The truth about those treaties

I fear that nobody is being very clear about the Constitutional Treaty and its replacement the Reform Treaty.

Firstly, the EU like the UK (and unlike the USA) does not have one document which can be called its constitution. Like the UK, the EU's constitution consists of several documents and conventions about working methods. In the case of the UK, the documents are individual Acts of Parliament. In the case of the EU, they are treaties. Whilst the new Reform Treaty is not a constitution in itself, it is one of the many documents which would make up the constitution of the EU. It would of course have been clearer to have the constitution embodied in just one treaty, but people were frightened of the word "constitution".

Secondly, the two treaties are very similar but neither of them do what their critics say they do. They pose no threat to the UK's supposed independence (unlike, I would suggest, our relationship with the USA). In fact, either treaty would make the EU more democratic and its institutions more accountable

The following three posts set out the effects of the two treaties and how the Reform Treaty varies form the Constitutional Treaty.

Making the EU more efficient

Constitutional Treaty in blue
Reform Treaty in red
1. The EU’s foreign policy High Representative and the Commissioner for External Relations—two posts causing duplication and confusion—would be merged into a single EU ‘Foreign Minister’, able to speak for the Union on those subjects where EU countries agree a common line.

CHANGED. The merger of the two posts is retained, but the job title “Foreign Minister” is sensibly changed to “High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy” to make clearer what is actually involved in the post.

2. There would be a new voting system in the Council of Ministers, with a qualified majority requiring the support of a “double majority” of at least 55 per cent of countries who must also represent at least 65 per cent of the EU’s population.

CHANGED. The double majority voting system has been retained, but will be phased in from 2014 to meet Polish objections.

3. More decisions in the Council of Ministers would be by Qualified Majority Voting. Exceptions include subjects that are sensitive for national sovereignty, such as tax, social security, foreign policy and defence. These will continue to require unanimity.

UNCHANGED.

4. More flexibility: where not all countries want to join in a new policy, arrangements can be made to allow groups of countries to do so and others not. Britain can opt-in or out of policies concerning frontiers, asylum and police and judicial cooperation.

REINFORCED. In fact, more flexibility/opt-out arrangements have now been introduced.

5. The European Commission will be reduced in size: fewer Commissioners, with member states taking it in turn to nominate Commissioners two times out of three.

UNCHANGED.

6. The European Council (the three-monthly meetings of prime ministers) would choose a president to chair their meetings for 2½ years, replacing the current 6-monthly rotation

UNCHANGED.

7. The size of the European Parliament would be capped.

UNCHANGED.

Increasing accountability and parliamentary scrutiny

Constitutional Treaty in blue
Reform Treaty in red

8. The adoption of all EU legislation would be subject to the prior scrutiny of national Parliaments and the double approval of both national governments (in the Council of Ministers) and directly elected MEPs – a level of scrutiny that exists in no other international structure.

UNCHANGED

9. National parliaments would receive all EU proposals in good time to mandate their ministers before Council meetings and would also gain the right to object directly to draft legislation if they feel it goes beyond the EU’s remit.

CHANGED National parliaments will be given more time to review legislative proposals – 8 weeks rather than 6.

10. The European Parliament would elect the President of the Commission, on the basis of a proposal from the European Council.

UNCHANGED

11. A new budget procedure would require the approval of all EU expenditure by both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

UNCHANGED

12. Any EU law or any action taken by EU institutions could be struck down by the courts if it fails to comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights that was approved by all Member States in 2000.

CLARIFIED. The Charter of Fundamental Rights has been given legal force but will apply only to laws or actions by the EU institutions within the EU treaties. There is a specific exemption to say that it does not apply to the domestic law of the United Kingdom

13. The exercise of delegated powers by the Commission would be brought under a new system of joint supervision by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, enabling either of them to overturn Commission measures to which they object.

