|
EU Story 08-18 |
||
| The purpose of this news section is to house all pertinent news stories related to United Europe as a growing power in the World as it relates to Bible prophecy. | ||
|
back to United Europe page
back to
United Europe News page
home |
||
|
Q&A: The Lisbon Treaty BBC A big question mark hangs over the future of the Lisbon Treaty - the set of institutional reforms aimed at streamlining the work of the enlarged European Union. The treaty was rejected by Irish voters in a referendum on 12 June 2008 - and under EU rules, it cannot enter into force if any of the 27 member states fails to ratify it. The treaty, signed in Lisbon in December 2007, was drawn up to replace the draft European constitution, which was thrown out by voters in France and the Netherlands in 2005. What options does the EU have now? There are several possible scenarios - none of them easy. •The countries that have not yet ratified the treaty press on with ratification despite the Republic of Ireland's No vote. So far 18 countries have approved the treaty. By the time that process ends, a solution for the Irish "exception" might have been negotiated. That might mean an extra protocol with more Irish opt-outs and guarantees on sensitive issues such as abortion and neutrality. •The EU puts the ratification process on hold and carries on as before, according to the rules of the existing Nice Treaty. Hopes of the treaty coming into force in January 2009 would be abandoned. The "streamlining" changes, such as the slimmed-down Commission, the new job of EU president and the new post of foreign policy chief, would be put on hold; the EU might resume negotiations on a replacement treaty some time in the future. •The EU scraps the Lisbon Treaty, but comes up with a new one, cherry-picking key parts of Lisbon and repackaging them in a shorter version more comprehensible to voters throughout Europe. The ratification process starts again and Ireland holds another referendum. Irish voters did reject the Nice Treaty in 2001 - then said Yes to it just over a year later, in a referendum re-run. But the constitution debacle in 2005 makes that option more difficult now. •Countries keen on further EU integration form an informal club inside the EU and a "two-tier" Europe develops. That idea has been mooted by Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker. Ireland, the UK and a few other countries which prefer a looser union would stick to various opt-outs, without formally ratifying Lisbon. Which option do European leaders favour? They are very divided. Before the Irish vote the European Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, insisted "there is no Plan B". And after the Irish No he refused to sound the death knell for the treaty, saying the ratification process should continue. France and Germany support that position. Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen has said there is no obvious solution. If Europe cannot find one, then Lisbon cannot proceed, he said. The Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, expressed a Eurosceptic view of Lisbon, saying the Irish No meant the treaty was finished and that liberty and reason had defeated elitist plans and European bureaucracy. The Czech Republic has not yet ratified Lisbon. In the UK, the government is under pressure from the opposition Conservatives to call a referendum. Foreign Secretary David Miliband said there could be no "bulldozing or bamboozling" of Ireland. He did not rule out that the Lisbon ratification process might be halted. How similar is Lisbon to the draft constitution? It contains many of the changes the constitution attempted to introduce, for example: •A politician chosen to be president of the European Council for two-and-a-half years, replacing the current system where countries take turns at being president for six months •A new post combining the jobs of the existing foreign affairs supremo, Javier Solana, and the external affairs commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, to give the EU more clout on the world stage •A smaller European Commission, with fewer commissioners than there are member states, from 2014 •A redistribution of voting weights between the member states, phased in between 2014 and 2017 - qualified majority voting based on a "double majority" of 55% of member states, accounting for 65% of the EU's population •New powers for the European Commission, European Parliament and European Court of Justice, for example in the field of justice and home affairs •Removal of national vetoes in a number of areas. Most European leaders acknowledge that the main substance of the constitution would be preserved. Reform Treaty in detail If it contains the same substance, why is the Lisbon Treaty not a constitution? The constitution attempted to replace all earlier EU treaties and start afresh, whereas the new treaty amends the Treaty on the European Union (Maastricht) and the Treaty Establishing the European Community (Rome). It also drops all reference to the symbols of the EU - the flag, the anthem and the motto - though these will continue to exist. Who has ratified the treaty so far? Hungary was the first of 18 countries to approve the treaty in parliament. The Republic of Ireland was the only member state to hold a referendum on the treaty. According to an Irish Supreme Court ruling in 1987, any major amendment to an EU treaty entails an amendment to the constitution - and that in turn requires a referendum. How long did it take to agree the treaty? The effort to draft a constitution began in February 2002 and took two-and-a-half years, but that text became obsolete when it was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. Work began in earnest on a replacement treaty during the German EU presidency, in the first half of 2007, and agreement on the main points of the new treaty was reached at a summit in June that year. Negotiations continued behind the scenes over the following months before a final draft was agreed by the leaders of the 27 member states last October. Why was the constitution dropped? France and the Netherlands said they would be unable to adopt the constitutional treaty without significant changes, following the 2005 referendums. The UK also pressed hard for a modest "amending treaty", which could be ratified by means of a parliamentary vote, like earlier EU treaties. Does the Charter of Fundamental Rights feature in the new treaty? No. There is a reference to it, making it legally binding, but the full text does not appear, even in an annex. The UK has secured a written guarantee that the charter cannot be used by the European Court to alter British labour law, or other laws that deal with social rights. However, experts are divided on how effective this will be. Q&A: Charter of Fundamental Rights Are any countries seeking opt-outs? Ireland and the UK currently have an opt-out from European policies concerning asylum, visas and immigration. Under the new treaty they will have the right to opt in or out of any policies in the entire field of justice and home affairs. Poland is also due to sign up to the guarantees on the Charter of Fundamental Rights negotiated by the UK. Denmark will continue with its existing opt-out from justice and home affairs, but will gain the right under the new treaty to opt for the pick-and-choose system. When will the new treaty kick in? The pre-referendum plan is in disarray now. Originally, the treaty was supposed to come into force in January 2009, but it would be phased in gradually: •The High Representative on foreign affairs could start work by late 2008, as long as the treaty has been ratified • The new-look European Parliament would not appear until after the European elections in June 2009. In fact, that poll will be seen partly as an endorsement of the new arrangements • The new president of the European Council could also start work at that point • Although a new commission would be chosen in 2009, its size may not be slimmed down until 2014 • Some extensions of qualified majority voting in the European Council are already in place, such as the appointment of the new commission president and the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy - but Poland's objections over voting weights mean the redistribution of votes will not come in until after 2014. It could be at least 10 years before the process is complete. Source |
||
|
to the top back to United Europe page back to United Europe News page home |