When Ireland voted overwhelmingly in favour of the Lisbon Treaty on October 2, many Europhiles rejoiced, thinking that the EU's institutional debate was finally over.Skip related content But, as House of Commons Library specialist Vaughne Miller explained to a meeting of parliamentary researchers earlier this week, the situation is far more complicated. Following the first Irish referendum on Lisbon in June last year, the European Council issued a declaration offering Ireland certain 'legal guarantees', including military neutrality and the continuation of one European commissioner per member state. These legal guarantees are to be included in a protocol alongside the next accession treaty (probably with Croatia or Iceland) so as to avoid amending the Lisbon text and initiating another round of ratifications. However, this has prised open a can of legal worms since European Union law can only be amended under existing treaty procedures, meaning that a full re-ratification of Lisbon would be needed. Accession treaties are based on a different legal basis from reform treaties, leaving such an approach open to challenge in the European Court of Justice. As a result, and because re-opening Lisbon is not on the cards, the Irish may have to wait until another reform treaty comes along before their guarantees enter EU law. As this legal debate rages on, there is another more immediate hurdle to overcome. On September 29 Czech senators loyal to their Euro-sceptic president, Vaclav Klaus, issued a second complaint to their Constitutional Court over Lisbon. Klaus insists that no progress can be made until after the court rules, and has thrown another spanner in the works with unfounded claims that the Charter of Fundamental Rights could lead to restitution claims from ethnic Germans expelled from Czechoslovakia after World War II. Many commentators suspect Klaus of seeking to delay signing the treaty until after the next UK election, in the hope that the Conservatives win and make good on their promise to hold a referendum on Lisbon. However, this in itself could be a dubious legal move given that the treaty has already been ratified by parliament. However, the majority view is that Klaus will be unable to hold off signing the treaty for that long. The Czech government could, for instance, file a complaint against him for inactivity, forcing him to sign. Certainly, there has been a flurry of activity in Brussels since the Irish result, suggesting that Lisbon is soon to be in effect. But anyone hoping that this will be the end to the EU's institutional woes is likely to be sorely disappointed. There is already a heated debate over who should be the 'permanent' President of the European Council. Since Lisbon gives few details on the new role, the choice of who should be the first - whether it is a high profile but potentially divisive character such as Tony Blair, or a quieter but efficient manager like Luxembourg's prime minister Jean-Claude Junkcer - is crucial for defining the nature of this new post. Feuds are emerging between the European Parliament and member states over control of Lisbon's new diplomatic service: the EU External Action Service (EEAS). While the European council want foreign ministers to have control over the service, MEPs want the commission to run it so that they in turn can have some influence through their scrutiny of the EU budget. It is also not clear how the new European 'foreign minister' will function given that the post sits half in the commission and half in the council, nor how it will relate to the presidency, the EU's official face to the world. None of this can be settled until after Lisbon comes but you can expect these institutional turf wars to continue for some time. What is so frustrating is that Lisbon alone is not the answer to all the EU's problems. The treaty is supposed to give an enlarged EU the institutional means to capitalise on its immense international presence, and allow it to effectively respond to serious global issues like climate change, international security and organised crime. But whether the EU can use these means effectively will depend far more on the political will of its member states than anything contained in the treaty. The issue of institutional reform has been dragging on for the best part of a decade. For all its flaws, Lisbon is an improvement on the previous setup and it is well short of a 'European super-state'. It's time to move on. The sooner Lisbon comes into effect, the sooner that all Europeans can start to focus on what really matters and begin dealing with the huge challenges and opportunities facing the union. Ed Webber is a researcher for Jenny Willott MP.BREAKING NEWS
Irish referendum not 'final piece of the Lisbon puzzle'
Saturday, 24 October 2009
Posts
