The anti-EU lobbying group Open Europe has published an updated version of their comparison of the EU Lisbon Treaty and the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. The treaty texts are presented side by side, with the differences easy to spot.
The numbering of the articles follows the plan for a coming officially unofficial consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty to be published by the European Union, when all the ratification processes are over and the Reform Treaty in force.
(My blog has looked at the the Treaty of Lisbon according to the numbering given by the intergovernmental conference and will continue to do so, on the assumption that the reader of the treaty searches for answers to an article with the specific number mentioned in the amending treaty as presented.)
***
Open Europe’s press summary 21 January 2008 included the following:
“Saturday’s Times reported that EU Communications Commissioner Margot Wallstrom has said that the European Council is refusing her request to publish a readable version of the Lisbon Treaty. Such a text will only be made public after ratification in the member states.”
(I refer to my numerous posts on the matter of consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty for the citizens of the European Union.)
Ralf Grahn
Source:
Open Europe: The Lisbon Treaty and the European Constitution: A side-by-side comparison; January 2008;
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/comparative.pdf
Open Europe: Press summary archive; 21 January 2008;
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/summary.aspx?id=511
Showing posts with label reform treaty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reform treaty. Show all posts
Monday, 21 January 2008
Product plugging by Christopher Booker
In The Telegraph, Christopher Booker made a lot of noise about contempt for Parliament and the like. According to Booker, the Government asks MPs to approve the EU treaty even before they have a proper chance to examine what it is they are voting on.
Booker then goes on to plug the consolidated Lisbon Treaty being prepared by the end of the week by a private firm: “a 331-page text of the treaty with invaluable analysis” (cost £27.50).
I am not going into the interesting questions of journalistic ethics concerning product placement or downright marketing, but I sincerely hope that others will.
***
The Council’s refusal to publish consolidated versions of the Treaty of Lisbon, “putting all those amendments in context, in such a way that their significance can be understood” as Booker says, is a serious drawback for democratic debate in Europe.
Therefore, the readers of this blog have been kept aware of the different consolidated language versions that have been published, as far as I have been able to find out.
English speakers are, relatively speaking, in the enviable position to have three different consolidations of the Reform Treaty available, for free. Perhaps there is cause to mention the consolidated Lisbon Treaties in English again:
IIEA
Peadar ó Broin at the Institute of International and European Affairs (Dublin, Ireland) has produced a complete consolidation of the amended treaties, including the protocols and annexes, in a format easy to read
Treaty on European Union
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Annexes to the EU and FEU Treaties
Protocols to the EU and FEU Treaties and, where appropriate, to the EAEC Treaty
Go to http://www.iiea.com
Statewatch
Professor Steve Peers has painstakingly compiled a version consisting of several files for the Statewatch Observatory on the EU Constitution and the Reform Treaty, where likenesses and differences between the different reform stages are highlighted
Go to http://www.statewatch.org
Markus Walther
Markus Walther, who produced and published a German consolidated version of the EU Treaty of Lisbon on his web site, has posted an English readable consolidated version as well (a preliminary document without protocols and charter).
Go to http://www.mwalther.net/europa/eulaw-lisbon-mwalther.pdf
Other resources
Other resources on the Lisbon Treaty have been mentioned here frequently, with the latest posting dated yesterday, on some of the UK Parliamentary documents.
***
If Booker wants to scandalise the British government and market valuable books, they are his choices.
But the information already exists for those who are interested in the facts.
Ralf Grahn
Source:
Christopher Booker’s Notebook: MPs required to ratify Lisbon treaty without reading it; The Telegraph 19/01/2008;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml%3Bjsessionid%3D2V4OJ542O2YSDQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/20/nbooker120.xml
Booker then goes on to plug the consolidated Lisbon Treaty being prepared by the end of the week by a private firm: “a 331-page text of the treaty with invaluable analysis” (cost £27.50).
I am not going into the interesting questions of journalistic ethics concerning product placement or downright marketing, but I sincerely hope that others will.
***
The Council’s refusal to publish consolidated versions of the Treaty of Lisbon, “putting all those amendments in context, in such a way that their significance can be understood” as Booker says, is a serious drawback for democratic debate in Europe.
Therefore, the readers of this blog have been kept aware of the different consolidated language versions that have been published, as far as I have been able to find out.
English speakers are, relatively speaking, in the enviable position to have three different consolidations of the Reform Treaty available, for free. Perhaps there is cause to mention the consolidated Lisbon Treaties in English again:
IIEA
Peadar ó Broin at the Institute of International and European Affairs (Dublin, Ireland) has produced a complete consolidation of the amended treaties, including the protocols and annexes, in a format easy to read
Treaty on European Union
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Annexes to the EU and FEU Treaties
Protocols to the EU and FEU Treaties and, where appropriate, to the EAEC Treaty
Go to http://www.iiea.com
Statewatch
Professor Steve Peers has painstakingly compiled a version consisting of several files for the Statewatch Observatory on the EU Constitution and the Reform Treaty, where likenesses and differences between the different reform stages are highlighted
Go to http://www.statewatch.org
Markus Walther
Markus Walther, who produced and published a German consolidated version of the EU Treaty of Lisbon on his web site, has posted an English readable consolidated version as well (a preliminary document without protocols and charter).
Go to http://www.mwalther.net/europa/eulaw-lisbon-mwalther.pdf
Other resources
Other resources on the Lisbon Treaty have been mentioned here frequently, with the latest posting dated yesterday, on some of the UK Parliamentary documents.
***
If Booker wants to scandalise the British government and market valuable books, they are his choices.
But the information already exists for those who are interested in the facts.
Ralf Grahn
Source:
Christopher Booker’s Notebook: MPs required to ratify Lisbon treaty without reading it; The Telegraph 19/01/2008;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml%3Bjsessionid%3D2V4OJ542O2YSDQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/20/nbooker120.xml
Sunday, 20 January 2008
British resources on EU Lisbon Treaty
The debate on the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon starts in earnest in the UK House of Commons tomorrow, Monday. Here is a list of some resources on the EU Reform Treaty from a British perspective:
European Union (Amendment) Bill, 17 December 2007, Bill 48
Explanatory notes to the European Union (Amendment) Bill
House of Commons Library, Research paper 07/80, 22 November 2007: The EU Reform Treaty: amendments to the Treaty on European Union
House of Commons Library, Research paper 07/86, 6 December 2007: The Treaty of Lisbon: amendments to the Treaty establishing the European Community
House of Commons Library, Research paper 08/03, 15 January 2008: European Union (Amendment) Bill, Bill 48 of 2007-08
House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee: Foreign Policy Aspects of the Lisbon Treaty, Third Report of Session 2007-08
***
The report of the Foreign Affairs Committee was published today. The first media reactions have focused on the essential similarities between the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty.
This is true, especially concerning the foreign policy parts of the Treaty of Lisbon, and a foregone conclusion for anyone who has read the June 2007 mandate for the intergovernmental conference.
Naturally, the Treaty of Lisbon itself, and the consolidated versions offered by Statewatch, the IIEA and Markus Walther are important materials.
Should I have mentioned other documents or comments?
Ralf Grahn
European Union (Amendment) Bill, 17 December 2007, Bill 48
Explanatory notes to the European Union (Amendment) Bill
House of Commons Library, Research paper 07/80, 22 November 2007: The EU Reform Treaty: amendments to the Treaty on European Union
House of Commons Library, Research paper 07/86, 6 December 2007: The Treaty of Lisbon: amendments to the Treaty establishing the European Community
House of Commons Library, Research paper 08/03, 15 January 2008: European Union (Amendment) Bill, Bill 48 of 2007-08
House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee: Foreign Policy Aspects of the Lisbon Treaty, Third Report of Session 2007-08
***
The report of the Foreign Affairs Committee was published today. The first media reactions have focused on the essential similarities between the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty.
This is true, especially concerning the foreign policy parts of the Treaty of Lisbon, and a foregone conclusion for anyone who has read the June 2007 mandate for the intergovernmental conference.
Naturally, the Treaty of Lisbon itself, and the consolidated versions offered by Statewatch, the IIEA and Markus Walther are important materials.
Should I have mentioned other documents or comments?
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 10 January 2008
EU Treaty of Lisbon: CFSP competence
Strong or brittle? Feet of iron or feet of clay? The US Constitution or the Articles of Confederation? These questions deserve some thought when we look at the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) of the European Union as laid out in the Treaty of Lisbon.
***
Basically, you can approach the European Union from two different angles. You can try to ponder what the Union could do for its citizens: external and internal security as well as enhancing prosperity. Or you can reason from a domestic perspective.
A sincere form of ‘special relationship’ would be to emulate the success of the United States of America. The main purposes of that Union were succinctly put by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, number XXIII:
“The necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the preservation of the Union is the point at the examination of which we are now arrived.
The principal purposes to be answered by the union are these – the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.”
***
According to the Reform Treaty, the scope of EU competence covers all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union’s security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence.
We have to bear in mind the joint declarations 13 (see previous posting) and 14 (see below), which emphasize the continued freedom of Member States to pursue their national foreign and security policies, regardless of the common interest.
The common foreign and security policy (CFSP) is almost exclusively in the hands of the Member States. The European Council and the Council rule, if they can reach unanimous decisions (as a rule).
The intergovernmental nature of the CFSP means that democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament and judicial review by the Court of Justice are nearly completely excluded. (The external action of the Commission is placed under intergovernmental tutelage.)
