N. Nugent The Government and Politics of the European Union 2010 chapters 5,6

Up to the Single European Act Treaty Establishing Single Council and Single Commission of EC (Merger Treaty 1965/67) Treaty Amending Certain Budgetary Provisions of Treaties (1970) Treaty Amending Certain Financial Provisions of Treaties (1975) (powers to EP) Act Concerning Election of Reps by Direct Elections

SEA Completion of SM 1992 New policy areas: environ., R&D, “economic and social cohesion” New legislative procedure: cooperation procedure. QMV extended. EP power: new “assent procedure” (accession of new m-s, association agreements) Legal basis for EPC (but not treaty incorporation) Legal recognition of Summits (no treaty inc) New Court of First Instance (capacity of ECJ)

Maastricht Treaty: Background Benefits of SM only realized with MU Need social dimension Dismantlement of border controls  Third pillar Problem of Democratic deficit Collapse of communism: enlargement German unification 1990  advance integration Global uncertainty  strengthen EC policy and institutional capacities Post cold war: defense & security 2 IGCs (Political Union, EMU)

Maastricht Treaty inst. provisions 3 pillar structure Co-decision (cooperation+conciliation), extension to policy areas Assent scope extended From 1995 COM term from 4 to 5 years to bring in line with EP. COM subject to EP approval Committee of Regions ECJ fines to m-s failing to comply Ombudsman

Maastricht Pillar I Subsidiarity Union citizenship (candidate in local and EP elections) EMU timetable (but DEN & UK granted Protocols) TEC legal base: public health, consumer protection, transeuropean networks, competitiveness of industry R&D, environment, socioecon cohesion, Cohesion Fund to provide assistance to environm. Programs & TE transport Social policy: Social Charter as Protocol, UK exemption

Maastricht II & III CFSP Justice & Home Affairs

Treaty of Amsterdam Cooperation abandoned: codecision to 23 new areas Codecision streamlined EP strengthened Increased provision for QMV in Council EP right to approve E Council nominee for COM President: given legal status; nominations to the College ‘by common accord’ with President JHA and related policies transferred to EC (UK, IRE optouts) Schengen integrated to treaty (IRE & UK opt out) Pillar III: Police & Judicial Coop in Criminal Matters New title on Employment; Social Chapter fully incorporated into TEC QMV became norm for joint actions in ext relations Constructive abstention in CFSP CFSP High Rep Petersberg tasks (humanitarian and rescue, peacekeeping etc) Closer cooperation (flexibility) by ‘at least a majority’ without affecting acquis communautaire.

Nice Treaty QMV changed: EU-15 requirement (62 votes our of 87 : 71,26%) replaced by 255 out of 345 (73,91%) when EU27. Any ms could request verification that QMV represented at least 62% of total EU population QMV decisions to be approved by majority of ms COM: one from each ms COM College: from unanimity to QMV COM president strengthened (e.g could require Commissioner to resign –approval from College) EP ceiling at 700 raised to 732 Court FI: at least one from each ms Enhanced cooperation: minimum 8 ms; in 1 st & 3 rd pillars veto removed, replaced by possibility to appeal to European Council (then act by QMV) More integration in Pillar III Charter of Fundamental Rights of EU (2000) (but UK blocked mention in Nice Treaty) (later given legal status by Constitutional Treaty but not fully by Lisbon Treaty)

Constitutional Treaty Constitutional Convention: : agreed Draft IGC opened 2003: agenda based on Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe Single Treaty, Four Parts: I: general rules & Principled II Charter of Fund Rrights III EU policies and functioning IV general & final provisions, incl. procedures for adopting & revising the Treaty Referenda for Ratification: Failed 2005 (FR- NETH)

Lisbon Treaty 18 ms had ratified CT Constitutional aspects dropped (to be ratified through parliaments) (except IRE) UK red lines (optout JHA, Charter FR) Draft EGC mandate adopted June 2007 Poland: extension of Nice to 2017 UK (above) Reform Treaty signed in Lisbon Dec 2007 Irish referendum rejection: June 2008 Assurances to IRE: commissioner, taxation, military, ethics (abortion), social matters not affected by Treaty.  2 nd Irish Referendum Oct 2009 positive (67/32) Polish and Czech presidents Lisbon Treaty enters force 1 Dec 2009

Common ground in LT and CT The search for an acceptable new treaty dated back to 2001 and governments did not want to see the process further extended any longer. Moreover, the factors that had led to the contents of CT remained. There was need for measures that would, for example: –give the European Council greater institutional capacity (hence the retention of the CT provision for the creation of a semi- permanent post of European Council President). –enhance the EU’s external profile (hence the retention of the CT provision that, in effect, merged the Council post of High Representative for the CFSP with the Commission post of Commissioner for External Political Relations). –improve the operational performance and cohesion of the College of Commissioners (hence the retention of the CT reduction of the size of the College – dropped later)

Common ground in LT and CT (cont.) –enhance the Council’s decision-making capacity (hence the retention of CT provisions allowing for more decisions by QMV). –replace the weighted voting system in the Council by a simpler one (hence the retention of the CT provision replacing the triple majority system with a double majority system) –further tackle the “democratic deficit” problem (hence the retention of CT extensions to the applicability of co-decision procedure --which strengthens the EP- and of the CT-created citizens’ initiative procedure, which empowers citizens to call on the Commission to initiate a legislative proposal.

Changes in the Lisbon Treaty The Changes contained in the LT were made primarily for three main reasons: –To make the Treaty more acceptable to citizens –To accommodate a (limited) number of pressing national and institutional preferences –To recognize new issues impacting on the political agenda.

Lisbon Treaty vs. Constitutional Treaty Form and symbolic content LT does not repeal existing treaties, it amends and adds to them. The Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC) renamed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). All references to word “constitutional” removed. CT article on the EU symbols (flag, anthem, currency) removed. Charter of Fundamental Rights is not incorporated into the Treaties. However still has the same legal power (Art.6 of the amended TEU). “Community” is replaced by “Union”. CT provisions creating new legislative acts (laws) are dropped. The title of “Union Minister for Foreign Affairs” is replaced with “High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy”.

Lisbon Treaty vs. Constitutional Treaty Changes of substance Voting arrangements in the Council: triple majority system and voting weights will be replaced by a double majority system by 2014 ( : transition period). The CT provision to reduce the size of the College of Commissioners to two-thirds of the number of member states is dropped (Initially the provision was retained in LT but dropped as part of the attempt to persuade the Irish to ratify the Treaty). New legal bases created for combating climate change and for members acting in a spirit of solidarity in respect of energy policy.

Lisbon Treaty vs. Constitutional Treaty Opt-ins, opt-outs, and clarifications In different Protocols: UK and Ireland are given the power to chose whether to participate in third pillar issues that are transferred to the first pillar. It is stated that the Charter of Fundamental Rights contains no new legal rights in UK or Polish law. In Oct.2009 extended to the Czech Republic. Ireland is assured that the Treaty does not affect its policies on taxation, military neutrality, ethical issues (especially abortion), and aspects of social policy.

A few very significant changes The strengthened competencies given to EU in policy areas as internal security and energy should better enable appropriate and cohesive policies to be developed. The new posts of European Council President and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy provide the potential for stronger and more focused EU leadership but also raises the probability for inter- institutional tensions. The new voting rules in the Council from 2014 involve a significant tilt in the power balance towards larger m-s. The increases in QMV provisions in the Council should facilitate decision-making in some policy areas, including very important JHA. The extensions to the reach of the co-decision procedure and the revisions to the budgetary procedures significantly extend the powers of the EP.