UNCHANGED

14. When acting on legislation, the Council of Ministers would meet in public.

UNCHANGED

Limiting EU competences - not a “superstate”

Constitutional Treaty in blue
Reform Treaty in red

15. It would guarantee that the Union will never be a centralised all-powerful ‘superstate’ by laying down:
(a) the obligation to “respect the national identities of member states, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional”;
(b) the principle of conferred powers (whereby the Union has only those competencies bestowed on it by the member states);
(c) the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, limiting EU action to the minimum necessary to achieve the objectives agreed by member states;
(d) the participation of member states themselves in the decision taking system of the Union;
(e) the principle of “unity with diversity”.

CONFIRMED

16. It would merge the confusingly overlapping “European Community” and “European Union” into a single legal entity and structure.

UNCHANGED

17. It would provide a clear definition of the field of competence of the EU, without conferring any new fields of responsibility upon it.

REINFORCED. In fact, an additional declaration has been added to emphasise the limitations on the EU’s competences.

18. It would replace the complex and overlapping set of EU treaties with a single document spelling out clearly the powers of the EU and their limits.

CHANGED. Scrapped in favour of an “amending treaty”, in the same format and style as previous treaties such as Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice.

19. It would simplify EU instruments and their terminology, replacing jargon with more easily understandable terms (EU regulations become “EU laws”, EU directives become “EU framework laws”, and so on).

CHANGED. The old terminology is retained.

20. It would maintain the EU’s tough and effective powers over competition policy.

UNCHANGED. A new protocol to the treaty makes clear that the change in the wording of the preamble does not affect the existing policies, case law nor operational methods of EU competition policy.

Not an ego trip !

Most of the items below are about me and my experience. I have posted these first as all the enquiries I have received so far have been about this. I will also post on policy matters, which should be more interesting.

My work in the South East

I was Head of European Affairs for East Sussex County Council from 1995 to 2002. I had two main aims, to increase the volume and usefulness of European funding in the county and to persuade the councils and other bodies of the South-East to work together in influencing the EU.

Funding
I managed East Sussex’s INTERREG II trans-border programme with Upper Normandy which supported a wide range of projects by the public and private sectors and the voluntary sector. I helped to set up the successor programme INTERREG III which also involved Kent. My office also built up a successful programme of projects using the European Social Fund to help the unemployed. I co-ordinated the campaign which which led to Hastings, Dover and Thanet receiving Objective 2 funds from the EU.

Representation and Lobbying
We don’t have democratic regional government in the UK, which puts us at a disadvantage when competing with regions across Europe for attention in Brussels. Instead we have government regional offices (GOSE in the South-East) which represent Whitehall, regional development agencies (SEEDA) appointed and funded by central government and regional assemblies (SEERA) which have delegates from local government and elsewhere and carry out functions largely carried out by counties before. I worked in many ways with all these bodies and, in particular, argued for joint representation to the EU which was finally achieved by the establishment of South-East England House in Brussels, which I helped to manage.

The South-East of England is rightly seen as the richest part of the country but it contains many pockets of poverty and lack of skill, disguised by the overall statistics. Together with colleagues from across the region, I put together a campaign to promote the needs of the South-East to the European institutions. I led an all-party delegation of councillors from all over the South-East to lobby the European Commission and Parliament. We achieved some vital amendments to funding legislation which would otherwise have prevented the South-East from receiving European funds.

European Union experience (short version)

I have worked with not for the EU institutions, but for NGOs, public and private bodies.

Young Federalists (JEF) 1978-83
I raised EC funds and organised many international conferences. JEF trained many people who now hold decisive positions within the EU.

Regional Policy (RETI) 1991-3
I revitalised a network of older industrial regions of Europe, recruiting new regions in the UK, Spain, Italy and Germany. We persuaded the EU to double Objective 2 funds to help these regions convert to new economic activity.

Environmental Policy 1995-93
I ran the EU office of BirdLife International, (RSPB in the UKwe got environmental criteria put in structural funds regulations. We stopped Delors and the French government weakening protection of species and strengthened it. We stopped the German government from building a motorway through a protected valley.

South-East
At East Sussex I worked with groups across the South-East to raise the region’s profile in Brussels and attract more funding. Please see separate posting on the South-East.