Grahnlaw

Unelected Lords support unelected Brussels bureaucrats

2008-07-25T11:19:00.003+03:00

During the last weeks there have been lively exchanges on this blog about the reasons for the European Union and its future nature. I want to thank the commentators for many valuable remarks from various viewpoints.

Time to glance at the European as it is, for a change.

Let us now present an outside contribution with regard to European Union legislation, one of the main areas of EU activity. Specifically, it looks at the process to initiate EU legislation.

The European Union Committee of the UK House of Lords has published a report ‘Initiation of EU Legislation – Report with Evidence’ (22nd Report of Session 2007–08, published 24 July 2008, HL Paper 150), available at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/150/150.pdf

The 216 page report continues the tradition of thematic analysis not only of British interest, but generally within the European Union, by the Committee. At the centre, naturally, is the European Commission’s right of legislative initiative concerning Community law, with the Lords largely supportive of the monopoly of initiative of the Commission within the present institutional set-up.

Ergo, the headline of this blog post is true.

Ralf Grahn

Italian Senate approved Lisbon Treaty

2008-07-23T21:29:00.001+03:00

Wednesday evening the Italian Senate (Senato della Repubblica) debated the government bill on ratification of the EU Lisbon Treaty:

“2. Ratifica ed esecuzione del Trattato di Lisbona che modifica il Trattato sull'Unione europea e il Trattato che istituisce la Comunità europea e alcuni atti connessi, con atto finale, protocolli e dichiarazioni, fatto a Lisbona il 13 dicembre 2007 - Relatore DINI (759)”

The Senate voted unanimously for approval (286) against 0.

Source: Mercoledì 23 luglio 2008, Ratifiaca del Trattato di Lisbona : via libera all’unanimità
http://www.senato.it/notizie/index.htm

The Chamber of Deputies (Camera dei deputati) still has to vote on the Lisbon Treaty.

Ralf Grahn

European elections 2009: Investing in Libertas?

2008-07-22T07:57:00.004+03:00

NDN has now posted a transcript of Declan Ganley’s appearance 17 July 2008. NDN describes itself as a (Democratic) ‘progressive think tank and advocacy organization’, and the transcript called ‘Conversation on the Future of Europe with Declan Ganley’ can be accessed here:

http://www.ndn.org/transcripts/071708.html

Although Ganley has later floated the idea to launch 400 Libertas candidates in the European elections 2009, this is the latest comprehensive information we have about his ideas for the future of Europe.

Dear reader, I ask you to read and reflect.

Is this a credible outline for a programme aiming to raise 75 million British pounds in campaign contributions, mobilise 400 candidates to vie for support and millions of voters to cast their ballots?

While I am trying to digest the contents, I would be happy to read your comments on how you perceive the message of Ganley and Libertas with a view to the next five year legislative mandate of the European Parliament, starting with the June 2009 elections.

Ralf Grahn

Update 23 July 2008: There is now a video available on the NDN web site with Declan Ganley's presentation: http://www.ndn.org/

Update II, 23 July 2008: There is now a new item on Libertas' web site 'Ganley tells Sarkozy that the Lisbon Treaty is dead: http://www.libertas.org/content/view/308/1/

EU: Invest 75 million pounds in the Nice Treaty!

2008-07-20T14:36:00.002+03:00

Declan Ganley seems to be planning to field more than 400 candidates in the June 2009 European elections. He is starting to raise £75 million from online donations to run candidates for the European Parliament throughout the European Union.

See the Telegraph article by Tim Shipman “Irish ‘No’ vote architect plans Europe-wide ‘referendum’ on Lisbon Treaty” (20 July 2008):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/2308990/Irish-%27No%27-vote-architect-plans-Europe-wide-%27referendum%27-on-Lisbon-Treaty.html

According to the article, the message will be to give people a referendum with a chance to say ‘no’ to the Lisbon Treaty. Ganley hopes to win more than 80 seats in the European Parliament, creating a Europe-wide voting bloc with a strong mandate to block passage of the treaty.

***

At this point in time, Shipman’s interview seems to be closest thing we have to a prospectus for the initial public offering of the Libertas European level party.

Let us take a closer look at what we can surmise of the offer from the viewpoint of potential donors, candidates and voters.

Given my modest circumstances, 75 million British pounds looks like a hefty investment even for a good cause.

The only message of the Libertas party seems to be an opportunity to vote ‘no’ to the Lisbon Treaty.

Consequently, 75 million pounds could lead to a protest vote, just possibly massive enough to save the Nice Treaty for the foreseeable future. A lot of money to remain stuck where we already are.

Given the simplicity of the message, the already proven capacity to market forceful simplifications in one test market and popular disillusionment with the EU project, we cannot exclude the possibility of some electoral success.

We could end up with a number of anti-Lisbon MEPs in the next European Parliament, possibly enough toform a new parliamentary group (according to the new rules).

Before the five year mandate comes to a close, at least part of the voters would have realised that the European Parliament has no voice in treaty change. Even if this can be seen as undemocratic, amending the EU treaties is in the hands of the member states’ governments and ultimately parliaments. The European Parliament is only consulted on calling an intergovernmental conference.

Even if a successful electoral campaign could be launched on a protest against the Lisbon Treaty, the Europarliamentarians are in fact elected to act as co-legislators for five years. What would the Libertas MEPs do during their mandate?

There is no programme, as far as we know, and if the campaign is solely about protesting against the Lisbon Treaty, we cannot be sure that there is going to be any platform of substance before the elections.

Still, as elected representatives, Libertas’ MEPs would be supposed to vote on all ‘Community pillar’ questions within the European Parliament’s powers.

Donors would not know what they invest in.

Candidates would be unaware of what they stake their reputation on.

Voters would be clueless as to the future policies beyond the initial protest.

***

How about this as a return on investment?

***

Democracy, legitimacy and accountability are key demands on any political group, especially one campaigning on these issues.

More – much more – is needed if Libertas wants to become a credible EU level political party.

Ralf Grahn

Declan Ganley still short on specifics

2008-07-20T08:30:00.003+03:00

The Sunday Tribune runs a story ”Ganley slams Sarkozy’s ‘arrogance’”:

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2008/jul/20/ganley-slams-sarkozys-arrogance/

The report is long on comment about the three minutes allotted to each of the sixteen organisations invited to the French Embassy to meet with president Nicolas Sarkozy.

According to the story, Declan Ganley would support a new European constitution “that is built on democracy, is legible and runs to no more than 20 to 25 pages that everyone can read”.