If not overridden by national policies or paralysed by dissenting views and vetoes, the Union conducts, defines and implements the CFSP, meant to lead to increasing convergence of Member States’ actions in the long run. The loyalty, solidarity and compliance of Member States are keys to effective common action on the world stage.
***
The Treaty of Lisbon (OJ 17.12.2007, C 306) amends Article 11 TEU. In the consolidated version paragraphs 1 and 2 have replaced the existing paragraph 1, and the present paragraph 2 has been renumbered paragraph 3 and amended slightly.
Article 11
1. The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence.
The common foreign and security policy is subject to specific rules and procedures. It shall be defined and implemented by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously, except where the Treaties provide otherwise. The adoption of legislative acts shall be excluded. The common foreign and security policy shall be put into effect by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and by Member States, in accordance with the Treaties. The specific role of the European Parliament and of the Commission in this area is defined by the Treaties. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall not have jurisdiction with respect to these provisions, with the exception of its jurisdiction to monitor compliance with Article 25b of this Treaty and to review the legality of certain decisions as provided for by the second paragraph of Article 240a of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
2. Within the framework of the principles and objectives of its external action, the Union shall conduct, define and implement a common foreign and security policy, based on the development of mutual political solidarity among Member States, the identification of questions of general interest and the achievement of an ever-increasing degree of convergence of Member States' actions.
3. The Member States shall support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area.
The Member States shall work together to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity. They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations.
The Council and the High Representative shall ensure compliance with these principles.
***
Joint Declaration (number 14) concerning the common foreign and security policy continues in the same vein as Declaration 13 to subtract from the consistency of common policy by underlining the independent policies of the Member States, especially the Members of the UN Security Council, and the intergovernmental nature of the policies the Member States happen to agree on, as well as the “specific nature” of the Member States’ security and defence policy:
“In addition to the specific rules and procedures referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union, the Conference underlines that the provisions covering the Common Foreign and Security Policy including in relation to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the External Action Service will not affect the existing legal basis, responsibilities, and powers of each Member State in relation to the formulation and conduct of its foreign policy, its national diplomatic service, relations with third countries and participation in international organisations, including a Member State’s membership of the Security Council of the United Nations.
The Conference also notes that the provisions covering the Common Foreign and Security Policy do not give new powers to the Commission to initiate decisions nor do they increase the role of the European Parliament.
The Conference also recalls that the provisions governing the Common Security and Defence Policy do not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of the Member States.”
***
Next time we look at the foreign policy instruments of the EU.
Ralf Grahn
***
Basically, you can approach the European Union from two different angles. You can try to ponder what the Union could do for its citizens: external and internal security as well as enhancing prosperity. Or you can reason from a domestic perspective.
A sincere form of ‘special relationship’ would be to emulate the success of the United States of America. The main purposes of that Union were succinctly put by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, number XXIII:
“The necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the preservation of the Union is the point at the examination of which we are now arrived.
The principal purposes to be answered by the union are these – the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.”
***
According to the Reform Treaty, the scope of EU competence covers all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union’s security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence.
We have to bear in mind the joint declarations 13 (see previous posting) and 14 (see below), which emphasize the continued freedom of Member States to pursue their national foreign and security policies, regardless of the common interest.
The common foreign and security policy (CFSP) is almost exclusively in the hands of the Member States. The European Council and the Council rule, if they can reach unanimous decisions (as a rule).
The intergovernmental nature of the CFSP means that democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament and judicial review by the Court of Justice are nearly completely excluded. (The external action of the Commission is placed under intergovernmental tutelage.)
If not overridden by national policies or paralysed by dissenting views and vetoes, the Union conducts, defines and implements the CFSP, meant to lead to increasing convergence of Member States’ actions in the long run. The loyalty, solidarity and compliance of Member States are keys to effective common action on the world stage.
***
The Treaty of Lisbon (OJ 17.12.2007, C 306) amends Article 11 TEU. In the consolidated version paragraphs 1 and 2 have replaced the existing paragraph 1, and the present paragraph 2 has been renumbered paragraph 3 and amended slightly.
Article 11
1. The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence.
The common foreign and security policy is subject to specific rules and procedures. It shall be defined and implemented by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously, except where the Treaties provide otherwise. The adoption of legislative acts shall be excluded. The common foreign and security policy shall be put into effect by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and by Member States, in accordance with the Treaties. The specific role of the European Parliament and of the Commission in this area is defined by the Treaties. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall not have jurisdiction with respect to these provisions, with the exception of its jurisdiction to monitor compliance with Article 25b of this Treaty and to review the legality of certain decisions as provided for by the second paragraph of Article 240a of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
2. Within the framework of the principles and objectives of its external action, the Union shall conduct, define and implement a common foreign and security policy, based on the development of mutual political solidarity among Member States, the identification of questions of general interest and the achievement of an ever-increasing degree of convergence of Member States' actions.
3. The Member States shall support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area.
The Member States shall work together to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity. They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations.
The Council and the High Representative shall ensure compliance with these principles.
***
Joint Declaration (number 14) concerning the common foreign and security policy continues in the same vein as Declaration 13 to subtract from the consistency of common policy by underlining the independent policies of the Member States, especially the Members of the UN Security Council, and the intergovernmental nature of the policies the Member States happen to agree on, as well as the “specific nature” of the Member States’ security and defence policy:
“In addition to the specific rules and procedures referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union, the Conference underlines that the provisions covering the Common Foreign and Security Policy including in relation to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the External Action Service will not affect the existing legal basis, responsibilities, and powers of each Member State in relation to the formulation and conduct of its foreign policy, its national diplomatic service, relations with third countries and participation in international organisations, including a Member State’s membership of the Security Council of the United Nations.
The Conference also notes that the provisions covering the Common Foreign and Security Policy do not give new powers to the Commission to initiate decisions nor do they increase the role of the European Parliament.
The Conference also recalls that the provisions governing the Common Security and Defence Policy do not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of the Member States.”
***
Next time we look at the foreign policy instruments of the EU.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 9 January 2008
EU Treaty of Lisbon: Foreign and security policy
One the one hand, the governments of the Member States of the European Union find it necessary to join their forces by creating a common foreign and security policy (CFSP), including a common security and defence policy (CSDP). On the other hand, these same governments are loath to give up their formal sovereignty. Therefore, in addition to the amended Treaty provisions, including requirements for unanimous decisions, they agree on a joint declaration, which says, in effect, that they can continue to do what they very well please.
The amended Treaty on European Union (TEU) has to be read in conjunction with Declaration (number 13) concerning the common foreign and security policy:
“The Conference underlines that the provisions in the Treaty on European Union covering the Common Foreign and Security Policy, including the creation of the office of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Establishment of an External Action Service, do not affect the responsibilities of the Member States, as they currently exist, for the formulation and conduct of their foreign policy nor of their national representation in third countries and international organisations.
The Conference also recalls that the provisions governing the Common Security and Defence Policy do not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of the Member States.
It stresses that the European Union and its Member States will remain bound by the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and, in particular, by the primary responsibility of the Security Council and of its Members for the maintenance of international peace and security.”
***
Your glossator is caught thinking that such inconsistencies translate into weaknesses. Dealing with the great and rising powers of the world will continue to be based on the eventual good will of the Member States of the EU.
The declaration seems to be unclear enough to offer an escape route for almost any occasion, should a Member State choose to distance itself from the common efforts to achieve a consistent EU policy. Every Member State would seem to be able to release itself from responsibility concerning the formulation and conduct of its foreign policy in general and its national representation in third countries and international organisations, as well as in all questions pertaining to the “specific character” (whatever that is) of its security and defence policy. A special escape clause seems to be on offer for the members of the Security Council of the United Nations, especially the permanent members France and the United Kingdom.
On this basis, is the Reform Treaty going to create a “superstate”, a “superpower”, a “great power” or a “great regional power”?
What do the coming arrangements resemble more, the Constitution of the United States of America (1787) or the Articles of Confederation (1778) and the Continental Congress, which nearly lost the colonies the war for independence?
***
The IGC 2007 Mandate (Council document 11218/07, point 15) said: The second Chapter contains the provisions of Title V of the existing TEU, as amended in the 2004 IGC (including the European External Action Service and the permanent structured cooperation in the field of defence). In this Chapter, a new first Article will be inserted stating that the Union’s action on the international scene will be guided by the principles, will pursue the objectives and will be conducted in accordance with the general provisions on the Union’s external action which are laid down in Chapter 1. (Footnote 6 contained the text of the declaration mentioned above.)
After Chapter 1 General provisions on the Union’s external action, follows Chapter 2 Specific provisions on the common foreign and security policy. The new first Article (10c TEU) in Chapter 2 refers to the provisions in Chapter 1, and it forms a bridge between the two chapters. .
***
The Treaty of Lisbon (OJ 17.12.2007, C 306), Chapter 2 Specific provisions on the common foreign and security policy, Section 1 Common provisions, inserts an Article 10c TEU.
Article 10c
The Union’s action on the international scene, pursuant to this Chapter, shall be guided by the principles, shall pursue the objectives of, and be conducted in accordance with, the general provisions laid down in Chapter 1.
***
Next time we turn to the CFSP competence of the European Union.
Ralf Grahn
The amended Treaty on European Union (TEU) has to be read in conjunction with Declaration (number 13) concerning the common foreign and security policy:
“The Conference underlines that the provisions in the Treaty on European Union covering the Common Foreign and Security Policy, including the creation of the office of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Establishment of an External Action Service, do not affect the responsibilities of the Member States, as they currently exist, for the formulation and conduct of their foreign policy nor of their national representation in third countries and international organisations.
