The Acquis Communautaire 8

13 Official Journal 8

14 Legislative procedures 8
14.1 Ordinary Legislative Procedure 8
14.2 Consent 9
14.3 Consultation 9

15 Searching for EU legislation and documentation 10
15.1 Searching in Europe 10
15.2 Searching in the Member States 10
15.3 Searching in PIMS 10

16 Current information on the EU 11
16.1 Institutions 11
16.2 On-line news sources 12
16.3 Recent and forthcoming events 12
16.4 Addresses and telephone numbers 12

17 Reading List 13
17.1 General publications 13
17.2 European Union publications 13
17.3 House of Commons Library publications 13
17.4 Official Publications 14



In addition to Members of Parliament, this Standard Note is a most welcome reference for students of EU law and politics, as well as journalists reporting on European affairs.




Ralf Grahn

TFEU: Introduction

The European Convention never had the time to make a deep impact on the policy areas of the European Community, and in the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2004) the governments of the member states were obsessed by institutional questions, such as voting weights in the Council.

The IGC 2007 returned to the unfinished business left by the aborted ratification process of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.

Already in the context of the Convention and the Constitutional Treaty there were calls from pundits for an overhaul of the policies of the EU, and some echo from European leaders, but the national leaders seem to have been overwhelmed by the challenge to bring this stage of institutional reform to a close.

Thus, the main thrust of the Lisbon Treaty reform is institutional: to improve decision making within areas where the European Union (EU) and the European Community (EC) already exercise powers delegated by the member states.

If the Treaty of Lisbon survives the gauntlet of 27 national ratifications, the more mundane task of reforming the practical policies of the EU might raise enough of politicians’ interest to allow an overdue modernising exercise.

***

Article 2 of the Treaty of Lisbon contains the amendments to the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), which is renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

Many of the changes to the TFEU are caused by the reordering of the treaties, with the Treaty on European Union (TEU) becoming home to the constitutional principles and objectives of the European Union and the fundamental provisions on the institutions. In addition, the continuing separateness of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and the common security and defence policy (CSDP) is given emphasis by housing them in the TEU.

Besides the reordering, renaming of various concepts leads to a fair amount of amendments throughout the TFEU, but most of the changes are rather technical. The Treaty of Lisbon is no profound reform of EU policies, although the area of freedom, security and justice is united under normal rules for the countries without derogations and opt-outs, and some additional tinkering and tidying up occur.

***

Why then bother to wade through the TFEU?

The treaties are the most important documents of the European Union. They lay the foundations for common action aiming to improve the security and prosperity of the citizens of the European Union. The rule of law means that every piece of legislation and every decision has to be based on the treaties.

The great questions of foreign and security policy may attract more media attention, but businesses and citizens are affected more directly by EU legislation and the everyday workings of the institutions.

Assuming that a reasonable amount of knowledge about the European Union is in the interest of private parties, then it is better to study the latest edition of our common rules. This leads us to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as agreed on in the Lisbon Treaty. Even if the TFEU were to be hit by an accident never to enter into force, we would have gleaned some knowledge of the unreformed European Community (European Union).

***

Article 2 of the Treaty of Lisbon states that the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) shall be amended in accordance with the provisions of this Article (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/41).

Following from the merger of the EC into the EU and the renewed structure of the treaties, the treaty is renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

The IGC 2007 then sets out a number of horizontal amendments, leading to editorial or technical adaptations throughout the TFEU. I just highlight some of the new terminology we might want to get used to:

The ‘Union’ replaces the words ‘Community’ and ‘European Community’

‘The Treaties’ replaces ‘this Treaty’ and ‘the present Treaty’

The ‘ordinary legislative procedure’ replaces the procedure referred to in Article 251

The ‘internal market’ replaces the ‘common market’

‘Euro’ replaces ‘ecu’

‘Member States whose currency is the euro’ replaces ‘Member State without derogation’

The ‘European Central Bank’ replaces the abbreviation ‘ECB’

‘Economic and Financial Committee’ replaces the Committee provided for in Article 114

‘Specialised court’ replaces ‘judicial panel’

‘Acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure’ is inserted where the existing treaty says ‘acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission’

‘Acting by a simple majority’ is inserted into seven Articles

In two instances ‘obtaining the consent of the European Parliament’ replaces mere consultation

The ‘Court of Justice of the European Union’ becomes the official name, but sometimes the short form ‘Court’ is used

***

To these horizontal amendments of terminology are added the amendments concerning numbering and renumbering of the treaties, compounded by the less than reader-friendly drafting of the treaties themselves.

I salute the silent heroes who have produced the few consolidated language versions of the Treaty of Lisbon we already have. I wish that the versions still missing are produced and published soon. Brochures and web page summaries are important for the citizens of the EU, but they are far from enough.

(For the existing consolidations, as far as I know, see my latest compilation of sources, the 8 February 2008 posting ‘Lisbon Treaty: Consolidated language versions’.)


Ralf Grahn


P.S. Embarking on the long journey to explore our fundamental common rules as rendered by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, I want to repeat my plea for information on the law and politics of the Lisbon reform treaty.

I am most grateful, if you want to share your knowledge on the Treaty of Lisbon with me and other EU citizens: consolidated versions as well as books and other resources, such as official documents from the member states’ governments and parliaments, popular presentations and scholarly research literature, plus information on the ratification processes.