Ganley would insist on a reference to Europe’s Christian roots, but there are no other clarifications as to the required contents of this Constitution.

Ralf Grahn

EU reform without the Lisbon Treaty? Justice and Home Affairs

2008-07-20T07:45:00.002+03:00

What if the Treaty of Nice remains the foundation of the European Union in the foreseeable future? Can reforms of the Lisbon Treaty be salvaged on the basis of the existing treaties?

Professor Steve Peers has written a new Statewatch Analysis on one of the important fields of the amending treaty, the area of freedom, security and justice as it is known in EU parlance, but with the British more accustomed to call it justice and home affairs (JHA).

‘Changing the institutional framework for EU Justice and Home Affairs law without the Lisbon Treaty’ (July 2008; 9 pages) looks at the possibilities to amend the existing treaty rules on JHA decision-making rules and the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, without a fully-fledged amendment to the treaties:

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/jul/sw-analysis-jha-transfer-july-2008.pdf

Peers concludes that the member states – acting unanimously – could achieve similar, but not identical results as under the Treaty of Lisbon through the existing ‘passerelle’ or enabling clauses.

***

Peers has made a valuable contribution to the understanding of the Treaty of Lisbon through a number of Statewatch Analyses covering both treaties, available at the Statewatch Observatory on the EU Constitution-Reform-Lisbon Treaty.

Readers interested in justice and home affairs law are advised to look at ‘Analysis no 1.3: JHA provisions’ concerning the general framework.

If relevant to the reader, ‘Analysis no 4: British and Irish opt-outs from EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) law’ sorts out the complications.

Peers has described the general possibilities to ratify the Lisbon Treaty after the Irish rejection, or at least to implement the reforms in practice, in ‘Can the Treaty of Lisbon be ratified or implemented? A legal analysis’ (19 June 2008).

***

Individual JHA Articles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) have also been compared with the current treaty provisions, the draft Constitution and the Constitution in posts on this blog, with references to additional sources.

Ralf Grahn

Will the real Mr Ganley please stand up?

2008-07-19T08:11:00.003+03:00

If you try to describe the messages of Declan Ganley of the Libertas Institute in US American terms, you would end up with two different versions.

Before the Irish referendum to reject the EU Lisbon Treaty, Mr Ganley sounded like the Anti-Federalists or the secessionist Confederate States.

One month later, at the Heritage Foundation in the USA, Mr Ganley resembled Madison, Hamilton and Jay in the Federalist Papers or Abraham Lincoln in face of the rebellion.

***

There is finally an update on Libertas’ home page ‘Libertas accepts invitation to meet Sarkozy’ (18 July 2008):

http://www.libertas.org/

The message seems to straddle these contradictory positions.

On the one hand: Declan Ganley is offended by the prospect of Ireland having to vote again. Sarkozy has a democratic responsibility to respect the will of the Irish people. The Lisbon Treaty is dead. He will be asking Sarkozy to accept that the Irish people have rejected the Lisbon Treaty.

On the other hand: Declan Ganley wants Europe to be strong, prosperous and democratically legitimate.

***

With the post ending with the statement that Libertas will not participate in any debate on the Lisbon Treaty, Libertas leaves everything hanging in the air.

More – much more – is needed on how to bridge the gap.

What does a strong, prosperous and democratically legitimate Europe look like?

How is it going to be accomplished?

How is Libertas going to contribute?

Where is Ganley’s blueprint?

***

It is time for the real Mr Ganley to stand up.

Ralf Grahn

European Union: Danish opt-outs

2008-07-18T17:11:00.002+03:00

The Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) recently published a report ’De danske forbehold over den Europæiske Union: Udviklingen siden 2000’ (The Danish Opt Outs from the European Union: developments since 2000). Today the downloadable report has been published in book form, but for most international readers there is a handy four page executive summary in English:

http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/Books2008/EU_udredningen_08/Preversion/EU08_Executive_Summary%28en%29.pdf

As an appetizer I quote from the summary:

“Since 1993, Denmark has had four opt-outs covering defence policy, the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), Union citizenship, and Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). The opt-out for Union citizenship has no practical significance today, but in the three other areas the consequences now are considerably greater than they were in 2000. The Lisbon Treaty will further increase the significance of the Danish opt-outs, especially in relation to JHA.”

***

The report, commissioned by the Danish Parliament (Folketinget), has the following background:

Prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s government has planned to let the Danes vote on the abolishment of at least some of the opt-outs, seen as more of an obstacle than a help to Denmark.

But the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty has lead to the postponement of these plans.

See, for instance Information.dk ‘Irsk nej truer afskaffelse af danske forbehold’ (Irish no delays abolishing Danish opt-outs), 14 June 2008:

http://www.information.dk/160827

Ralf Grahn

EU Lisbon Treaty: The incredible Mr Ganley

2008-07-17T16:27:00.002+03:00

Do you remember the Libertas ‘no’ campaign spearheaded by Declan Ganley? Can you still recall the main reasons they put forward to vote ‘no’ on the Lisbon Treaty in the Irish referendum?

Here is their ‘8 reasons to Vote No to Lisbon’ (with, in my view, distortive and manipulative reasons added):

1. Creates an unelected President and a Foreign Minister of Europe
2. Halves Ireland’s voting weight while doubling Germany’s
3. Abolishes Ireland’s Commissioner for five years at a time
4. Opens the door to interference in tax and other key economic interests
5. Hands over power in 60 areas of decision making to Brussels
6. Gives exclusive competence to Brussels over International Trade and Foreign Direct Investment
7. Enshrines EU law as superior to Irish law
8. The Treaty can be changed without another referendum

Incidentally, the latest on Libertas’ web site is still their thank you note from 17 June 2008. The eight reasons are accessible here:

http://www.libertas.org/content/view/293/139/

***

Compare this with Declan Ganley’s appearance at the US Heritage Foundation, where he is introduced as a modern-day freedom fighter.

Yes, the Heritage Foundation, where the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom has been on a long crusade to drive a wedge between the US administration and its European allies.

What did Declan Ganley tell his hosts on 15 July 2008? Hardly anything to please his anti-European hostess:

Ireland and he are no Eurosceptics, but pro-European.
We need a strong and prosperous Europe.
The fundamental point of the ‘no’ campaign was democracy.
The European leaders have to offer Europe’s citizens democratic accountability and legitimacy.
The have to sell the vision of a democratic Europe to the people in order to succeed with the people.
Europe needs a 20 to 25 page Constitution, which can be read and understood by a 15 year old.
The Constitution has to be approved by the people.
If not, the politicians have to go back to the drawing-board.
A second referendum in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty would result in a bigger ‘no’.