The Conference also recalls that the provisions governing the Common Security and Defence Policy do not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of the Member States.
It stresses that the European Union and its Member States will remain bound by the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and, in particular, by the primary responsibility of the Security Council and of its Members for the maintenance of international peace and security.”
***
Your glossator is caught thinking that such inconsistencies translate into weaknesses. Dealing with the great and rising powers of the world will continue to be based on the eventual good will of the Member States of the EU.
The declaration seems to be unclear enough to offer an escape route for almost any occasion, should a Member State choose to distance itself from the common efforts to achieve a consistent EU policy. Every Member State would seem to be able to release itself from responsibility concerning the formulation and conduct of its foreign policy in general and its national representation in third countries and international organisations, as well as in all questions pertaining to the “specific character” (whatever that is) of its security and defence policy. A special escape clause seems to be on offer for the members of the Security Council of the United Nations, especially the permanent members France and the United Kingdom.
On this basis, is the Reform Treaty going to create a “superstate”, a “superpower”, a “great power” or a “great regional power”?
What do the coming arrangements resemble more, the Constitution of the United States of America (1787) or the Articles of Confederation (1778) and the Continental Congress, which nearly lost the colonies the war for independence?
***
The IGC 2007 Mandate (Council document 11218/07, point 15) said: The second Chapter contains the provisions of Title V of the existing TEU, as amended in the 2004 IGC (including the European External Action Service and the permanent structured cooperation in the field of defence). In this Chapter, a new first Article will be inserted stating that the Union’s action on the international scene will be guided by the principles, will pursue the objectives and will be conducted in accordance with the general provisions on the Union’s external action which are laid down in Chapter 1. (Footnote 6 contained the text of the declaration mentioned above.)
After Chapter 1 General provisions on the Union’s external action, follows Chapter 2 Specific provisions on the common foreign and security policy. The new first Article (10c TEU) in Chapter 2 refers to the provisions in Chapter 1, and it forms a bridge between the two chapters. .
***
The Treaty of Lisbon (OJ 17.12.2007, C 306), Chapter 2 Specific provisions on the common foreign and security policy, Section 1 Common provisions, inserts an Article 10c TEU.
Article 10c
The Union’s action on the international scene, pursuant to this Chapter, shall be guided by the principles, shall pursue the objectives of, and be conducted in accordance with, the general provisions laid down in Chapter 1.
***
Next time we turn to the CFSP competence of the European Union.
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 6 December 2007
Reader-friendly Treaty of Lisbon
Finally the cause for consolidated versions of the EU Reform Treaty or Treaty of Lisbon seems to make headway.
At a joint meeting for members of 27 EU national parliaments and of the European Parliament, Jo Leinen, chairman of the EP Constitutional Affairs Committee, stressed the need for a proper communication policy to explain the content and the objectives of the reform to the public. He called for a reader-friendly version of the over-complex Reform Treaty.
Jean-Luc Dehaene said that it is necessary that citizens are fully involved regardless of the ratification procedure chosen by each Member State.
***
The French National Assembly has published a 281 page report by its Foreign Affairs Committee, with consolidated versions on the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union. This consolidated Treaty in French is based on the 18 October 2007 version; thus, some linguistic modifications may have been made in the final treaty texts which have been posted on the IGC 2007 web site of the Council.
***
In accordance with the principle of equality of the citizens of the Union (Treaty of Lisbon, Article 8) more readable, user-friendly consolidated versions of the Treaty of Lisbon should be published instantly by one of the institutions of the European Union in all the official languages of the EU and distributed widely in collaboration with the Member States.
The same procedure should be applied to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, including (the languages of) the countries whose leaders have chosen to opt out. Citizens should be treated equally by the EU institutions.
Ralf Grahn
Sources:
National parliaments’ role in EU affairs improved by new Treaty; European Parliament News, 4 December 2007; http://www.europalr.europa.eu
Assemblée nationale : Rapport d’information sur les modifications apportées par le traité de Lisbonne au traité sur l’Union européenne et au traité instituant la Communauté européenne, par M. Axel Poniatowski ; No 439, 28 novembre 2007 ;
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/pdf/rap-info/i0439.pdf
At a joint meeting for members of 27 EU national parliaments and of the European Parliament, Jo Leinen, chairman of the EP Constitutional Affairs Committee, stressed the need for a proper communication policy to explain the content and the objectives of the reform to the public. He called for a reader-friendly version of the over-complex Reform Treaty.
Jean-Luc Dehaene said that it is necessary that citizens are fully involved regardless of the ratification procedure chosen by each Member State.
***
The French National Assembly has published a 281 page report by its Foreign Affairs Committee, with consolidated versions on the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union. This consolidated Treaty in French is based on the 18 October 2007 version; thus, some linguistic modifications may have been made in the final treaty texts which have been posted on the IGC 2007 web site of the Council.
***
In accordance with the principle of equality of the citizens of the Union (Treaty of Lisbon, Article 8) more readable, user-friendly consolidated versions of the Treaty of Lisbon should be published instantly by one of the institutions of the European Union in all the official languages of the EU and distributed widely in collaboration with the Member States.
The same procedure should be applied to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, including (the languages of) the countries whose leaders have chosen to opt out. Citizens should be treated equally by the EU institutions.
Ralf Grahn
Sources:
National parliaments’ role in EU affairs improved by new Treaty; European Parliament News, 4 December 2007; http://www.europalr.europa.eu
Assemblée nationale : Rapport d’information sur les modifications apportées par le traité de Lisbonne au traité sur l’Union européenne et au traité instituant la Communauté européenne, par M. Axel Poniatowski ; No 439, 28 novembre 2007 ;
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/pdf/rap-info/i0439.pdf
Wednesday, 21 November 2007
Treaty of Lisbon: impact assessment
For most enlightened citizens it is enough to know the main changes the Reform Treaty of the European Union (Lisbon Treaty) brings about. The distinction between the European Union and the European Community, long ago abandoned in daily news reporting and colloquial speech, is going to disappear from the founding treaties. The main changes aim to improve the decision making and working of the EU institutions, so the benefits for the citizens are indirect: improved governance hopefully leads to better results for the citizens.
Almost all the media and many information services have reported on the new treaties and some of them have published fairly detailed fact sheets for general consumption.
But the European Union is also an object of study, research or work for many people. They need more detailed information. The Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, including protocols and declarations, have been published on the Internet in all the official languages of the EU, except Irish.
The Treaty of Lisbon or Reform Treaty is highly unreadable, since only the amendments are presented, in a parsimonious manner.
The Council and the institutions of the European Union, as well as the governments of the member states, have refused to publish updated, consolidated versions for the general public for the time being. Luckily, a few research institutes and think-tanks have stepped in to fill the void. Already Spanish, French and English consolidations of the Lisbon Treaty are available, anticipating the contents of the treaties when in force.
The principle of equality of all EU citizens makes it highly desirable that the 20 language versions still missing could be published soon, even if equality has to be achieved without support from the EU institutions and the national governments. If there are not enough think-tanks and research institutes willing to take on the task, perhaps university, college or commercial publishers could sense an opportunity in addition to a civic duty. (For readers interested in basic information or consolidation, I refer to my earlier postings.)
There is, of course, en extensive literature on the now defunct Constitution. But more advanced analyses, specifically based on the Lisbon Treaty, are starting to appear. One good example is the joint study by three think-tanks based in Brussels – EPC, Egmont ja CEPS – which takes a fairly deep look at the institutional amendments: The Treaty of Lisbon: Implementing the Institutional Innovations.
In 147 pages the study offers a background view of the reforms and presents their contents, but goes further than that. The writers try to assess the scope and impacts of the proposed changes in real life.
The study is divided in chapters on the different institutions or subject matters: the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Presidency of the Council, Qualified Majority Voting in the Council, National Parliaments, Enhanced Cooperation and Foreign Policy.
What was lost and what remained, when the 2001 Laeken declaration’s aims of a more democratic, transparent and efficient Union, in 2007 became an unreadable text, negotiated in secrecy, far from public scrutiny?
According to the writers, it would be sad to think that this complex document is the last word in institutional reform. They hope for a codified, clarified and readable future version of European rules and procedures.
The study can be downloaded for free from the web pages of the institutes.
Ralf Grahn
Source:
The Treaty of Lisbon: Implementing the Institutional Innovations; November 2007
Published by:
CEPS, the Centre for European Policy Studies; http://www.ceps.eu
Egmont, the Royal Institute for International Relations; http://www.egmontinstitute.be
EPC, the European Policy Centre; http://www.epc.eu
Almost all the media and many information services have reported on the new treaties and some of them have published fairly detailed fact sheets for general consumption.
But the European Union is also an object of study, research or work for many people. They need more detailed information. The Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, including protocols and declarations, have been published on the Internet in all the official languages of the EU, except Irish.
The Treaty of Lisbon or Reform Treaty is highly unreadable, since only the amendments are presented, in a parsimonious manner.
The Council and the institutions of the European Union, as well as the governments of the member states, have refused to publish updated, consolidated versions for the general public for the time being. Luckily, a few research institutes and think-tanks have stepped in to fill the void. Already Spanish, French and English consolidations of the Lisbon Treaty are available, anticipating the contents of the treaties when in force.
