EU Presidency: Slovenia 2008

I already wrote that Slovenia is part of the euro zone, has a population of two million, has opened its preliminary Presidency web site and acts as President of the Council of the European Union (including the European Council) from 1 January 2008. Now it is time to take a closer look.

When France invited ministers from the first and second Presidency trio, the Slovenian Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel stressed that his country would like to see a Europe which invests in people and works for the future.

The ratification processes of the Reform Treaty are going to be on the agenda. The Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs reaches a new phase of implementation. Environmental changes require the attention of the EU Council. There are great foreign policy challenges: the Middle East peace process, continued integration of the Western Balkans, and Kosovo, where Rupel stressed the importance of reaching unity within and outside the European Union.

Slovenia wants to contribute to the dialogue between different cultures and religions, and the government has made a proposal to establish a Euro-Mediterranean university in Piran.

***

At an EPC seminar Slovenia’s EU ambassador said that Slovenia had been preparing for the EU Presidency since 2005. Ljubljana is going to start the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty almost immediately after signing, and would begin work on the detailed decisions needed to implement the new Treaty provisions.

The renewed Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs is not going to change policies radically, but more resources will be put into research and innovation, renewing business potential, helping small and medium-sized enterprises and improving labour markets.

In January, after the United Nations’ Bali Meeting, the European Commission is going to publish an energy and climate change package containing binding targets to reduce emissions. The Permanent Representative hoped that the European Council in March would endorse the proposals. In parallel work continues to liberalise the electricity and gas markets.

Senčar emphasized the importance of a European perspective for the Western Balkans. The fight against organised crime and further security reforms are important in the region. Easing the visa regime could bring about progress, which is impossible while young people remain isolated from Europe.

Unity within the European Union and with the USA and Russia on the status of Kosovo is essential. Bold action is needed to enable Serbia to become a “strategic partner” of the EU, Senčar said.

***

Every EU Presidency is important for the different dossiers, so there is considerable advance interest among those who follow European affairs.

A succinct but undated Presentation as well as additional information and news can be found on the web pages of the Slovenian Government Office for European Affairs. Before the Presidency pages in three languages (English, French and Slovene) become more active, these web pages seem to offer the most to those from the outside who are interested in getting to know the next EU Presidency.

The think-tank Notre Europe has promised a study by Manja Klemenčič on the Slovenian Presidency shortly.



Ralf Grahn


Background and sources:


Slovenian EU presidency preliminary website, fully online as of 1 January 2008; http://www.eu2008.si

Slovenia’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union; Government Communication Office; http://www.ukom.gov.si/eng

The programme and priorities of Slovenia’s Presidency of the Council of the EU; Government Communication Office; http://www.ukom.gov.si/eng

Slovenian Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel speaks at French Government consultations on the EU’s future; 17 november 2007; http://www.mzz.gov.si

EU Integration and Citizenship – Priorities of the Slovenian Presidency; European Policy Centre, EPC, 3 December 2007; http://www.epc.eu

Presentation, highlights, documents, news etc.; Government of the Republic of Slovenia, Government Office for European Affairs; http://www.svez.gov.si/en/

Notre Europe: a study on the Slovenian EU Presidency by Manja Klemenčič is going to be published shortly; http://www.notre-europe.eu

Treaty of Lisbon final wording

The Portuguese Presidency of the European Union has announced that the final wording of the Treaty of Lisbon has been published on the web site of the Council.

The Final Act of the inter-governmental conference CIG15/07 contains the protocols and declarations (36 pages).

The Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community CIG 14/07 contains the two amended treaties (287 pages) in their agreed, “unreadable” form.

These versions are the final ones, intended for signing on 13 December 2007 in Lisbon.


Ralf Grahn


Sources:

Portuguese Presidency web page; http://www.eu2007.pt

Council IGC web page with the final texts; http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_applications/Applications/igc2007/doc_register.asp?lang=EN&cmsid=1300

Treaty of Lisbon as samizdat literature

Remember the days of clandestine copying and distribution of government-suppressed literature or other media in Soviet-bloc countries? (Definition: Wikipedia) Although most comparisons between the European Union and the late Soviet Union are over the top, I am going to draw a parallel in one specific case: the Treaty of Lisbon.