You can look up the hour long event on the Heritage Foundation’s web site:

http://www.heritage.org/

***

Which Declan Ganley are we supposed to believe? The one spreading nationalistic fears before the referendum? The apostle of European level democracy and a strong Europe after the plebiscite?

Ralf Grahn

Lisbon Treaty: Sarkozy accused

2008-07-17T08:02:00.003+03:00

The Irish ’no’ side has hurled accusations at the current president of the European Council, France’s Nicoalas Sarkozy, for suggesting a second referendum in Ireland on the EU Treaty of Lisbon, ahead of his discussions with the Irish government 21 July 2008.

Criticism against bullying, a more resounding ‘no’ victory next time, as well as national or pan-European ‘no’ campaigns at the European elections 2009 have been aired by different activists.

Without constructive proposals, these opinions would lead to the Treaty of Nice remaining the crowning achievement of European integration.

The common objective of the campaigners seems to be to harden resistance against any constructive solution for Europe.

The supposedly pro-European Irish have baffled not only European opinion, as recorded by The Irish Times ‘Lisbon vote baffles US, says Bruton’ (17 July 2008):

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/0717/1216073186168.html

***

A number of Irish government ministers have only been able to say that they need time to think about solutions.

Not a great help, this far.

***

Legally, the European Union is based on the Nice Treaty, and the Lisbon Treaty requires the ratification of all 27 member states, as it now stands.

Still, it is highly simplistic to say that the Lisbon Treaty is dead, period.

It would be foolish to disregard the political dynamics behind almost a decade of EU treaty reform exertions.

All the member states’ governments have signed up to the Treaty of Lisbon, and more than four out of five of the national parliaments have approved the amending treaty. The ratification processes have continued, with only three parliamentary ratifications missing.

***

If neither ‘no’ campaigners nor the government in Ireland are willing or able to formulate solutions, what should the rest of Europe do?

President Sarkozy has the unwelcome duty to look for ways to solve the problems.

In spite of abuse from opponents, a second referendum leading to a ‘yes’ vote, is legally possible within the constraints of the Lisbon Treaty. Supposing that all the other member states ratify, this would preserve the unity of the European Union. Sarkozy is almost duty bound to ask if this is the first option of the Irish government.

(Personally, I doubt the wisdom of putting the same question to a second vote in Ireland.)

Sooner or later the Irish government has to decide.

Is there going to be a new plebiscite?

Are there Irish concerns which can be accommodated within the parameters of the Lisbon Treaty?

What happens if a second referendum leads to a new ‘no’ vote?

How is Ireland going to act in case of a new ‘no’ victory, or if no second referendum is arranged?

Is Ireland going to look for a solution, which allows the ratifying states to move along?

Is Ireland going to fight to the end to fetter the rest of Europe to the Nice Treaty?

***

In each case, the other EU member states have to decide what they want and what it takes to achieve it.

But first they need answers from Ireland. Dallying is no help.

Ralf Grahn

European Union: Economic policy

2008-07-16T16:16:00.003+03:00

Certain basic principles of economic policy emerge between the member states and the European Union, when we look at the EU treaties.

We advance from the current Treaty establishing the European Community to the Treaty of Lisbon.

***

Article 98 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) is found in the latest consolidated version of the current treaties, published in the Official Journal of the European Union 29.12.2006 C 321 E/82:

Part Three – Community policies

Title VII – Economic and monetary policy

Chapter 1 – Economic policy

Article 98 TEC

Member States shall conduct their economic policies with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Community, as defined in Article 2, and in the context of the broad guidelines referred to in Article 99(2). The Member States and the Community shall act in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition, favouring an efficient allocation of resources, and in compliance with the principles set out in Article 4.

***

We look at the different stages of the treaty reform process.

First, we turn to the European Convention, the closest thing to a constituent assembly EU citizens have had since the 1950s and 1980s. The corresponding Article is located in Part III ‘The policies and functioning of the Union’, Title III ‘Internal policies and action’, Chapter II ‘Economic and monetary policy’, Section 1 ‘Economic policy’.

Article III-70 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/39:

Article III-70 Draft Constitution

Member States shall conduct their economic policies in order to contribute to the achievement of the Union's objectives, as defined in Article I-3, and in the context of the broad guidelines referred to in Article III-71(2). The Member States and the Union shall act in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition, favouring an efficient allocation of resources, and in compliance with the principles set out in Article III-69.

***

‘In order to contribute’ is a bit firmer than ‘with a view to contributing’, but otherwise the proposal of the Convention differed only technically from the current text.

***

In the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, approved by 18 member states, the introductory provisions on economic policy were located in Part III ‘The policies and functioning of the Union’, Title III ‘Internal policies and action’, Chapter II ‘Economic and monetary policy’, Section 1 ‘Economic policy’.

Article III-178 is found in OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/76:

Article III-178 Constitution

Member States shall conduct their economic policies in order to contribute to the achievement of the Union's objectives, as defined in Article I-3, and in the context of the broad guidelines referred to in Article III-179(2). The Member States and the Union shall act in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition, favouring an efficient allocation of resources, and in compliance with the principles set out in Article III-177.

***

Between the draft Constitution and the Constitutional Treaty only the numbering of the Article and those referred to changed.

***

I found no specific mention of the economic and monetary policy in the mandate of the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007 Mandate, Council document 11218/07, 26 June 2007).

The present TEC was to become the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and the innovations as agreed in the 2004 IGC were to be inserted into the Treaty by way of specific modifications in the usual manner (points 17 and 18, pages 6 and 7).

***

In Article 2, point 85 of the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) the IGC 2007 inserted an Article 97b into the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and in point 86, Article 99 TEC was amended (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/70).

In other words, no specific amendments concerned Article 98 TEC, leaving only a few horizontal amendments to be made, notably the one mentioned in Article 2 ToL, point 8, replacing the reference to Article TEc by a reference to Article 2 TEU (later renumbered Article 3 TEU). See OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/44 and Table of equivalences OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/200.

***

The TFEU table of equivalences confirms that the new Article 98 TFEU (ToL) in the original Treaty of Lisbon was later renumbered Article 120 TFEU in the consolidated version, under the title ‘Economic and monetary policy’ renumbered Title VIII (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/211–212).