The principle of equality of all EU citizens makes it highly desirable that the 20 language versions still missing could be published soon, even if equality has to be achieved without support from the EU institutions and the national governments. If there are not enough think-tanks and research institutes willing to take on the task, perhaps university, college or commercial publishers could sense an opportunity in addition to a civic duty. (For readers interested in basic information or consolidation, I refer to my earlier postings.)
There is, of course, en extensive literature on the now defunct Constitution. But more advanced analyses, specifically based on the Lisbon Treaty, are starting to appear. One good example is the joint study by three think-tanks based in Brussels – EPC, Egmont ja CEPS – which takes a fairly deep look at the institutional amendments: The Treaty of Lisbon: Implementing the Institutional Innovations.
In 147 pages the study offers a background view of the reforms and presents their contents, but goes further than that. The writers try to assess the scope and impacts of the proposed changes in real life.
The study is divided in chapters on the different institutions or subject matters: the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Presidency of the Council, Qualified Majority Voting in the Council, National Parliaments, Enhanced Cooperation and Foreign Policy.
What was lost and what remained, when the 2001 Laeken declaration’s aims of a more democratic, transparent and efficient Union, in 2007 became an unreadable text, negotiated in secrecy, far from public scrutiny?
According to the writers, it would be sad to think that this complex document is the last word in institutional reform. They hope for a codified, clarified and readable future version of European rules and procedures.
The study can be downloaded for free from the web pages of the institutes.
Ralf Grahn
Source:
The Treaty of Lisbon: Implementing the Institutional Innovations; November 2007
Published by:
CEPS, the Centre for European Policy Studies; http://www.ceps.eu
Egmont, the Royal Institute for International Relations; http://www.egmontinstitute.be
EPC, the European Policy Centre; http://www.epc.eu
Friday, 16 November 2007
Consolidated Treaty of Lisbon
Usually I am not a fan of anonymous commentators on Internet forums, including my blogs, because anonymity seems to breed a sniper mentality or grow from one. Now I am going to make an exception, for a good reason.
“Lisbon Treaty decrypted in 2009?”, one of my blog posts on the unwillingness of EU institutions and governments to publish consolidated (amalgamated) versions of the new and existing treaties, received a comment from Anonymous, who pointed me towards the Irish Institute of European Affairs (IIEA), which has published a draft of the Consolidated version of the Treaties amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. The consolidated version, in English, has been compiled by Peadar ó Broin.
Using small font and spacing this compilation manages to keep paper consumption at a reasonable level.
For a free download, go to: http://www.iiea.com
Students, teachers, researchers, journalists, politicians and officials at the EU, national, regional and local level, as well as interested citizens have been given a handy tool.
With French, Spanish (mentioned earlier) and English versions of the Reform Treaty already accomplished there are only 20 more language versions to publish in order to have all the official languages of the European Union represented.
Are there versions I have not noticed yet? Is the work in progress somewhere?
Ralf Grahn
“Lisbon Treaty decrypted in 2009?”, one of my blog posts on the unwillingness of EU institutions and governments to publish consolidated (amalgamated) versions of the new and existing treaties, received a comment from Anonymous, who pointed me towards the Irish Institute of European Affairs (IIEA), which has published a draft of the Consolidated version of the Treaties amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. The consolidated version, in English, has been compiled by Peadar ó Broin.
Using small font and spacing this compilation manages to keep paper consumption at a reasonable level.
For a free download, go to: http://www.iiea.com
Students, teachers, researchers, journalists, politicians and officials at the EU, national, regional and local level, as well as interested citizens have been given a handy tool.
With French, Spanish (mentioned earlier) and English versions of the Reform Treaty already accomplished there are only 20 more language versions to publish in order to have all the official languages of the European Union represented.
Are there versions I have not noticed yet? Is the work in progress somewhere?
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 12 November 2007
EU citizens need to know
Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the European Commission, Institutional Relations and Communication Strategy, in her 29 October 2007 interview with Parliamentmagazine said:
“We must continue to encourage a public debate on the future of the European union. The citizens of Europe need to know how the new treaty will affect them. And EU leaders need to know what the citizens of Europe think – not just about the treaty and the institutional changes it brings, but also about the wider questions.”
***
I could not agree more.
The first step to rekindle my belief in the sincerity of the EU institutions and leaders would be to offer the citizens of Europe the consolidated Lisbon Treaty (the amalgamated texts of the existing and amending treaties) online, in all the official languages of the European Union.
Ralf Grahn
“We must continue to encourage a public debate on the future of the European union. The citizens of Europe need to know how the new treaty will affect them. And EU leaders need to know what the citizens of Europe think – not just about the treaty and the institutional changes it brings, but also about the wider questions.”
***
I could not agree more.
The first step to rekindle my belief in the sincerity of the EU institutions and leaders would be to offer the citizens of Europe the consolidated Lisbon Treaty (the amalgamated texts of the existing and amending treaties) online, in all the official languages of the European Union.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 11 November 2007
Finland: Encouraging but discouraging
Finland encourages the EU to greater transparency, was the main message of a press release by the Finnish government Friday afternoon. I quote:
“Finland has sent on Friday, 9 November, a letter to the Portuguese EU Presidency concerning the overall policy on transparency of the Council of the European Union. In Finland’s view, the promotion of the transparency of the Council’s work is important for the attainment of the principles of good governance and for improving citizens’ access to information and possibilities for participation.”
“Finland is of the opinion that the Member States and the Council Secretariat should improve practices contributing to efficiently informing the public on the availability of webcasts and documents. Attention should also be paid to making the Council website and its webcasts more user-friendly. Links between improving the transparency of the Council and initiatives to better communicate EU issues to the citizens should also be examined.”
***
The starting point of the press release is the Council’s overall policy on transparency, which I dealt with earlier (EU Council on transparency, 31 October 2007). It is a commendable choice to address the government’s letter to the Council, since intergovernmental preparation, dealing and oversight is the black hole of transparency within the European Union.
The principles mentioned by the government of Finland are laudable, too. Good governance, citizens’ access to information and participatory rights as well as user-friendly information are core values of modern public communication. All this is encouraging.
***
The most important and most urgent communication task of the European Union is to publish correct, abundant and user-friendly information on the Reform Treaty. Because the need is urgent, the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty should be published on the web, where the text can be easily updated, if needed. Equality for the citizens of the European Union can be attained only if the amalgamated texts of the existing treaties and the amending treaties are made accessible in all the official languages of the EU.
What does the press release of the Finnish government have to say about this most glaring communication deficit of the European Union, the Council’s outright refusal to make available a somewhat more readable and intelligible text?
Nothing.
Keeping quiet about the Union’s most obvious case of communication deficit, the press release raises more questions than it answers.
Do not even the loftiest principles fall flat, if the most important information shortage to remedy is left suspended in thin air? Does not reiterating highfalutin ideals tend to erode trustworthiness and increase alienation, when they are undermined by concrete actions? Does the Finnish government want to enhance its stained image as part of this conspiracy of silence, by drawing our attention to general principles and questions of secondary importance?
Against this background the press release is discouraging.
What does the Finnish government aim to encourage, really?
Ralf Grahn
Source:
Finland encourages the EU for greater transparency; Finnish government, Communications unit; Press release 326/2007, 9 November 2007; http://www.vn.fi => English
“Finland has sent on Friday, 9 November, a letter to the Portuguese EU Presidency concerning the overall policy on transparency of the Council of the European Union. In Finland’s view, the promotion of the transparency of the Council’s work is important for the attainment of the principles of good governance and for improving citizens’ access to information and possibilities for participation.”
“Finland is of the opinion that the Member States and the Council Secretariat should improve practices contributing to efficiently informing the public on the availability of webcasts and documents. Attention should also be paid to making the Council website and its webcasts more user-friendly. Links between improving the transparency of the Council and initiatives to better communicate EU issues to the citizens should also be examined.”
***
The starting point of the press release is the Council’s overall policy on transparency, which I dealt with earlier (EU Council on transparency, 31 October 2007). It is a commendable choice to address the government’s letter to the Council, since intergovernmental preparation, dealing and oversight is the black hole of transparency within the European Union.
The principles mentioned by the government of Finland are laudable, too. Good governance, citizens’ access to information and participatory rights as well as user-friendly information are core values of modern public communication. All this is encouraging.
***
The most important and most urgent communication task of the European Union is to publish correct, abundant and user-friendly information on the Reform Treaty. Because the need is urgent, the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty should be published on the web, where the text can be easily updated, if needed. Equality for the citizens of the European Union can be attained only if the amalgamated texts of the existing treaties and the amending treaties are made accessible in all the official languages of the EU.
What does the press release of the Finnish government have to say about this most glaring communication deficit of the European Union, the Council’s outright refusal to make available a somewhat more readable and intelligible text?
Nothing.
Keeping quiet about the Union’s most obvious case of communication deficit, the press release raises more questions than it answers.
Do not even the loftiest principles fall flat, if the most important information shortage to remedy is left suspended in thin air? Does not reiterating highfalutin ideals tend to erode trustworthiness and increase alienation, when they are undermined by concrete actions? Does the Finnish government want to enhance its stained image as part of this conspiracy of silence, by drawing our attention to general principles and questions of secondary importance?
Against this background the press release is discouraging.
What does the Finnish government aim to encourage, really?
Ralf Grahn
Source:
Finland encourages the EU for greater transparency; Finnish government, Communications unit; Press release 326/2007, 9 November 2007; http://www.vn.fi => English
Friday, 9 November 2007
Lisbon Treaty decrypted in 2009?