The unwarranted and counter-productive refusal of the Council and other institutions of the European Union to publish consolidated versions of the Treaty of Lisbon merits this treatment.

Naturally, the institutions themselves need consolidations in their daily internal work, but keeping them unofficial and out of reach for the general public makes a mockery of transparency and talk of re-connecting with citizens.

The bi-lingual web site Europa-eu-audience has found and published French parallel versions, circulating in the European Parliament, of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. For each Treaty the amended text and the present contents are presented side by side.

Europa-eu-audience asks why these texts are not published on paper (EU-bookshop) and on line (Eur-Lex), of course with reservations that the documents are unofficial.

I want to congratulate Europa-eu-audience on their investigative work and on publishing these tools for interested parties.

Every chink in the armour makes the institutions of the European Union and the governments of the member states look more mean-spirited and ridiculous, deservedly.

Instead of user-friendly information we have samizdat literature in the European Union A.D. 2007.

The time is ripe for the European Council to admit that it made a serious miscalculation, and to rectify its mistake with lightning speed.


Ralf Grahn


Sources:

Wikipedia: Samizdat; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samizdat&oldid=168603756

Europa-eu-audience & en.europa-eu-audience: « Traité consolidé de Lisbonne » en français ( non officiel ) / “Consolidated Treaty of Lisbon” (French versions, non official); 3 December 2007;
http://europa-eu-audience.typepad.com/

Slovenia and EU Presidency countries

According to the present EC Treaty (Article 203) the office of President shall be held in turn by each Member State in the Council for a term of six months in the order decided by the Council acting unanimously. In an expanded European Union with 27 members each Member State would be in charge once in about fourteen years.

If the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force on 1 January 2009, the European Council and the Foreign Affairs Council are going to get permanent Presidents and the rest of the Council configurations are going to advance one more step towards team Presidencies. I described these changes in two articles on my Swedish blog.

***

Portugal has a few weeks left of its Presidency. Eurozone country Slovenia is going to shoulder the Presidency from the beginning of January until the end of June 2008. This is a major undertaking for a country with a population of two million.

Slovenia, which is the first of the new Member States to take on the task, has opened its preliminary Presidency web site. It should be in active use from 1 January, but already you can find basic information about the country and you can subscribe to newsletters and news alerts.

In advance of the formal changes in the Constitutional Treaty and now the Treaty of Lisbon, the Member States of the EU have gradually moved towards greater continuity in the work of the Council than offered by unconnected six month programmes. The 18 month joint Presidency programme of Germany, Portugal and Slovenia was the first of its kind.

Within this programme Slovenia stresses four issues:
the future of the EU (the Treaties and institutional reform)
EU enlargement and the new neighbourhood policy (particularly the Western Balkans)
energy
intercultural dialogue

Since the original programme is on its last leg, modifications seem likely.

***

The next Presidency trio consists of
France (July – December 2008)
Czech Republic (January – June 2009)
Sweden (July – December 2009)

Despite their different approaches to European integration, these countries should manage to agree on a joint 18 month programme.

France may be the last Member State to handle an undivided Presidency of the EU. The French government is preparing for its EU Presidency with ferocious energy and a high profile.


Ralf Grahn


Background and sources:

Ralf Grahn: Ny tid för EU-ordförandeskapen (in Swedish); 1 December 2007; http://grahnblawg.blogspot.com

Ralf Grahn: Ordförandeskapet i Lissabonfördraget (in Swedish); 2 December 2007; http://grahnblawg.blogspot.com

Slovenian EU presidency website online as of 1 January 2008; http://www.eu2008.si

Slovenia’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union; Government Communication Office; http://www.ukom.gov.si/eng

The programme and priorities of Slovenia’s Presidency of the Council of the EU; Government Communication Office; http://www.ukom.gov.si/eng

EU Fundamental Rights

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was originally proclaimed by the EU institutions in Nice in December 2000. It was, and still is, a politically binding document.

The Charter, with minor modifications, was then supposed to become the legally binding Part II of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, signed by the governments of all the member states in October 2004.

The Charter then lapsed along with the Constitutional Treaty.

The 2007 intergovernmental conference agreed to make the Charter legally binding, but leave it outside the text of the amended Treaty on European Union (Treaty of Lisbon). The relevant provision is Article 6, paragraph 1:

“The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 7 December 2000, as adapted [at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007], which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties.