***

Article 120 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is found in the consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, published in the Official Journal of the European Union, OJ 9.5.2008 C 115/97:

Part Three Union policies and internal actions

Title VIII Economic and monetary policy

Article 120 TFEU
(ex Article 98 TEC)

Member States shall conduct their economic policies with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Union, as defined in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union, and in the context of the broad guidelines referred to in Article 121(2). The Member States and the Union shall act in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition, favouring an efficient allocation of resources, and in compliance with the principles set out in Article 119.

***

The IGC 2007 did not interpret the wording of the Convention and the Constitution on contributing as an innovation, so the weaker ‘with a view to contributing’ was preserved. This and other detail decisions contributed to limiting the volume of the Lisbon Treaty.

***

What has been said about Article 120 TFEU?

United Kingdom

Professor Steve Peers covered the Treaty of Lisbon in a number of Statewatch Analyses. ‘EU Reform Treaty Analysis no. 3.4: Revised text of Part Three, Titles VII to XVII of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC): Other internal EC policies (Version 2, 24 October 2007) includes the current Title VII Economic and monetary policy.

Peers presented the numbering of Article 98 TFEU (ToL), to be renumbered Article 120 TFEU in the consolidated version, and highlighted the changes, without comment (page 5).

The analysis 3.4 and other useful Statewatch analyses are available through:

http://www.statewatch.org/euconstitution.htm

***

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) offers a convenient source of brief annotations on Lisbon Treaty amendments in ‘A comparative table of the current EC and EU treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon’ (Command Paper 7311, published 21 January 2008). It offers the following comment on Article 120 TFEU, Article 98 TFEU (ToL) in the original Lisbon Treaty (page 12):

“In substance the same as Article 98 TEC.”

The FCO comparative table is available at:

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7311/7311.asp

***

The UK House of Commons Library Research Paper 07/86 ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: amendments to the Treaty establishing the European Community’ (published 6 December 2007) discussed ‘H. Economic and Monetary Policy’ on pages 61 to 64. Article 98 TFEU (ToL) was mentioned in passing on page 61.

The Library Research Paper 07/86 is available at:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2007/rp07-086.pdf

***

The House of Lords European Union Committee report ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: an impact assessment, Volume I: Report’ (HL Paper 62-I, published 13 March 2008) is a valuable resource on the Treaty of Lisbon, but it did not dwell on economic and monetary policy.

The report is accessible at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/62/62.pdf

***

Sweden

The consultation paper ’Lissabonfördraget’ was the first official Swedish description of the Lisbon Treaty amendments, and it is available at:

http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/09/49/81/107aa077.pdf

It was followed by the Swedish government’s draft ratification bill ‘Lagrådsremiss – Lissabonfördraget’, published 29 May 2008:

http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/5676/a/106277

The draft bill was given a green light by the Council on Legislation (Lagrådet):

http://www.lagradet.se/yttranden/Lissabonfordraget.pdf

The latest official government view, and now my standard reference for Sweden, is the ratification bill (Regeringens proposition 2007/08:168 Lissabonfördraget; 3 July 2008):

http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/10/84/02/8c96cf3e.pdf

Economic and monetary policy (23.2 Ekonomisk och monetary politik) is discussed on pages 180 to 185.

***

Finland

Among our standard sample of Lisbon Treaty commentaries, Finland is the first Eurozone country.

The Finnish ratification bill, ‘Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle Euroopan unionista tehdyn sopimuksen ja Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen muuttamisesta tehdyn Lissabonin sopimuksen hyväksymisestä ja laiksi sen lainsäädännön alaan kuuluvien määräysten voimaansaattamisesta’ (HE 23/2008 vp), discusses economic and monetary policy (Talous- ja rahapolitiikka) on pages 209 to 214.

The ratification bill briefly describes Article 98 TFEU (ToL), renumbered Article 120 TFEU, as unchanged (page 209):

”98 artiklaa (uusi 120 artikla), jossa jäsenvaltiot velvoitetaan harjoittamaan talouspolitiikkaansa niin, että ne myötävaikuttavat unionin tavoitteiden toteuttamiseen, ei muuteta.”

The Finnish ratification bill is available at:

http://www.finlex.fi/fi/esitykset/he/2008/20080023.pdf

The Swedish language version of the ratification bill ‘Regeringens proposition till Riksdagen med förslag om godkännande av Lissabonfördraget om ändring av fördraget om Europeiska unionen och fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen och till lag om sättande i kraft av de bestämmelser i fördraget som hör till området för lagstiftningen’ (RP 23/2008 rd), makes the same remark under ’Ekonomisk och monetär politik’ on Article 98 TFEU (ToL), the future Article 120 TFEU, on page 212:

”Artikel 98 (blivande artikel 120), där medlemsstaterna åläggs att föra sin ekonomiska politik så att de bidrar till att förverkliga unionens mål, ändras inte.”

The ratification bill in Swedish can be accessed at:

http://www.finlex.fi/sv/esitykset/he/2008/20080023.pdf

***

François-Xavier Priollaud and David Siritzky offer a short introductory explanation on economic and monetary policy (pages 246 and 247) and on economic policy (pages 248 to 250) in their book ‘Le traité de Lisbonne – Commentaire, article par article, des nouveaux traités européens (TUE et TFUE)’ (La Documentation française, Paris, 2008).

Ralf Grahn

Lisbon Treaty ratification count 23 states and 412 million

2008-07-15T18:50:00.002+03:00

Spain (population 44.5 million) is the latest European Union member state to complete the parliamentary ratification process of the Treaty of Lisbon after the resounding Senate vote today: 232 for, 6 against.

Source: Senado http://www.senado.es

The 23 member states where the parliamentary ratification is concluded account for 412.3 million Europeans (about 83 per cent of the total EU population of 495.1 million).

The group of slow, undecided or negative member states has now shrunk to four, with the following population numbers (millions):

The Czech Republic 10.3

Italy 59.1

Sweden 9.1

---

Ireland 4.3

***

As of today more than four fifths (85 per cent) of the member states, representing more than four fifths (83 per cent) of the total EU population, have already concluded the parliamentary ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

Ralf Grahn

European Union: Economic and monetary policy

2008-07-15T07:24:00.002+03:00

Close coordination of economic policies and a single monetary policy, including a single currency, the euro, promote the aims of the European Union.

We advance from the current Treaty establishing the European Community to the Treaty of Lisbon.

***

Article 4 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) is found in the latest consolidated version, published in the Official Journal of the European Union 29.12.2006 C 321 E/45–46:

Part One – Principles

Article 4 TEC

1. For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Member States and the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein, the adoption of an economic policy which is based on the close coordination of Member States' economic policies, on the internal market and on the definition of common objectives, and conducted in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.