The latest answer from an EU institution spells it out: A decrypted version of the Reform Treaty, soon to be known as the Lisbon Treaty, seems to be in the offing in 2009, if ever. I quote the reply from Europe Direct:
“The consolidated version will be available only when the Draft Reform Treaty is signed and ratified by the Member States.”
At this juncture the Lisbon Treaty is the most important document of the European Union, and we citizens are at the centre of the European project, we have been told.
Somehow there is a mismatch when publishing an intelligible version of the proposed treaties at once is stonewalled by the EU institutions.
***
Think-tanks, scientific research institutes or non-governmental organisations to the rescue of democratic EU debate!
Ralf Grahn
“The consolidated version will be available only when the Draft Reform Treaty is signed and ratified by the Member States.”
At this juncture the Lisbon Treaty is the most important document of the European Union, and we citizens are at the centre of the European project, we have been told.
Somehow there is a mismatch when publishing an intelligible version of the proposed treaties at once is stonewalled by the EU institutions.
***
Think-tanks, scientific research institutes or non-governmental organisations to the rescue of democratic EU debate!
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 7 November 2007
Lisbon Treaty: Dadaistic legal drafting
José M. de Areilza scorns the preparation and drafting of the Reform Treaty of the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty is a low point in European integration. A few quotes:
”Lisbon is one of the lowest points in European integration, in terms of living up to ideals and the demands of democratic process and political debate.”
“Plus, leaders not wanting to publish a consolidated version of the new Treaty until it is ratified, European citizens should not waste their time reading the new rules of the game, written in non-sensical Dada fashion.”
“In any case, policy improvements do not justify the total departure from the rhetoric of bringing citizens and institutions closer.”
***
The comparison between dadaistic non-sense and the legal drafting of the Lisbon Treaty is made by a Spanish professor in European Law.
The clamour for more readable, consolidated treaties is growing louder by the day.
Ralf Grahn
Source:
José M. de Areilza: Treaty of Lisbon: ”jamais vu”; Blogeuropa.eu, 3.11.2007 ; http://blogeuropa.eu
”Lisbon is one of the lowest points in European integration, in terms of living up to ideals and the demands of democratic process and political debate.”
“Plus, leaders not wanting to publish a consolidated version of the new Treaty until it is ratified, European citizens should not waste their time reading the new rules of the game, written in non-sensical Dada fashion.”
“In any case, policy improvements do not justify the total departure from the rhetoric of bringing citizens and institutions closer.”
***
The comparison between dadaistic non-sense and the legal drafting of the Lisbon Treaty is made by a Spanish professor in European Law.
The clamour for more readable, consolidated treaties is growing louder by the day.
Ralf Grahn
Source:
José M. de Areilza: Treaty of Lisbon: ”jamais vu”; Blogeuropa.eu, 3.11.2007 ; http://blogeuropa.eu
Monday, 5 November 2007
Plan-D and the Lisbon Treaty
Am I the only one to gripe about an unreadable and incomprehensible Reform Treaty or Lisbon Treaty in its present form?
No, I am not. Let us see what a few distinguished Europeans have said.
Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, who led the Convention which prepared the draft Constitutional Treaty called the new treaty illegible for citizens:
”Il est illisible pour les citoyens, qui doivent constamment se reporter aux textes des traités de Rome et de Maastricht, auxquels s’appliquent ces amendements.”
***
Jens Peter Bonde MEP, a known Eurosceptic, described the Lisbon Treaty in the following way in the introduction to his book on the Reform Treaty:
”They have managed to make the new text as difficult and inaccessible as humanly possible. The amendments can only be read by a few initiated specialists who are generally in favour.”
***
Giuliano Amato, a well-known expert in European Union law and vice president of the Convention, earlier gave his view on the mandate the leaders of the EU member states gave the intergovernmental conference, as reported by EUobserver:
”They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception.”
***
More testimonies are hardly needed. The Reform Treaty is simply impossible to read and to understand for the citizens of the European Union, our witnesses conclude.
In addition, the legal experts chose to present the amendments in a manner which makes it hard to follow the proposed changes even when you have the existing treaties at hand. If whole paragraphs had been presented, in a logical order, reading would have been somewhat easier.
I have seen no publicly announced reasons for these choices of presentation.
***
Many of us remember the Commissions Plan-D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate.
A short while ago Margot Wallströmin spoke on the participation of citizens:
“It will not be possible to continue this project of European integration without the citizens and without their participation.”
***
In spite of this, the members of the European Council have made no haste to give the citizens of the European Union correct, sufficient and user friendly information on the proposed Lisbon Treaty.
Perhaps the leaders of the member states want to create a void to be filled by false and misleading propaganda from the political fringes, which seems to be taking place in Britain and France.
If our political leaders do not understand that readable basic texts are essential for a democratic EU debate, their non-publishing blunder is going to alienate even those citizens who see the Lisbon Treaty as an improvement on the present Nice Treaty and who would favour normal parliamentary ratifications of the new treaty.
If the Council fails to publish complete consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty promptly, the Commission of the European Communities as the guardian of the common interest or the European Parliament as the representative of the citizens of the EU should step in quickly to repair the mistake of the leaders.
Instant publication of consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty on the web, in all the official languages of the Union, is the most important and most urgent communication task for the European Union. It is an elementary requirement for democratic debate.
Or is Plan-D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate just a bad joke?
Ralf Grahn
Sources:
Le blog de Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, pour la démocratie en Europe : La boîte à outils du traité de Lisbonne ; 26 octobre 2007 ; http://vge-europe.eu/
Jens Peter Bonde: New name – Same Content: The Lisbon Treaty – is it also an EU Constitution? 2nd edition, 22 October 2007
The Commission’s contribution to the period of reflection and beyond: Plan-D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate; Brussels, 13.10.2005, COM(2005) 494 final
Wallström wants more citizens’ engagement but no referenda; EurActiv 18 September 2007; http://www.euractiv.com/
No, I am not. Let us see what a few distinguished Europeans have said.
Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, who led the Convention which prepared the draft Constitutional Treaty called the new treaty illegible for citizens:
”Il est illisible pour les citoyens, qui doivent constamment se reporter aux textes des traités de Rome et de Maastricht, auxquels s’appliquent ces amendements.”
***
Jens Peter Bonde MEP, a known Eurosceptic, described the Lisbon Treaty in the following way in the introduction to his book on the Reform Treaty:
”They have managed to make the new text as difficult and inaccessible as humanly possible. The amendments can only be read by a few initiated specialists who are generally in favour.”
***
Giuliano Amato, a well-known expert in European Union law and vice president of the Convention, earlier gave his view on the mandate the leaders of the EU member states gave the intergovernmental conference, as reported by EUobserver:
”They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception.”
***
More testimonies are hardly needed. The Reform Treaty is simply impossible to read and to understand for the citizens of the European Union, our witnesses conclude.
In addition, the legal experts chose to present the amendments in a manner which makes it hard to follow the proposed changes even when you have the existing treaties at hand. If whole paragraphs had been presented, in a logical order, reading would have been somewhat easier.
I have seen no publicly announced reasons for these choices of presentation.
***
Many of us remember the Commissions Plan-D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate.
A short while ago Margot Wallströmin spoke on the participation of citizens:
“It will not be possible to continue this project of European integration without the citizens and without their participation.”
***
In spite of this, the members of the European Council have made no haste to give the citizens of the European Union correct, sufficient and user friendly information on the proposed Lisbon Treaty.
Perhaps the leaders of the member states want to create a void to be filled by false and misleading propaganda from the political fringes, which seems to be taking place in Britain and France.
If our political leaders do not understand that readable basic texts are essential for a democratic EU debate, their non-publishing blunder is going to alienate even those citizens who see the Lisbon Treaty as an improvement on the present Nice Treaty and who would favour normal parliamentary ratifications of the new treaty.
If the Council fails to publish complete consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty promptly, the Commission of the European Communities as the guardian of the common interest or the European Parliament as the representative of the citizens of the EU should step in quickly to repair the mistake of the leaders.
Instant publication of consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty on the web, in all the official languages of the Union, is the most important and most urgent communication task for the European Union. It is an elementary requirement for democratic debate.
Or is Plan-D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate just a bad joke?
Ralf Grahn
Sources:
Le blog de Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, pour la démocratie en Europe : La boîte à outils du traité de Lisbonne ; 26 octobre 2007 ; http://vge-europe.eu/
Jens Peter Bonde: New name – Same Content: The Lisbon Treaty – is it also an EU Constitution? 2nd edition, 22 October 2007
The Commission’s contribution to the period of reflection and beyond: Plan-D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate; Brussels, 13.10.2005, COM(2005) 494 final
Wallström wants more citizens’ engagement but no referenda; EurActiv 18 September 2007; http://www.euractiv.com/
Thursday, 1 November 2007
Scandal
”The European Council has decided not to produce an official consolidated version.”
This was the answer I received from a Finnish government source, when I asked if the Reform Treaty, also known as the Lisbon Treaty, is going to be published as a consolidated version including the existing treaties.
It is impossible to ascertain if the European Council has taken such a decision, because a little while ago the Presidency Conclusions had not been posted on the Council’s web site, even if almost two weeks have passed since the meeting. On the other hand, since the meeting was unofficial, no conclusions are going to appear, but can any decisions be taken without [authentification] accountability?
Anyway, a negative decision would fly in the face of all the rules and principles on openness and transparency that the EU institutions and the national leaders proclaim. I don’t want to believe that they would make a decision so full of contempt for citizens and democratic debate; a decision like that would be a scandal.