The provisions of the Charter shall not extend in any way the competences of the Union as defined in the Treaties.

The rights, freedoms and principles in the Charter shall be interpreted in accordance with the general provisions in Title VII of the Charter governing its interpretation and application and with due regard to the explanations referred to in the Charter, that set out the sources of those provisions.”

***

Interestingly, the Charter does not confer any new rights on the citizens of the European Union. The rights and principles mentioned are all derived from the Treaties and existing EU legislation, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and other international documents.

Materially the Charter means no revolution, no evolution even. Well, what is the point of the exercise?

The Charter brings these different rights and principles together and shapes them into a visible and logical whole. It is a statement of the values the European Union is founded on and set to promote internally and externally.

The Charter is the most up to date human rights document in the world, a source of pride for the citizens of the European Union. It is going to be a source of reference for human rights in the EU and around the world.

Naturally, the Charter would have been more visible if it had become an integral part of the Treaty of Lisbon, but legally it does not matter.

Thursday 29 November the European Parliament gave its assent to the Charter with 534 votes in favour, 85 against and 21 abstentions, clearing the way for the joint proclamation on 12 December 2007 in Strasbourg, one day before the signing of the Lisbon Treaty.

***

Despite the mainly symbolic character of the Charter, it is not going to apply to all EU citizens. Both the United Kingdom and Poland opted out. (Protocol No 7 on the application of the Charter of Funadmental Rights to Poland and to the United Kingdom)

***

The new Polish government, which needs the support of the morally conservative opposition egged on by the Catholic Bishops, has chosen to let the opt-out stand in order to secure ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon.

The former Polish government wanted no spill-over in the sphere of public morality, family law, as well as the protection of human dignity and respect for human physical and moral integrity (Declaration 51). On the other hand, the then Polish government stressed that it fully respects social and labour rights (Declaration 53).

***

In the Britain the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee has expressed doubts on the effectiveness of the Protocol on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Committee does not consider that the Protocol guarantees that the Charter can have no effect on the law of the United Kingdom when it is combined with consideration of the implementation of Union law (Conclusion 73).

The Committee wanted the matters (red lines) raised to be debated on the Floor of the House before the Treaty is signed, and it therefore decided to hold the draft Treaty under scrutiny.

The Parliament in the homeland of Magna Carta is afraid that the future Court of Justice of
the European Union might some day by some back door extend unwanted rights to UK residents. Perhaps the very social and labour rights respected by Poland (and the other member states) are at the centre of UK apprehension.

***

The MEPs urged Poland and the UK to make every effort to arrive, after all, at a consensus on the unrestricted applicability of the Charter, but it looks as if the citizens of these two countries have a long wait ahead of them.

Is European mainstream thinking on fundamental rights wrong and Poland and the United Kingdom misunderstood geniuses?


Ralf Grahn


Sources:

European Parliament approves the Charter of Fundamental Rights and urges UK and Poland to apply it; Press release, 29 November 2007; http://www.europarl.europa.eu

Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe; (Official Journal of the European Union, 16 December 2004, C 310)

IGC documents; http://www.consilium.europa.eu

House of Commons, European Scrutiny Committee: European Union Intergovernmental Conference: Follow-up report; 27 November 2007; http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmeuleg.htm

European political parties

In the new Treaty of Lisbon version of the Treaty on European Union, the European political parties are taken up under Title II, Provisions on democratic principles (Article 8a paragraph 4):

“Political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union.”

In yesterday’s vote the European Parliament overwhelmingly adopted rules regarding their funding: 538 votes in favour to 74 against with 10 amendments.

***

Political parties at the EU level are necessary channels for democratic participation. Until now they have been weak coalitions of national parties and overshadowed by the parliamentary groups in the European Parliament.

From now on the European political parties are going to be somewhat better equipped to contribute to an evolving European public debate.

The next step for the European political parties is to become more than loose coalitions of parties in the member states. They have to reach out to EU citizens directly and they have to develop means to engage activists across national and linguistic borders.

The new European political parties have to become not only active, but interactive in order to develop the nascent European public space.

Much depends on the European parties themselves, but the national political parties have to change at least as much. Only if the parties in the member states start to take their European parties seriously is there any chance of success.