2. Concurrently with the foregoing, and as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable and the procedures set out therein, these activities shall include the irrevocable fixing of exchange rates leading to the introduction of a single currency, the ecu, and the definition and conduct of a single monetary policy and exchange-rate policy the primary objective of both of which shall be to maintain price stability and, without prejudice to this objective, to support the general economic policies in the Community, in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.

3. These activities of the Member States and the Community shall entail compliance with the following guiding principles: stable prices, sound public finances and monetary conditions and a sustainable balance of payments.

***

We look at the different stages of the treaty reform process.

First, we turn to the European Convention, the closest thing to a constituent assembly EU citizens have had. The corresponding Article is located in Part III ‘The policies and functioning of the Union’, Title III ‘Internal policies and action’, Chapter II ‘Economic and monetary policy’.

Article III-69 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/39:

Article III-69 Draft Constitution

1. For the purposes set out in Article I-3, the activities of the Member States and the Union shall include, as provided in the Constitution, the adoption of an economic policy which is based on the close coordination of Member States' economic policies, on the internal market and on the definition of common objectives, and conducted in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.

2. Concurrently with the foregoing, and as provided in the Constitution and in accordance with the procedures set out therein, these activities shall include a single currency, the euro, and the definition and conduct of a single monetary policy and exchange-rate policy, the primary objective of both of which shall be to maintain price stability and, without prejudice to this objective, to support the general economic policies in the Union, in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.

3. These activities of the Member States and the Union shall entail compliance with the following guiding principles: stable prices, sound public finances and monetary conditions and a stable balance of payments.

***

In the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, ‘ratified’ by 18 member states, the introductory provisions on economic and monetary policy were located in Part III ‘The policies and functioning of the Union’, Title III ‘Internal policies and action’, Chapter II ‘Economic and monetary policy’.

Article III-177 is found in OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/76:

Article III-177 Constitution

For the purposes set out in Article I-3, the activities of the Member States and the Union shall include, as provided in the Constitution, the adoption of an economic policy which is based on the close coordination of Member States' economic policies, on the internal market and on the definition of common objectives, and conducted in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.

Concurrently with the foregoing, and as provided in the Constitution and in accordance with the procedures set out therein, these activities shall include a single currency, the euro, and the definition and conduct of a single monetary policy and exchange-rate policy, the primary objective of both of which shall be to maintain price stability and, without prejudice to this objective, to support general economic policies in the Union, in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.

These activities of the Member States and the Union shall entail compliance with the following guiding principles: stable prices, sound public finances and monetary conditions and a stable balance of payments.

***

I found no specific mention of the economic and monetary policy in the mandate of the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007 Mandate, Council document 11218/07, 26 June 2007).

The present TEC was to become the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and the innovations as agreed in the 2004 IGC were to be inserted into the Treaty by way of specific modifications in the usual manner (points 17 and 18, pages 6 and 7).

***

In Article 2, point 85 of the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) the IGC 2007 inserted an Article 97b into the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/70):

85) An Article 97b shall be inserted as the first article of Title VII, with the wording of Article 4; it shall be amended as follows:

(a) in paragraph 1, the words ‘and in accordance with the timetable set out therein’ shall be deleted;

(b) in paragraph 2, the words ‘Concurrently with the foregoing, and as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable and the procedures set out therein, these activities shall include the irrevocable fixing of exchange rates leading to the introduction of a single currency, the ecu,’ shall be replaced by ‘Concurrently with the foregoing, and as provided in the Treaties and in accordance with the procedures set out therein, these activities shall include a single currency, the euro,’.

***

The TFEU table of equivalences confirms that the new Article 97b TFEU (ToL) in the original Treaty of Lisbon was later renumbered Article 119 TFEU in the consolidated version (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/211).

***

Article 119 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is found in the consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, published in the Official Journal of the European Union, OJ 9.5.2008 C 115/96–97:

Part Three Union policies and internal actions

Title VIII Economic and monetary policy

Article 119 TFEU
(ex Article 4 TEC)

1. For the purposes set out in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union, the activities of the Member States and the Union shall include, as provided in the Treaties, the adoption of an economic policy which is based on the close coordination of Member States' economic policies, on the internal market and on the definition of common objectives, and conducted in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.

2. Concurrently with the foregoing, and as provided in the Treaties and in accordance with the procedures set out therein, these activities shall include a single currency, the euro, and the definition and conduct of a single monetary policy and exchange-rate policy the primary objective of both of which shall be to maintain price stability and, without prejudice to this objective, to support the general economic policies in the Union, in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.

3. These activities of the Member States and the Union shall entail compliance with the following guiding principles: stable prices, sound public finances and monetary conditions and a sustainable balance of payments.

***

What has been said about Article 119 TFEU?

United Kingdom

Professor Steve Peers covered the Treaty of Lisbon in a number of Statewatch Analyses. ‘EU Reform Treaty Analysis no. 3.4: Revised text of Part Three, Titles VII to XVII of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC): Other internal EC policies (Version 2, 24 October 2007) includes the current Title VII Economic and monetary policy.

Peers presented the text and numbering of Article 97b TFEU (ToL), to be renumbered Article 119 TFEU in the consolidated version, without comment (pages 4–5).

The analysis 3.3 and other useful Statewatch analyses are available through:

http://www.statewatch.org/euconstitution.htm

***

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) offers a convenient source of brief annotations on Lisbon Treaty amendments in ‘A comparative table of the current EC and EU treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon’ (Command Paper 7311, published 21 January 2008). It offers the following comment on Article 119 TFEU, Article 97b TFEU (ToL) in the original Lisbon Treaty (page 12):

“In substance the same as Article 4 TEC, which it updates.”

The FCO comparative table is available at:

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7311/7311.asp

***

The UK House of Commons Library Research Paper 07/86 ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: amendments to the Treaty establishing the European Community’ (published 6 December 2007) discussed ‘H. Economic and Monetary Policy’ on pages 61 to 64. The new Article 97b TFEU (ToL) was mentioned on page 61:

Article 97(b) (Constitution Article III-177) corresponds with the principles set out in Article 4 TEC in the “Principles of the Community” on the adoption of an “economic policy which is based on the close coordination of Member States’ economic policies”.

The Library Research Paper 07/86 is available at:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2007/rp07-086.pdf

***

The House of Lords European Union Committee report ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: an impact assessment, Volume I: Report’ (HL Paper 62-I, published 13 March 2008) is a valuable resource on the Treaty of Lisbon, but it did not dwell on economic and monetary policy.