On the other hand, if no consolidated versions appear promptly, I have to draw the conclusion that actions speak louder than words.
I received an answer from Sweden, too, but it did nothing to clear the matter. A Swedish consolidated version of the treaties is planned, but when there is an official EU consolidation to start with. This could mean anything from a distant future to never (as we have seen).
Some EU and Finnish officials have not answered as yet.
***
I have discussed the need for consolidated treaties from a number of angles in my web columns: practical viewpoints, the proposed treaties, existing regulations, the Council’s own principles and the Swedish and Finnish governments as champions of openness and transparency.
This has lead to one, crystal clear conclusion: The consolidated versions are essential. The 490 million citizens of the European Union are entitled to the best available information.
***
If the Council does not publish the complete, consolidated treaties promptly, there are but two possibilities to lessen the scandal:
The governments of the member states instantly publish their own consolidated versions on the web, in order to give at least their own citizens correct, sufficient and user friendly information about the most important document of the European Union.
If the individual governments refuse to adhere to their own ideals on openness, some think-tank or scientific research institute in each country takes on the role of champion for the right to democratic debate by publishing its own consolidated treaty version.
I have to admit that my trust in the European Council, the Council and the member states’ governments is shaken. Let it not be wholly destroyed.
Ralf Grahn
[Edited 2 November 2007]
This was the answer I received from a Finnish government source, when I asked if the Reform Treaty, also known as the Lisbon Treaty, is going to be published as a consolidated version including the existing treaties.
It is impossible to ascertain if the European Council has taken such a decision, because a little while ago the Presidency Conclusions had not been posted on the Council’s web site, even if almost two weeks have passed since the meeting. On the other hand, since the meeting was unofficial, no conclusions are going to appear, but can any decisions be taken without [authentification] accountability?
Anyway, a negative decision would fly in the face of all the rules and principles on openness and transparency that the EU institutions and the national leaders proclaim. I don’t want to believe that they would make a decision so full of contempt for citizens and democratic debate; a decision like that would be a scandal.
On the other hand, if no consolidated versions appear promptly, I have to draw the conclusion that actions speak louder than words.
I received an answer from Sweden, too, but it did nothing to clear the matter. A Swedish consolidated version of the treaties is planned, but when there is an official EU consolidation to start with. This could mean anything from a distant future to never (as we have seen).
Some EU and Finnish officials have not answered as yet.
***
I have discussed the need for consolidated treaties from a number of angles in my web columns: practical viewpoints, the proposed treaties, existing regulations, the Council’s own principles and the Swedish and Finnish governments as champions of openness and transparency.
This has lead to one, crystal clear conclusion: The consolidated versions are essential. The 490 million citizens of the European Union are entitled to the best available information.
***
If the Council does not publish the complete, consolidated treaties promptly, there are but two possibilities to lessen the scandal:
The governments of the member states instantly publish their own consolidated versions on the web, in order to give at least their own citizens correct, sufficient and user friendly information about the most important document of the European Union.
If the individual governments refuse to adhere to their own ideals on openness, some think-tank or scientific research institute in each country takes on the role of champion for the right to democratic debate by publishing its own consolidated treaty version.
I have to admit that my trust in the European Council, the Council and the member states’ governments is shaken. Let it not be wholly destroyed.
Ralf Grahn
[Edited 2 November 2007]
Sweden and Finland: transparency
Sweden and Finland want to be known as champions of openness in the European Union. They have called for more transparency when Regulation (1049/2001) on public access to documents is being revised.
Here are some of the principles the Finnish government has underlined:
Finland considers that it is important to promote transparency and good administration in the European Union, as well as to increase citizens’ possibilities to obtain information and participate in the decision-making. Finland takes the view that widest possible access should be granted to legislative documents, including documents that have an impact on the legislative process. Also, citizens must be given information on the Union and its activities in a more user-friendly way.
When the Swedish government responded to the EU Commission’s Green Paper, Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask emphasized that the revision was an opportunity to advance the cause of transparency in the European Union.
***
We have seen how Sweden and Finland have chosen to position themselves regarding openness or transparency in the European Union.
The basic treaties are the most important documents in the European Union, even if the Reform Treaty or Lisbon Treaty is not called a Constitution.
Nobody can understand the European Union as a whole with the help of only the amendments contained in the new EU Treaty and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The new and the present treaties have to be consolidated in order to offer the reader even a chance to understand the basic rules of the Union. In this case the consolidated version will show the present treaties updated with the proposed amendments.
This is the most important communication task for the European Union for quite a while. If the European Union institutions and the member state governments want to retain any credibility concerning their rules and words on transparency, openness and access to information, they have to publish the consolidated Reform Treaty at once.
***
The Swedish and the Finnish governments have these two choices:
First, the governments should convince the Council of the EU to publish the complete consolidated treaties on its web site in all the official languages of the European Union. Only this guarantees equal treatment of all the citizens of the Union and information accessible to all. Only instant publication gives the citizens correct, sufficient and user-friendly information to understand and discuss the proposed treaty changes. Web publishing can be done instantly and possible later precisions can be added in real time. Printed compilations may follow later.
If the Council does not publish the consolidated treaties at once, Sweden, Finland and every government with a true belief in openness has to make them accessible to its own citizens, now. The same recipe should be followed: instant web publication; print may follow.
There are two possibilities for the governments: Convince the Council or publish yourself.
Ralf Grahn
Sources:
Finland wants to promote transparency in the EU; Ministry of Justice, 5 July 2007; http://www.vn.fi/
The response of Finland to the Commission’s Green Paper on the Revision of the Regulation on Public Access to Documents held by the institutions of the European Community; Ministry of Justice; http://www.om.fi/en/
Avoimuus ja Euroopan unioni; Valtioneuvosto; http://www.valtioneuvosto.fi/
EU; Avoimuus; Vihreä kirja yleisön oikeudesta tutustua yhteisöjen toimielinten hallussa oleviin asiakirjoihin annetun asetuksen tarkistamisesta; EU-ministerivaliokunta 1.6.2007
Öppenhet och EU; http://www.regeringen.se/
Sverige fortsätter att arbeta för ökad öppenhet inom EU; Regeringskansliet, pressmeddelande 6.7.2007; http://www.regeringen.se/
Here are some of the principles the Finnish government has underlined:
Finland considers that it is important to promote transparency and good administration in the European Union, as well as to increase citizens’ possibilities to obtain information and participate in the decision-making. Finland takes the view that widest possible access should be granted to legislative documents, including documents that have an impact on the legislative process. Also, citizens must be given information on the Union and its activities in a more user-friendly way.
When the Swedish government responded to the EU Commission’s Green Paper, Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask emphasized that the revision was an opportunity to advance the cause of transparency in the European Union.
***
We have seen how Sweden and Finland have chosen to position themselves regarding openness or transparency in the European Union.
The basic treaties are the most important documents in the European Union, even if the Reform Treaty or Lisbon Treaty is not called a Constitution.
Nobody can understand the European Union as a whole with the help of only the amendments contained in the new EU Treaty and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The new and the present treaties have to be consolidated in order to offer the reader even a chance to understand the basic rules of the Union. In this case the consolidated version will show the present treaties updated with the proposed amendments.
This is the most important communication task for the European Union for quite a while. If the European Union institutions and the member state governments want to retain any credibility concerning their rules and words on transparency, openness and access to information, they have to publish the consolidated Reform Treaty at once.
***
The Swedish and the Finnish governments have these two choices:
First, the governments should convince the Council of the EU to publish the complete consolidated treaties on its web site in all the official languages of the European Union. Only this guarantees equal treatment of all the citizens of the Union and information accessible to all. Only instant publication gives the citizens correct, sufficient and user-friendly information to understand and discuss the proposed treaty changes. Web publishing can be done instantly and possible later precisions can be added in real time. Printed compilations may follow later.
If the Council does not publish the consolidated treaties at once, Sweden, Finland and every government with a true belief in openness has to make them accessible to its own citizens, now. The same recipe should be followed: instant web publication; print may follow.
There are two possibilities for the governments: Convince the Council or publish yourself.
Ralf Grahn
Sources:
Finland wants to promote transparency in the EU; Ministry of Justice, 5 July 2007; http://www.vn.fi/
The response of Finland to the Commission’s Green Paper on the Revision of the Regulation on Public Access to Documents held by the institutions of the European Community; Ministry of Justice; http://www.om.fi/en/
Avoimuus ja Euroopan unioni; Valtioneuvosto; http://www.valtioneuvosto.fi/
EU; Avoimuus; Vihreä kirja yleisön oikeudesta tutustua yhteisöjen toimielinten hallussa oleviin asiakirjoihin annetun asetuksen tarkistamisesta; EU-ministerivaliokunta 1.6.2007
Öppenhet och EU; http://www.regeringen.se/
Sverige fortsätter att arbeta för ökad öppenhet inom EU; Regeringskansliet, pressmeddelande 6.7.2007; http://www.regeringen.se/
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
EU Council on transparency
Transparency is seen as the main link between the leaders and the citizens of the European Union, not only in the Reform Treaty or Lisbon Treaty (more exactly the EU Treaty and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union).
Let us look at present arrangements.
An ever closer union among the peoples of Europe and the principle of citizenship of the Union are unthinkable without a right to receive information and to participate, although the political rights are still in their infancy.
The right of access to documents has been enshrined in Article 255 of the EC Treaty and general principles elaborated in Regulation (1049/2001/EG), with additional internal rules for the different institutions.
There has been some political pressure to open closed doors, at least ajar.