The homepage of every national party is the obvious starting point for creating awareness. What does it tell us now? What should it be telling us?

These changes have to happen now, not a few weeks ahead of the European parliamentary elections.


Ralf Grahn


Source:

European Parliament News: Results of votes on Thursday 29 November 2007;
http://www.europarl.europa.eu

Lords demand EU treaty consolidation

The EU Council having declined to publish consolidated versions of the Treaty of Lisbon, I called for consolidations of the Reform Treaty by member state governments and non-governmental organisations, such as think-tanks, research institutes or commercial publishers (although legislation including proposals should be accessible to all citizens without cost). I also discussed different reasons for publication, including Treaty provisions, agreed practices and policies of transparency and openness.

As far as I know, there are now three consolidated language versions: French, Spanish and English (all mentioned in earlier postings).

Although there is now a consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty in English, the unjustified reticence of EU institutions and national governments merits further discussion.

I note, with satisfaction, the recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee on European Union in its Thirty-Fifth Report, Chapter 1:

“15. We accordingly recommend that, as soon as possible, the Government deposit in Parliament a full and thorough analysis of the changes which the Reform Treaty, on the basis of existing texts, would bring about, drawing attention to the differences from existing Treaty provisions. This should include both a consolidated version of the Treaties as amended by the Reform Treaty and an in-depth policy analysis of the effect of the changes. We expect that all Departments would be involved in the preparation of this material.”

***

If the Lords find a consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty necessary, why should the citizens of the European Union be denied consolidations in their own languages?

Students, teachers, researchers; local, regional, national and EU officials; non-governmental organisations; politicians at every level; journalists; lobbyists; active citizens; in every member state of the European Union there are people who need (more) accessible texts of the Treaty to be signed.


Ralf Grahn


Source:

House of Lords Select Committee on European Union: Thirty-Fifth Report;
http://www.publications.parliament.uk

Expensive peace operations

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) the combined known costs of UN, EU and NATO peace missions reached the record level of $5.5 billion in 2006.

A lot of money, one could say. On the other hand, world military expenditure in 2006 was $1204 billion.

Thus, the grand total of these peace missions was 0.46 per cent of combined military expenditure last year.

Something to think about?


Ralf Grahn


Source:

SIPRI Yearbook 2007, Summary in English;
http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=346

Finland and NATO

President Tarja Halonen has reiterated her opposition to Finnish membership in the NATO alliance. She says that she has seen no convincing reasons for joining, and opinion polls show that a majority of the population is reticent about membership.

A history of post-war efforts to stay neutral, 1,200 kilometres of shared border with Russia, a unilateralist US administration perceived as adventurous and an inward looking mindset help to explain the mental inertia of Finland.

But, at least for the political leaders of the nation, strategic reasoning and the responsibilities of leadership should shift the burden of proof:

If there are no convincing reasons to the contrary (and none have been presented), Finland should act like a normal member of the European Union, which the country joined in 1995. Out of 27 EU members, 21 belong to NATO. To remain on the fringes of both organisations is a poor choice.

The government of Finland should set a clear new course: Full participation to enhance the common foreign, security and defence policy of the European Union, including the achievement of a common defence, and transatlantic ties through NATO membership.


Ralf Grahn


Background:

Tanja Alamurto & Kari Huhta: On the road to NATO: a guide for travellers; Helsingin Sanomat, International Edition; 18 November 2007;
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/On+the+road+to+NATO+a+guide+for+travellers/1135231972465

Tanja Alamurto & Kari Huhta: NATO Pros and Cons; Helsingin Sanomat, International Edition; 18 November 2007;
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/NATO+Pros+and+Cons+/1135231974078

Gordon Brown on Europe

When Gordon Brown spoke about Britain’s unique place in the world and about advancing Britain’s national interest, he actually managed to mention the European Union in his five page speech:

“Through our membership of the European Union – which gives us and 26 other countries the unique opportunity to work together on economic, environmental and security challenges – and the Commonwealth, and through our commitment to NATO and the UN, we have the capacity to work together with all those who share our vision of the future. And I do not see these as partnerships in competition with each other but mutually reinforcing.”