The report is accessible at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/62/62.pdf

***

Sweden

The consultation paper ’Lissabonfördraget’ was the first official Swedish description of the Lisbon Treaty amendments, and it is available at:

http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/09/49/81/107aa077.pdf

It was followed by the Swedish government’s draft ratification bill ‘Lagrådsremiss – Lissabonfördraget’, published 29 May 2008:

http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/5676/a/106277

The draft bill was given a green light by the Council on Legislation (Lagrådet):

http://www.lagradet.se/yttranden/Lissabonfordraget.pdf

The latest official government view is the ratification bill (Regeringens proposition 2007/08:168 Lissabonfördraget; 3 July 2008):

http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/10/84/02/8c96cf3e.pdf

Economic and monetary policy (23.2 Ekonomisk och monetary politik) is discussed on pages 180 to 185.

***

Finland

Among our standard sample of Lisbon Treaty commentaries, Finland is the first Eurozone country.

The Finnish ratification bill, ‘Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle Euroopan unionista tehdyn sopimuksen ja Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen muuttamisesta tehdyn Lissabonin sopimuksen hyväksymisestä ja laiksi sen lainsäädännön alaan kuuluvien määräysten voimaansaattamisesta’ (HE 23/2008 vp), discusses economic and monetary policy (Talous- ja rahapolitiikka) on pages 209 to 214.

The ratification bill briefly mentions that Article 97b TFEU (ToL), renumbered Article 119 TFEU, corresponds with Article III-177 of the Constitutional Treaty and Article 4 TEC (page 209):

”97 b artikla (uusi 119 artikla), jossa määritellään unionin talous- ja rahapolitiikan tavoitteet, vastaa perustuslakisopimuksen III-177 artiklaa ja SEY 4 artiklaa.”

The Finnish ratification bill is available at:

http://www.finlex.fi/fi/esitykset/he/2008/20080023.pdf

The Swedish language version of the ratification bill ‘Regeringens proposition till Riksdagen med förslag om godkännande av Lissabonfördraget om ändring av fördraget om Europeiska unionen och fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen och till lag om sättande i kraft av de bestämmelser i fördraget som hör till området för lagstiftningen’ (RP 23/2008 rd), makes the same remark under ’Ekonomisk och monetär politik’ on Article 97b TFEU (ToL), the future Article 119 TFEU, on page 212:

”Artikel 97b (blivande artikel 119), där målen för unionens ekonomiska och monetära politik definieras, motsvarar artikel III-177 i det konstitutionella fördraget och artikel 4 i EG-fördraget.”

The ratification bill in Swedish can be accessed at:

http://www.finlex.fi/sv/esitykset/he/2008/20080023.pdf

***

François-Xavier Priollaud and David Siritzky offer a short introductory explanation on pages 246 and 247 of their book Le traité de Lisbonne – Commentaire, article par article, des nouveaux traités européens (TUE et TFUE) (La Documentation française, Paris, 2008).

Ralf Grahn

The latest from Libertas

2008-07-11T11:43:00.002+03:00

Four weeks gone from the Irish referendum on the EU Lisbon Treaty is a suitable time to check how the better deal for Ireland and Europe is shaping up.

Surprise, surprise, ‘The Latest from Libertas’ is still their Thank you note, dated 17 June 2008.

The positive alternative to the direction Europe is taking is nowhere to be seen.

Unbelievable.

Ralf Grahn

EU Council presidency: Slovenia and France – Two media approaches

2008-07-11T11:19:00.003+03:00

Until the end of June, Slovenia held the rotating EU Council presidency. For a news consumer it was easy to register, and during the presidency all the press releases dropped into my e-mail without further trouble. It was then easy to scan each headline and the first lines to see, if the e-mail required further attention (tied as it is to current writing activities).

The same methods have worked during previous presidencies.

The only troubling thing was the Slovenian use of long and bureaucratic headlines, which meant that the e-mail headline seldom said anything about the contents; only the second headline (of the press release) did that.

Since the beginning of July things have changed – for the worse.

France has high ambitions, but things have turned out messy:

France has accreditation for journalists and even for select NGO participants, but no simple system for interested citizens to keep up to date. According to some reports, journalists have encountered difficulties trying to register.

The French EU Council presidency promises a daily newsletter, but if they have sent one, I have missed it.

The French EU Council presidency offers updates on events via a reader, but this has meant that my Google reader is swamped a few times daily with scores of events (66 at the last count), old and new. Am I supposed to wade through each item a couple of times each day to find out if there is something really new? I want updates – nothing more, nothing less.

Multimedia is chic, but do I really have to follow speeches and presentations via web TV, which means an hour or so for each, instead of reading the contents in about five minutes to find out where the beef is? A few moments ago, there was still no written version of president Nicolas Sarkozy’s speech in front of the European Parliament, but I could have followed the performance live yesterday or canned today.

Elysian style high-tech sounds progressive, until you have to use it.

Please give me and other news consumers simple tools that work.

Ralf Grahn

Lisbon Treaty ratification count 22 and 367

2008-07-11T08:40:00.003+03:00

Belgium is the latest European Union member state to complete the parliamentary ratification process of the Treaty of Lisbon.

Reuters reports ‘Belgium completes approval of EU Lisbon treaty’:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKL1051159420080710

The 22 member states where the parliamentary ratification is concluded account for 367.8 million Europeans (about 74 per cent of the total EU population of 495.1 million).

The group of slow, undecided or negative member states has now shrunk to five, with the following population numbers (millions):

The Czech Republic 10.3

Italy 59.1

Spain 44.5

Sweden 9.1

---

Ireland 4.3

***

As of yesterday evening, four out of five member states (81 per cent), representing almost three quarters of the total EU population (74 per cent), have concluded the parliamentary ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

Ralf Grahn

Sarkozy on EU treaty perspectives

2008-07-10T16:59:00.002+03:00

Waiting for the French EU Council presidency site – www.ue2008.fr – to post a written version of president Nicolas Sarkozy’s speech in the European Parliament, we turn to a few news reports, because it is more convenient for readers to read than to follow the videos from beginning to end.

BBC News reports that ‘Sarkozy warns EU on treaty debate’:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7499143.stm

‘France determined to end EU treaty woes by year’s end’, says EUbusiness.com:

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1215685022.25

‘Nicolas Sarkozy devant le Parlement européen’, is the headline at Radio France International :

http://www.rfi.fr/actufr/articles/103/article_68451.asp

***

Short term we have the following expectations, based on Sarkozy’s speech:

France wants to propose a solution in October or December.
The choice is between the Nice Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty.
No country should be left behind at this stage.
Clarity is needed before the European elections.
Enlargement and Lisbon walk hand in hand.