In June 2006 the European Council, which is the main authority including treaty change (intergovernmental conference), agreed on an overall policy on transparency “which further opens up the work of the Council by making all co-decision debates in the Council public”.
Although the treaties are international, intergovernmental accords, they are much more significant than any secondary legislative acts they authorise.
Therefore, there should be no objection to using principles agreed on for ordinary legislation to be used as guidance for the basic norms of the Union, especially regarding the Council.
The main objective of the overall policy on transparency is found at the beginning of the conclusions: “With a view to further increasing openness, transparency and accountability, the European Council agrees on the following measures aiming at a stronger involvement of citizens in the work of the Union”.
Even if the conclusions called it an overall policy on transparency, their main thrust was on public debates in the Council. Still, in addition to the general aim to increase openness and accountability, the conclusions include other guiding principles relevant to the handling of atypical legal acts like the basic treaties:
“The incoming Presidency is invited, together with the General Secretariat of the Council, to develop new means of giving more publicity to public deliberations, in particular through the Council’s web site and mailing list, an easily accessible and constantly updated list of forthcoming debates, appropriate background material, as well as direct communication to target audiences. They will work closely together to provide the media and citizens with an open, rapid and technically advanced communication service.”
Information on the Council web site and appropriate background material as well as an open, rapid, constantly updated and technically advanced communication service look like a prescription for the Council on how to handle the publishing of the Lisbon Treaty in a comprehensible form and in a timely manner.
***
There are no documents in the European Union with more relevance for 490 million people than the basic treaties.
There is only one possible conclusion regarding the citizens of the Union and their possibilities to understand and debate the amending treaties:
The Council of the European Union has to consolidate the Lisbon Treaty at once and to publish the complete consolidated versions instantly on its web site in all the official languages of the Union.
Ralf Grahn
Source:
General Secretariat of the Council of the EU: Information sheet: An overall policy on transparency; Brussels, 16 June 2006; http://www.consilium.europa.eu
Let us look at present arrangements.
An ever closer union among the peoples of Europe and the principle of citizenship of the Union are unthinkable without a right to receive information and to participate, although the political rights are still in their infancy.
The right of access to documents has been enshrined in Article 255 of the EC Treaty and general principles elaborated in Regulation (1049/2001/EG), with additional internal rules for the different institutions.
There has been some political pressure to open closed doors, at least ajar.
In June 2006 the European Council, which is the main authority including treaty change (intergovernmental conference), agreed on an overall policy on transparency “which further opens up the work of the Council by making all co-decision debates in the Council public”.
Although the treaties are international, intergovernmental accords, they are much more significant than any secondary legislative acts they authorise.
Therefore, there should be no objection to using principles agreed on for ordinary legislation to be used as guidance for the basic norms of the Union, especially regarding the Council.
The main objective of the overall policy on transparency is found at the beginning of the conclusions: “With a view to further increasing openness, transparency and accountability, the European Council agrees on the following measures aiming at a stronger involvement of citizens in the work of the Union”.
Even if the conclusions called it an overall policy on transparency, their main thrust was on public debates in the Council. Still, in addition to the general aim to increase openness and accountability, the conclusions include other guiding principles relevant to the handling of atypical legal acts like the basic treaties:
“The incoming Presidency is invited, together with the General Secretariat of the Council, to develop new means of giving more publicity to public deliberations, in particular through the Council’s web site and mailing list, an easily accessible and constantly updated list of forthcoming debates, appropriate background material, as well as direct communication to target audiences. They will work closely together to provide the media and citizens with an open, rapid and technically advanced communication service.”
Information on the Council web site and appropriate background material as well as an open, rapid, constantly updated and technically advanced communication service look like a prescription for the Council on how to handle the publishing of the Lisbon Treaty in a comprehensible form and in a timely manner.
***
There are no documents in the European Union with more relevance for 490 million people than the basic treaties.
There is only one possible conclusion regarding the citizens of the Union and their possibilities to understand and debate the amending treaties:
The Council of the European Union has to consolidate the Lisbon Treaty at once and to publish the complete consolidated versions instantly on its web site in all the official languages of the Union.
Ralf Grahn
Source:
General Secretariat of the Council of the EU: Information sheet: An overall policy on transparency; Brussels, 16 June 2006; http://www.consilium.europa.eu
Tuesday, 30 October 2007
EU transparency test
The Reform Treaty or Lisbon Treaty itself of the European Union is going to be the main test of its democratic principles, especially transparency. It is generally known that it is impossible to get a general picture of the EU if you read only the amendments included in the amending treaties. Therefore, you have to compare the existing treaties with the amending treaties, paragraph by paragraph; a tedious task.
This is putting an unfair burden on interested citizens (and experts). I have called for instant publication on the web of the entire updated treaties, consolidated versions, to be made accessible to every citizen of the EU, in all the official languages.
The main responsibility lies with the Council. The following alternative (if the Commission or the European Parliament does not step in) is publication by the individual governments of the member states. If even that fails, we have to hope for civic-minded action by think-tanks and scientific research institutes.
***
The new EU Treaty should inspire the Council to do its utmost to satisfy all calls for relevant information:
“Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.” (proposed article 8a paragraph 3)
“The institutions shall, by appropriate means, give citizens and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action.” (proposed article 8b paragraph 1)
“The institutions shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society.” (proposed article 8b parargraph 2)
***
The same spirit of openness permeates the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:
“In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible.” (proposed article 15 paragraph 1)
***
We have seen the commendable principles the governments have endorsed on behalf of the European Union and themselves.
Consolidated versions of the new treaties are sorely needed. When do we get them? Who publishes them?
Ralf Grahn
This is putting an unfair burden on interested citizens (and experts). I have called for instant publication on the web of the entire updated treaties, consolidated versions, to be made accessible to every citizen of the EU, in all the official languages.
The main responsibility lies with the Council. The following alternative (if the Commission or the European Parliament does not step in) is publication by the individual governments of the member states. If even that fails, we have to hope for civic-minded action by think-tanks and scientific research institutes.
***
The new EU Treaty should inspire the Council to do its utmost to satisfy all calls for relevant information:
“Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.” (proposed article 8a paragraph 3)
“The institutions shall, by appropriate means, give citizens and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action.” (proposed article 8b paragraph 1)
“The institutions shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society.” (proposed article 8b parargraph 2)
***
The same spirit of openness permeates the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:
“In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible.” (proposed article 15 paragraph 1)
***
We have seen the commendable principles the governments have endorsed on behalf of the European Union and themselves.
Consolidated versions of the new treaties are sorely needed. When do we get them? Who publishes them?
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 28 October 2007
Consolidated treaties needed now!
When the voters in France and the Netherlands spoiled the chance for the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe for all of us EU citizens, they paved the way for still more intergovernmentalism and a treaty reform leading to amendments of the present EU and EC treaties.
Even Jens Peter Bonde has said that he would prefer the Constitutional Treaty to the Reform Treaty (Lisbon Treaty) now approved, if he had to choose between them.
Margot Wallström of the Commission – one of those legendary unelected Brussels officials – has done her utmost to engage the citizens of the European Union, but since the governments of the member states are the ones who have taken over the reform process (and, more than ever, the EU), I address my appeal to them: national governments and their creatures, the intergovernmental conference and the Council:
Give us consolidated versions of the new treaties, now!
***
Naturally, it is a good thing that the treaty amendments have been published on the Council website. But every one who wants to understand the changes has to compare the amending treaties with the basic treaties in force (not to be found in every home). Even with all the texts, comparison line by line is hard work.
This is an unfair burden on active and interested citizens, when the Council has all the facts, the knowledge needed and an obligation to inform the citizens of the Union.
Instant publication of consolidated versions, presenting the entire treaties including the proposed amendments, would ease the task of many engaged citizens, and it might lead to less misconceptions and distortions in the public debate.
Uninformed citizens are easily misinformed citizens.
***
If the Council does not see the light, the individual governments should act quickly to inform their respective populations.
Has any government announced that it is going to proceed?
***
If the Council and the governments shirk their responsibilities, we have to appeal to think-tanks and scientific institutes to step in.
The Real Instituto Elcano has done just that, publishing the first complete consolidation I know of, in Spanish: http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org
There we have an example to emulate!
A while ago I mentioned that the Institut d’Études Européennes of the Université Libre de Bruxelles had published a consolidated version of both treaties in French and the EU Treaty in English, in the form presented by the legal experts. See IEE-ULB: http://www.iee-ulb.eu => Research => Publications
***
Costly and time consuming print publications are less important then timely information on the web.
It is no excuse that the consolidated versions are unofficial; so are all consolidations. It is no excuse to wait until the treaties have been ratified; the time for informed, and perhaps less uninformed, debate is now.
No earthly powers are going to be able to make the Lisbon Treaties easy to read or comprehend, but the public should be given every opportunity to know all there is to know.
Ralf Grahn
Even Jens Peter Bonde has said that he would prefer the Constitutional Treaty to the Reform Treaty (Lisbon Treaty) now approved, if he had to choose between them.
Margot Wallström of the Commission – one of those legendary unelected Brussels officials – has done her utmost to engage the citizens of the European Union, but since the governments of the member states are the ones who have taken over the reform process (and, more than ever, the EU), I address my appeal to them: national governments and their creatures, the intergovernmental conference and the Council:
Give us consolidated versions of the new treaties, now!
***
Naturally, it is a good thing that the treaty amendments have been published on the Council website. But every one who wants to understand the changes has to compare the amending treaties with the basic treaties in force (not to be found in every home). Even with all the texts, comparison line by line is hard work.