Specifically Brown had a vision for the EU:

“I want to play my part in helping the European Union move away from its past preoccupation with inward looking institutional reform and I will work with others to propose a comprehensive agenda for a Global Europe – a Europe that is outward looking, open, internationalist, able to effectively respond both through internal reform and external action to the economic, security and environmental imperatives of globalisation.”

***

Daniel Korski, of the European Council on Foreign Relations, gave two cheers for the speech: one for making a positive case for how the EU can amplify Member State policies and a second one for focusing on an outward-looking attempt at addressing the world’s challenges.

Korski still missed an explicit case being made for the Lisbon Treaty’s new “bureaucratic arrangements” and for EU enlargement.

***

I wonder. Is this indicative of the level of engagement, clarity of vision and concreteness of proposals the ECFR is going to expect from the European Union and the national leaders?

In that case establishing the new think-tank was a waste of energy and money.

Gordon Brown almost overlooking the European Union may not have come as much of a surprise, but the ECFR, too?

Let us hope that more comprehensive European analyses and agendas are forthcoming.


Ralf Grahn


Sources:

Gordon Brown: Lord Mayor’s Banquet Speech: PM outlines foreign policy priorities; 12 November 2007; http://www.number10.gov.uk

Daniel Korski: Two cheers for Gordon Brown’s speech; The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), 13 November 2007; http://www.ecfr.eu

EU no Leviathan

“To dismantle that bloated, anti-democratic monstrosity in Brussels, I hope. To save the Europeans from themselves, yet again. They never learn.”

Some agitated minds seem to be ill at ease with the Treaty of Lisbon and the European Union in general, but the reasons given are not always very illuminating.

Is there something fundamentally wrong with the EU’s founding values: respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities?

According to the new version of the Treaty on European Union (Article 2), these values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

What do they find obnoxious about the aims of the Union (Article 3), such as freedom, security and justice, free movement of persons, the internal market, combating social exclusion and discrimination, promoting social justice and equality between women and men?

Do they know that competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States (Article 4), that the limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral and that the use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (Article 5)?

Are they aware of the fact that the Reform Treaty is mainly about improving the inner working (procedures) of the European Union, not about the attribution of new powers?

What about the unelected officials as lawmakers?

The Lisbon Treaty (Article 8a) states that the functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy. Citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament. Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government and in the Council by their governments, themselves democratically accountable either to their national Parliaments, or to their citizens.

Perhaps the culprit is here: The Commission shall promote the general interest of the Union and take appropriate initiatives to that end. The President of the Commission is proposed by the European Council and elected by the European Parliament. The Council, by common accord with the President-elect, shall adopt the list of persons to be members of the Commission, which shall be subject as a body to a vote of consent by the European Parliament (Article 9d).

Should the civil servants of the Commission, the judges of the Court of Justice of the European Union and officials other Union institutions be elected by popular vote? Are civil servants and judges elected by the citizens in, for instance, Britain?

The Commission does not make laws, it makes proposals. Laws are enacted by the Council, in many cases jointly with the European Parliament.

Areas of intergovernmental co-operation are less transparent than the questions where the European Parliament exercises legislative and budgetary functions. Shouldn’t those who long for openness and democratic accountability demand extended powers for the European Parliament, in short a democratic Union?

A number of European local governments employ more than 30,000 public servants. Are these cities bloated monstrosities, too? There are some 490 million EU citizens, and the relative size of the Union’s budget is one twentieth part of the federal budget of the United States of America.

By May 2004 governments and parliaments in 27 democratic European countries had applied and been accepted as members of the European Union. Surely, they must have seen some benefits. Surely, looking back at Europe’s history, they had learned something.

The European Union is no Leviathan. How should one evaluate a school system and media, which fail to give people basic civic knowledge?


Ralf Grahn

European Union of minds?

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

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

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

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

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


Ralf Grahn

New European Security Strategy

The European Council adopted the first holistic foreign policy strategy for the European Union in December 2003. “A Secure Europe in a Better World – the European Security Strategy” (EES) has become the basic document for the ambitions of the EU to become a global player; shortly, to export security to avoid importing insecurity.

The EU leaders and elites are not the only ones to profess the aims of peace and security; there is a demand from the citizens of the European Union for the EU to do more.

Sven Biscop of the Egmont Institute has analysed the European Security Strategy and the delivery of its aims. Despite fuzziness in parts, the EES has become a benchmark and a reference framework for the EU’s foreign, security and defence policy.