***

Today, president Sarkozy was not ready to speak about long term perspectives. He only hinted at two-speed Europe as a last resort.

***

How much wiser are we now?

Ralf Grahn

Joschka Fischer’s EU avant-garde

2008-07-10T10:38:00.003+03:00

Germany’s former foreign minister Joschka Fischer presented his view on EU reform in his Zeit Online column ‘Vive l’Avant-Garde!’ (30 June 2008):

http://www.zeit.de/online/2008/27/joschka-fischer-europa

The surrounding world changes at Formula 1 speed, but the Europeans have decided on a snail’s pace through a compromise between Euroskeptics and pro-Europeans.

According to Fischer, the parallel progress of enlargement and deepening has worked only for enlargement. Europe will lose power to decide on its own fate in the world.

The pro-Europeans have to end the compromise with the Euroskeptics, regardless of if a new Irish referendum saves the Lisbon Treaty or not.

The only possibility is a European avant-garde, a group of EU countries willing and able to advance. The willing and able participate, but the others shall not block progress anymore.

The Lisbon Treaty would provide both civilian enhanced cooperation and military permanent structured cooperation, but if the Treaty of Lisbon fails, the pro-European governments and states need to establish an avant-garde group outside the treaties.

The negative consequence of this would be that the community institutions would not develop for a long time, for example in the foreign policy field.

Even if European unity is an important value, it cannot be upheld if the price is permanent immobility or even backward steps. In the middle term the Nice Treaty status quo is a bigger threat to European unity than an avant-garde group.

If the best solution is unavailable, you have to grasp the second best option. The avant-garde group should take on the areas of energy policy, economic and financial policy, foreign and security policy, as well as social policy.

New institutions cannot be created in this way, but the participating countries can better determine their positions with regard to the outside world and, like Schengen, create new structures for integration beyond the treaties.

***

It worth noticing how silent the EU leaders and the EU institutions are on the hard choices facing Europe. Only free citizens seem to be able to contribute to the discussion with new facts and proposals.

Fischer’s analysis of Europe’s diminishing role in the world is compelling, as is his prescription that something has to be done to break the deadlock, with or without the Lisbon Treaty.

At least three of Fischer’s assumptions require special attention and deeper discussion:

1) The vast policy areas proposed by Fischer require effective action, but without decision-making rules to support decisive action, even a smaller group would become bogged down by the unanimity rule inherent to intergovernmental cooperation.

2) The relations between the core group policies and the regular Nice or Lisbon institutions’ decisions require careful thought. How would it play out? We would, for instance, have situations where a core group has a common position, but the EU does not.

3) Intergovernmental avant-garde groups outside the treaties or based on the Lisbon Treaty would do nothing to enhance the democratic legitimacy and accountability of their actions. Only democratic foundations can ultimately legitimise deeper integration, even if the commendable aim is to enhance the security and prosperity of EU citizens.

Should the integrationist countries realise that they need more than avant-garde groups? Should they finally accept that they need both effective institutions and democratic foundations, if they want to build a functioning Europe?

Ralf Grahn

Clingendael: Lisbon Treaty options

2008-07-09T13:32:00.002+03:00

Rob Boudewijn and Janis A. Emmanouilidis ask

How to proceed after the Irish “No”

in Clingendael Commentary 5 (9 July 2008). The two page analysis can be accessed at the web page of the Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’:

http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2008/20080709_clingendael_commentary_005.pdf

The researchers Boudewijn and Emmanouilidis present four options, of which they dismiss the first three:

1) A core group, leaving Ireland outside a new union.

2) Ireland’s voluntary withdrawal from the European Union.

3) Abandoning the Lisbon Treaty and negotiating a new one.

Their fourth and final option, deemed to be the most attractive and realistic one, is for the member states to continue the ratification procedure. Ireland would arrange a repeat referendum in early 2009.

The writers find it highly likely that Ireland will be the only member state to have rejected the Lisbon Treaty. Then 26 member states, representing 99 per cent of the EU’s population would have every moral right to ask the Irish to reconsider.

Ireland might be granted some concessions in return, for example in the field of taxes, family law and defence.

***

A few comments on the Clingendael Commentary:

The fourth option with continued ratification looks attractive – until the second Irish referendum.

The repeated plebiscite would have to be won by the ‘yes’ side to make any difference. Otherwise it is just a humiliation more for those who have invested in the treaty reform process.

None of the reasons for the ‘no’ vote was pro-European, so why should the Irish voters suddenly care about the rest of Europe the second time around?

Having discredited their own political leadership, why should they rehabilitate them?

Wouldn’t asking the Irish the same question again prompt new and more bloody-minded resistance?

Would the concessions mentioned by Boudewijn and Emmanouilidis change anything in practice or in the perception of Irish electors?

The Lisbon Treaty already contains the legal guarantees mentioned, which means that Irish particularities on (company) tax, abortion and neutrality are no real issues. A declaration makes them no more real, but neither is it a real concession.

Opening up the Lisbon Treaty would, on the other hand, lead to new ratifications and waste of time. The margins are slim.

***

The option offered by Boudewijn and Emmanouilidis seems to build on the most human of grounds: Miracles can always happen, and if they do, nobody has to draw real conclusions.

But is the solution good after the second Irish referendum?

Ralf Grahn

Lisbon Treaty ratifiers represent 357 million Europeans

2008-07-08T15:05:00.002+03:00

If we take the latest Eurostat figures (as of 1 January 2007), the total population of the European Union is 495.1 million.

The 21 member states where the parliamentary ratification is concluded account for 357.2 million Europeans (about 72 per cent of the EU total).

The slow, undecided or negative member states have the following population numbers (millions):

Belgium 10.6

The Czech Republic 10.3

Italy 59.1

Spain 44.5

Sweden 9.1

---

Ireland 4.3

***

As of today, we have 77 per cent of the member states, representing 72 per cent of the total EU population, behind the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

Is the Irish electorate a better judge on the future of Europe than the national parliaments?

Ralf Grahn

Netherlands: Lisbon Treaty ratification 21

2008-07-08T14:20:00.002+03:00

The Second Chamber of the Netherlands Parliament or the Dutch House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal) had approved the EU Treaty of Lisbon 5 June 2008 by an overwhelming majority, 111 against 39. From there the ratification bill went to the Senate.

