Some Comments on the Brussel Treaty Deal

Although the EU heads of government and state reached a deal about a "Reform Treaty" already a while ago, I did not get around to writing about it until now. Well, better late than never ...

On June 23, 2007, after extensive, one-and-a-half-day negotiations, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who as outgoing President of the Council of the European Union headed the meeting, was able to announce that a deal for a "Reform Treaty" has been reached by the participants. This agreement shall bring about the following important institutional reforms [the following list was taken from the official website of the German government; original text in English, comments and explanations added in italic gray font by the author of this blog]:

• A full-time President will chair the European Council of heads of state and government.

  This shall bring about more uniformity in presenting "common" decisions to the public.

• A High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will be appointed. To accommodate national sensitivities, the title of foreign minister has been dropped.

  Dito. Just that this time focus is laid on uniformity with regards to international relations. Both institutions (the EU President and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs) are vestiges of the originally aspired formation of an EU identity (with anthem, flag etc.).

• Majority decisions will be taken using the double-majority system only as of 2014, with a transitional three-year period until 2017. Then motions can be adopted by the Council of Ministers provided 55 percent of member states representing at least 65 percent of the population of the Union are in favour.

  With this delay of the introduction of the double-majority system, the summit participants accommodated Poland which had vehemently opposed changes to the status quo (see previous post). Under the current system, 255 votes out of 345 (73.9%) representing 62% of the EU population are needed, with the four most populous countries (Germany, France, UK, and Italy) having 29 votes each, Poland and Spain having 27 votes (for a detailed list of votes per country, click here). Consequently, the current system tends to favor middle-sized countries (i.e. Poland and Spain) over more populous member states.

• For legislative procedures, the codecision procedure will become the general rule. This will put the European Parliament, which represents the citizens of Europe, on an equal footing with the Council of Ministers.

  The so-called "remoteness" has frequently been met with criticism. This amendment shall pour oil on troubled water.

• The national parliaments will be given a greater say in European legislative procedures. This is intended to strengthen the principle of subsidiarity in particular.

  Dito.

• The constitutionally determined break-down of legislative competences between the Union and member states respectively shall remain unchanged.

  No intermingling of competences.

• The number of EU Commissioners is to be reduced from 27 to 15.

  With the continuing enlargement of the EU, the system of each EU member state sending one EU Commissioner has become unhandy.

• The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights will become legally binding in 26 member states (but not in the United Kingdom).

  This was a concession made to the U.K. which fronted any EU reform critically. The British Labour party had promised its voters a referendum over the ratification of the (original) EU Constitution in the U.K. Now, outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair pre-defined "red lines" that could not be crossed. Protecting the common law system by denying the Charter of Fundamental Rights any legal effect was one of those "red lines".

• The concept of the referendum will be introduced.

  This will hopefully lead to more direct involvement of EU citizens and hereby refute the accusation of remoteness.

Interestingly, the new "Reform Treaty" basically retains the majority of provisions of the formerly proposed EU Constitution that had been rejected by referendum in the Netherlands and France (for further information, see my previous post). Only symbolism was sacrificed. Thus, the proposed body of rules is no longer called "Constitution", but merely "Reform Treaty" and would not replace the existing treaties, instead, it would amend them. Similarly, the new text no longer provides for an EU flag, anthem, and motto. Yet, to put it into the words of former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (who created a blog [in French] in order to discuss the proposed treaty): "In fact, this text entails the resumption, to a great part, of the substance of the constitutional treaty." [original quotation in French].

The ulterior motif of the above approach is, certainly, to avoid referenda and a rerun of the defeats of 2005. The question, however, is how the people, especially the citizens of France and the Netherlands, will take this. Are the largely formal changes enough to convince them of the fact that the new treaty would no longer need their direct approval? And will this recent development really increase the popularity of the EU? We will see how far these "Reform Treaty" efforts will take us. Further steps will be the convening of an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) in order to further implement the propositions made at the meeting in Brussels. The IGC will adopt amendments to existing EU treaties. These treaty amendments will then have to be ratified by the EU member states according to their national procedures. And here again, we hold the wolf by the ears...