According to Biscop, Europe has the potential to be a global power. The adoption of the EES has supported the consolidation of the EU’s international actorness. The EES could yield more benefits by a more institutionalised strategic debate and the evaluation of EU policy. The main question is not whether the EES should be rewritten or not. The question is rather whether the EU is effectively implementing it.

Still, rewriting, or rather an EES 2.0, is on the wall. The work has already started.

Carl Bildt, the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs, told a conference in Stockholm:

“The European Security Strategy that was adopted then [late 2003] broke new ground, and there is little doubt that it has stood the test of time and served us well. But it was never meant to be just a stone tablet preserved for eternity, but rather a living document that would evolve and develop as the European Union developed and as its strategic environment and the challenges associated with it evolved. Much has happened since 2003.”

The process of writing a new European Security Strategy offers the European Union an opportunity to assess the new strategic challenges for the EU’s foreign and security policy, to fill in the gaps in the present EES, to try to reach new levels of consistency and coherence and to analyse the present shortcomings of delivery.

Given the fundamental interests at stake, the citizens of the European Union are entitled to real progress towards a more secure Europe in a better world.


Ralf Grahn


Sources:

A Secure Europe in a Better World – the European Security Strategy; Brussels, 12 December 2003; http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_fo/showPage.ASP?id=266&lang=EN&mode=g

Sven Biscop: The ABC of European Union Strategy: Ambition, Benchmark, Culture; Egmont Paper 16; Brussels, October 2007; http://www.egmontinstitute.be

Carl Bildt: Speech at the Conference for Global Foreign and Security Policy Challenges and the European Union in Stockholm 8-9 November, 2007; http://www.regeringen.se

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

Challenges require EU reforms

When the British Foreign Secretary David Miliband spoke at the College of Europe, in Bruges, he mentioned challenges the nation-states are too small and global governance too weak to deal with. The defining challenges of the 21st century are global in scope, not national.

According to Miliband, the insecurities and threats of 2030 are clear. A Europe at war not within its borders, but struggling to cope with forces beyond its borders. Global capital, people and goods with whom it has not made peace. Religious extremism and division on its doorstep. Energy insecurity and climate change which threatens our security as well as our prosperity. Conflict and instability in regions where we have economic as well as moral interests.

***

In spite of Miliband’s repeated assurances that the European Union will never be a superstate or even a superpower, his vision of the challenges leads to the logical conclusion that there is a need for the EU to review its objectives and means completely: strategies, institutions, resources and policies.

James Rogers, on his blog Global Power Europe, commented on this lack of logical follow-through. Both soft and hard power is needed.

I am going to look at the challenges Miliband mentioned with a view to the future priorities of the European Union.

External security is the fundamental common good, but the individual member states of the European Union are not going to be able to achieve it on their own. The time is ripe for the EU member states to forge an effective foreign, security and defence policy, leading to a common defence. It is necessary that the EU and NATO put their turf wars behind them and reach a fruitful division of labour, encompassing a working Transatlantic relationship.

Soft power has great scope for further action concerning EU enlargement, neighbourhood policy, open and fair trade rules, development assistance and humanitarian action. European values such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law are among our best potential exports for a better world.

Climate change and energy security require both a coherent foreign policy and a functioning internal market.

Internal security includes the control of our external borders and action to prevent terrorism, organised crime and illegal immigration. We need common rules for legal immigration of qualified workers and the treatment of asylum seekers.

Economic growth and new jobs require action to enhance European competitiveness. Globalisation offers many possibilities for the willing and, despite temporary relief, many pitfalls for the protectionists unwilling to reform.

Solidarity towards the new member states has to find adequate expressions, which better create real European common goods than the present agricultural and cohesion spending, which should be phased out.

These strategic political priorities should lay the ground for continued institutional reforms: effective decision making and democratic accountability.

These strategic priorities should be the foundation for the necessary reforms of the next long term budgets of the European Union.


Ralf Grahn


Sources:

David Miliband: Europe 2030: Model power not superpower; Bruges, 15 November 2007; http://www.fco.gov.uk

James Rogers: David Miliband says ’no’ to a European superpower; Global Power Europe, 16 November 2007; http://www.globalpowereurope.eu