This is an unfair burden on active and interested citizens, when the Council has all the facts, the knowledge needed and an obligation to inform the citizens of the Union.
Instant publication of consolidated versions, presenting the entire treaties including the proposed amendments, would ease the task of many engaged citizens, and it might lead to less misconceptions and distortions in the public debate.
Uninformed citizens are easily misinformed citizens.
***
If the Council does not see the light, the individual governments should act quickly to inform their respective populations.
Has any government announced that it is going to proceed?
***
If the Council and the governments shirk their responsibilities, we have to appeal to think-tanks and scientific institutes to step in.
The Real Instituto Elcano has done just that, publishing the first complete consolidation I know of, in Spanish: http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org
There we have an example to emulate!
A while ago I mentioned that the Institut d’Études Européennes of the Université Libre de Bruxelles had published a consolidated version of both treaties in French and the EU Treaty in English, in the form presented by the legal experts. See IEE-ULB: http://www.iee-ulb.eu => Research => Publications
***
Costly and time consuming print publications are less important then timely information on the web.
It is no excuse that the consolidated versions are unofficial; so are all consolidations. It is no excuse to wait until the treaties have been ratified; the time for informed, and perhaps less uninformed, debate is now.
No earthly powers are going to be able to make the Lisbon Treaties easy to read or comprehend, but the public should be given every opportunity to know all there is to know.
Ralf Grahn
EU Lisbon Treaty main points
The Reform Treaty, or Lisbon Treaty, of the European Union is opaque for experts and hopeless for ordinary citizens. The present treaties are amended, so anyone interested in comprehending the whole has to read the present EU and EC treaties alongside the amendments, paragraph by paragraph. The annexed protocols and declarations have reached new levels of disparity and incomprehensibility.
Still, the bravest citizens can access the authentic texts on the web pages of the Council, in all the official languages of the European Union:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=1317&lang=en&mode=g
The documents approved by the intergovernmental conference have been added, as well as a few technical adjustments. Further technical precisions are possible, if linguistic corrections are made.
The signing ceremony is planned for 13 December 2007 in Lisbon, so the treaty package is probably going to be referred to as the Lisbon Treaty in the future.
***
Citizens, who are interested, but with less of a masochistic bent, are able to find shorter press releases and comments with the main ingredients of the Reform Treaty.
Here is a small European sample.
In English:
What Lisbon contains; Economist 25.10.2007; http://www.economist.com
Hugo Brady & Katinka Barysch: The CER guide to the Reform Treaty; October 2007; http://www.cer.org.uk
Over and done with – at last; European Policy Centre 24.10.2007; http://www.epc.eu
Daniel Gros & Stefano Micossi: Two for the price of one? Centre for European Policy Studies CEPS 22.10.2007; http://www.ceps.eu
Jean-Dominique Giuliani : Understanding the European Council in Lisbon and the Reform Treaty; Fondation Robert Schuman; http://www.robert-schuman.eu
In Dutch:
Mendeltje van Keulen, Bas Limonard & Jan Rood: De Europese Unie na het Verdrag van Lissabon; Clingendael European Studies Programme 22.10.2007; http://www.clingendael.nl
In French:
Jean-Dominique Giuliani: Comprendre le Conseil européen de Lisbonne et le Traité réformateur ; Fenêtre sur l’Europe 22.10.2007 ; http://www.fenetreeurope.com
Audition de Pervenche Berès, sur le Traité modificatif ; Confrontations Europe 19.10.2007 ; http://www.confrontations.org
In Swedish :
Statsminister(n)s upplysning till riksdagen om resultaten från regeringskonferensen 23.10.2007; http://www.vn.fi
Ett nytt fördrag för EU; Regeringskansliet 24.10.2007; http://www.regeringen.se
Reformfördragets innehåll; EU-upplysningen 8.10.2007; http://www.eu-upplysningen.se
EU:s reformfördrag; Regeringskansliet 24.10.2007; http://www.regeringen.se
Detta innehåller reformfördraget; Europa-Nytt 22.10.2007; http://www.europanytt.se
EU-länderna godkände reformfördraget; Statsrådets kommunikationsenhet 19.10.2007; http://www.vn.fi
In Finnish:
EU:n sopimusuudistus; Eurooppa-tiedotus 26.10.2007; http://www.eurooppa-tiedotus.fi
EU:n uudistussopimus eli Lissabonin sopimus, tietosivu 3/2007; Eurooppa-tiedotus 26.10.2007; http://www.eurooppa-tiedotus.fi
EU-maat hyväksyivät uudistussopimuksen; Valtioneuvoston viestintäyksikkö 19.10.2007; http://www.vn.fi
Pääministerin ilmoitus eduskunnalle hallitustenvälisen konferenssin tuloksista 23.10.2007; http://www.vn.fi
***
Perhaps you readers would be kind enough to communicate on other useful summaries or publications you have come across.
Ralf Grahn
Still, the bravest citizens can access the authentic texts on the web pages of the Council, in all the official languages of the European Union:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=1317&lang=en&mode=g
The documents approved by the intergovernmental conference have been added, as well as a few technical adjustments. Further technical precisions are possible, if linguistic corrections are made.
The signing ceremony is planned for 13 December 2007 in Lisbon, so the treaty package is probably going to be referred to as the Lisbon Treaty in the future.
***
Citizens, who are interested, but with less of a masochistic bent, are able to find shorter press releases and comments with the main ingredients of the Reform Treaty.
Here is a small European sample.
In English:
What Lisbon contains; Economist 25.10.2007; http://www.economist.com
Hugo Brady & Katinka Barysch: The CER guide to the Reform Treaty; October 2007; http://www.cer.org.uk
Over and done with – at last; European Policy Centre 24.10.2007; http://www.epc.eu
Daniel Gros & Stefano Micossi: Two for the price of one? Centre for European Policy Studies CEPS 22.10.2007; http://www.ceps.eu
Jean-Dominique Giuliani : Understanding the European Council in Lisbon and the Reform Treaty; Fondation Robert Schuman; http://www.robert-schuman.eu
In Dutch:
Mendeltje van Keulen, Bas Limonard & Jan Rood: De Europese Unie na het Verdrag van Lissabon; Clingendael European Studies Programme 22.10.2007; http://www.clingendael.nl
In French:
Jean-Dominique Giuliani: Comprendre le Conseil européen de Lisbonne et le Traité réformateur ; Fenêtre sur l’Europe 22.10.2007 ; http://www.fenetreeurope.com
Audition de Pervenche Berès, sur le Traité modificatif ; Confrontations Europe 19.10.2007 ; http://www.confrontations.org
In Swedish :
Statsminister(n)s upplysning till riksdagen om resultaten från regeringskonferensen 23.10.2007; http://www.vn.fi
Ett nytt fördrag för EU; Regeringskansliet 24.10.2007; http://www.regeringen.se
Reformfördragets innehåll; EU-upplysningen 8.10.2007; http://www.eu-upplysningen.se
EU:s reformfördrag; Regeringskansliet 24.10.2007; http://www.regeringen.se
Detta innehåller reformfördraget; Europa-Nytt 22.10.2007; http://www.europanytt.se
EU-länderna godkände reformfördraget; Statsrådets kommunikationsenhet 19.10.2007; http://www.vn.fi
In Finnish:
EU:n sopimusuudistus; Eurooppa-tiedotus 26.10.2007; http://www.eurooppa-tiedotus.fi
EU:n uudistussopimus eli Lissabonin sopimus, tietosivu 3/2007; Eurooppa-tiedotus 26.10.2007; http://www.eurooppa-tiedotus.fi
EU-maat hyväksyivät uudistussopimuksen; Valtioneuvoston viestintäyksikkö 19.10.2007; http://www.vn.fi
Pääministerin ilmoitus eduskunnalle hallitustenvälisen konferenssin tuloksista 23.10.2007; http://www.vn.fi
***
Perhaps you readers would be kind enough to communicate on other useful summaries or publications you have come across.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 15 October 2007
Consolidated EU Reform Treaty
Thanks to the IEE institute (Institut d’Études Européennes) of the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) we now have consolidated (up-to-date) versions of the draft Reform Treaties of the European Union. They facilitate our reading of the new texts since we do not have to compare every modification by the legal experts with the existing treaties.
There is no date in the texts, but they seem to incorporate all the changes the Foreign Ministers and the Heads of State or Government discuss this week.
Both the amending EU treaty and the treaty on the functioning of the EU (old EC treaty) are available in French.
The amending EU treaty can already be found in English.
The new treaties are never going to be easy to read or comprehend, but the consolidated versions make the task somewhat easier, especially since the amendments have been marked in red type.
The consolidated versions are, of course, unofficial, but still very handy for those who are interested to see for themselves.
Ralf Grahn
Source:
IEE – ULB: http://www.iee-ulb.eu/ => Research => Publications
There is no date in the texts, but they seem to incorporate all the changes the Foreign Ministers and the Heads of State or Government discuss this week.
Both the amending EU treaty and the treaty on the functioning of the EU (old EC treaty) are available in French.
The amending EU treaty can already be found in English.
The new treaties are never going to be easy to read or comprehend, but the consolidated versions make the task somewhat easier, especially since the amendments have been marked in red type.
The consolidated versions are, of course, unofficial, but still very handy for those who are interested to see for themselves.
Ralf Grahn
Source:
IEE – ULB: http://www.iee-ulb.eu/ => Research => Publications
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