Today, 8 July 2008, the indirectly elected Dutch First Chamber or Senate (Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal) voted to approve the Lisbon Treaty.

Source NOS ‘Eerste Kamer akoord met EU-verdrag’:

http://www.nos.nl/nos/artikelen/2008/07/art000001C8E0E8A41A39C4.html

The Dutch Senate vote concludes the parliamentary ratification process in the Netherlands, which becomes the 21st EU member state to approve the reform treaty.

***

The five remaining member states more or less on course are:

Belgium, with its manifold parliaments

The Czech Republic, a source of uncertainty and notably the next rotating EU Council president after France

Italy, where the new Berlusconi government after the elections has issued its ratification bill

Spain, where the Senate has yet to vote, but the Congress of Deputies voted a crushing 322 to 6 for approval

Sweden, with its slow timetable, where the government has issued its ratification bill only last week; notably the third EU Council president of the 18 month troika or trio: France, Czech Republic, Sweden

For details on dates and votes you can check for instance Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#Ratification

***

The sixth member state, off course, is ‘pro-European’ Ireland where the Lisbon Treaty was rejected by a referendum.

***

Two questions to think about:

Has anyone found even one pro-European reason for the Irish ‘no’ vote?

Has anybody detected generally sustainable arguments for the use of national referenda?

Ralf Grahn

Traité de Lisbonne – A Lisbon Treaty commentary

2008-07-07T13:26:00.002+03:00

François-Xavier Priollaud and David Siritzky have produced a valuable commentary on the Treaty of Lisbon ’Le traité de Lisbonne – Commentaire, article par article, des nouveaux traités européens (TUE et TFUE)’.

The contents of the amended Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union are presented as in the first Council consolidation published 16 April 2008, but with the amendments highlighted for ease of use.

Fairly detailed comments explain each Article of the Treaty on European Union, whereas the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is dealt with in thematic summaries.

Regardless of the ultimate fate of the Lisbon Treaty, the book is going to be of lasting interest to people interested in the EU treaty reform process.

***

François-Xavier Priollaud & David Siritzky : ’Le traité de Lisbonne – Commentaire, article par article, des nouveaux traités européens (TUE et TFUE) (La Documentation française, Paris, 2008 ; 523 pages ; about 21 EUR)

www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr

Ralf Grahn

To Peter Davidson on the European Union

2008-07-06T15:26:00.002+03:00

Peter Davidson wrote a thoughtful comment on the post ‘Government and consent’. It would have stayed ‘hidden’ there if I had responded in the comments section, but after a while I thought that I could draw attention to it by making my answer a separate post and request the readers to reflect on Davidson’s thoughts.

***

Peter Davidson,

You offer such a rich source of reflections that it is hard to know where to begin. But I will try to comment on at least a few of them:

1) Actually, just a little while before reading your comment, I was contemplating on the vogue among European politicians to decry a European super-state, when our common interests seem to call for at least a European super-power. And a super-power without effective institutions does not work. In other words, they would have to be state-like (effective and democratic).

In my view, the brevity of the US Constitution is an ideal; actually it would be even shorter without some redundant stuff on slave trade and slave population.

But I imagine that the Federal Republic of Europe would be a parliamentary democracy, more in line with European traditions, not a presidential one. (Poland and the Czech Republic as well as ‘cohabitation’ offer some examples of why hydras with one head might be preferred.)

In today’s terms the Lisbon Treaty version of the Treaty on European Union, less the provisions on the common foreign and security policy (including the common security and defence policy), might be a suitable temporary basic law for the citizens of the European Union, provided that the member states pledged to institute a real parliamentary democracy and to eliminate the paralysing unanimity principle.

2) I agree that the EU seems to develop mainly through humiliating experiences. In essence, I support the modest Lisbon Treaty amendments as a step in the right direction, but I see the paternalistic European project heading for failure without the support of the citizens.

No amount of citizens’ forums and public relations exercises is going to bridge the gap between the EU leaders and the union’s citizens. Only real political rights will do.

Enhanced intergovernmental cooperation based on the Treaty of Nice offers fairly slim opportunities substantively, and it would only increase the legitimacy gap.

3) I am not on a sure footing with regard to the regions you mention. With common European rules covering cross-border trade and human contacts and a united Europe facing the world, I imagine that secession by regions would not be a catastrophe.

There is, however, one important aspect that would have to be rectified. Nowadays, the smallest EU member states are overrepresented. It would not be fair to aggravate this lack of balance further.

In my view, the future EU should be closer to the principle of one man, one vote (with the second chamber of the European Parliament the notable exception).

4) Instead of the Lisbon Treaty withering away, I would say that its modest reforms are welcome, but that I hope for the reform to succeed only with the add-ons of democratic reform and a scrapping of the liberum veto.

5) Without the CFSP and the CSDP the Lisbon Treaty is not structurally that far from the ‘brief statement’ you call for.

6) I think that there are some genuinely European politicians among the European level parties, and I imagine that at least you and I are among the citizens who try to discuss in the terms of common interests.

Appeal is another matter, but we shall see. Although many Europeans seem to long for national level politics to save them from both globalisation and the EU, I think that great enough numbers would be mature enough to embrace European level democracy if offered and explained to them.

Ralf Grahn

European Union: Holy Alliance or robust and democratic?

2008-07-05T17:02:00.002+03:00

The European Union stands at a crossroads. It can continue to emulate the Holy Alliance or it can transform itself into a robust and democratic union.

For the briefest of outlines on the Holy Alliance, read the Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Alliance

***

Robust means a union able to reform and to decide, without being frustrated by its own liberum veto (unanimity).

The tragicomic history of treaty reform shows how the European leaders have almost invented the ‘perpetuum mobile’, an unending sequence of failure.

Institutional reform is not navel-gazing, because it is a precondition for the ability to deliver common public goods still outside the effective reach of the European Union, for instance security.

Democratic means giving the citizens of the European Union the power to vote the legislators into and out of office and to set the course for the union in all questions European, through the composition of a politically accountable government.

***

Perhaps the paternalistic order of the Lisbon Treaty deserves to fail, until the ‘Copernican revolution’ of democracy dawns on the European Council.

See the Wikipedia article ‘Copernican revolution’ on the paradigm shift from the Ptolemaic model of the heavens, which placed Earth at the centre of the Universe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_revolution

***

Two paradigm shifts to save the European project: Robust rules with the EU citizens at the centre.

Ralf Grahn