Lisbon Treaty
From Democracywiki
Central Lobby
The Lisbon Treaty, or Reform Treaty, replaces the reforms sought in the draft European Constitution, rejected by national referendums in both France and the Netherlands in 2005. Whereas the Constitution sought to replace all previous existing EU treaties, the Lisbon Treaty amends the Treaty on the European Union (Maastricht) 1992 and the Treaty Establishing the European Community (Rome) 1952. Having committed itself to a referendum on a draft EU Constitution, the UK government requires a parliamentary vote to ratify the European Union (Amendment) Bill on the Reform Treaty as with previous EU treaties.
 Our View If you see any pooling of sovereignty at a European level as bad for democracy, then this new treaty does little to address your concerns, even if it is clear from the text that the idea of a 'super-state' has been abandoned. However, if your main concerns are about ensuring the EU exercises its powers in as open and democratic a way as possible, there is much to welcome here. The Reform Treaty strengthens the role of the European Parliament, national parliaments and individual citizens. It forces the European Council to be more transparent. There are of course some areas in which it could be improved. We are particularly disappointed by the UK government's insistence of an opt-out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which will mean that UK citizens will have less recourse over their rights being abused by European legislation than those of other member states. Overall however, it is a step forward. Unlock Democracy believes that a referendum should be held for all major treaty changes and this is no exception. We are however mindful of the fact that some previous treaties were far more significant than this one. With that in mind, we are open to the suggestion that a referendum on membership itself would be more appropriate at this stage. Any national debate on the Reform Treaty is bound to become a debate about membership by extension in any case. All other EU states have special measures for ratifying treaties such as this: in Germany for example it must get a super-majority of three-quarters of both houses of parliament. In the UK it is treated as just another parliamentary vote to be whipped into line. No referendum is a substitute for properly involving Parliament and the people in important decisions in the first place. Democracy begins at home. Parliament must be given much greater powers to scrutinise and if necessary restrict what our government negotiates in our name at the European level and the public in turn must be better informed and given a greater say. |
What the Bill does
The EU Reform Treaty amends existing Treaties in ways designed to help an EU of 27 Member States work more effectively. Governments believe approval of the Treaty will allow the EU to move on from debating institutional changes and focus on issues which matter to citizens: energy security, organised crime and terrorism, globalisation, further enlargement and making Europe’s voice more effective internationally. Among the most important changes proposed are:
The creation of two new posts:
A long term President of the European Council, appointed by national governments for a possible two terms of two and a half years each, replacing the current system where the Presidency of the European Council rotates every six months. The European Council is made up of the heads of state and government of Member States, holding summit meetings on average four times a year. (This should not be confused with the Council of Ministers, which describes the monthly meetings of national ministers on various policy areas). The European Council steers the political direction of the EU and takes the most important legislative decisions. The hope is that the European Council President will provide greater continuity in decision-making, as well as improve liaison and coordination between Member States in implementing agreed policies.
A High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy – who is likely to be better known as the new ‘EU Foreign Minister’. He or she will be appointed by the European Council and with the agreement of the President of the European Commission. The High Representative will conduct the Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). In the words of the Amsterdam Treaty which established the CFSP its aims are:
- to safeguard the common values, fundamental interests, independence and integrity of the Union in conformity with the principle of the United Nations Charter;
- to strengthen the security of the Union in all ways;
- to preserve peace and strengthen international security, in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter, as well as the principle of the Helsinki Final Act and the objectives of the Paris Charter, including those on external borders;
- to promote international co-operation;
- to develop and consolidate democracy and the rule of law, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Under the Reform Treaty Member States have agreed to give tasks to the High Representative on foreign policy and he or she will implement commonly agreed policies. The High Representative will merge two existing roles – that of the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the External Relations Commissioner. As Vice-President of the European Commission, he or she will be in charge of those aspects of EU external affairs – such as development aid – for which the Commission is responsible, as well as major foreign policy issues which remain the sole preserve of Member States’ governments acting in cooperation. The creation of this new post should make the EU more coherent and effective in its dealings with the rest of the world.
The High Representative will also be able to present agreed EU positions in international organisations – in the way that the Member State that holds the Presidency does now. The High Representative will be served by a European Action Service – seen by some as an embryo EU ‘Diplomatic Service’ – which will be drawn from serving Commission officials working on external policy and officials seconded from Member State foreign ministries. All CFSP policy decisions must be taken unanimously by all Member State governments. They can agree that some implementation decisions can be taken by a voting majority but this authorisation itself must be taken unanimously.
- National parliaments will have a voice in influencing European laws for the first time. Every national parliament will receive proposals for new EU legislation directly. They may judge whether the proposals conform to the principle of ‘subsidiarity’ (that the EU should only act where it adds value and does not replace or remove the rights of national or regional legislators).
- Moreover all EU decisions must be ‘proportional’ (that is, the actions of the EU should not be greater than is necessary to achieve the desired aims). If one third of national parliaments object, then the proposal will be sent back for review by the Commission (this is known as the ‘yellow card’). If the Commission persists with its proposal with half of the national parliaments opposed, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament must judge whether the Commission has violated its authority. However, when it comes to family law just one national parliament can veto the application of legislation in that Member State.
- The numbers of Commissioners will be reduced with the aim of creating a more efficient Commission. There is currently one Commissioner from each country in the EU (27 in all). From 2014, the number of Commissioners will be reduced, so only two-thirds of Member States provide a Commissioner at any time, with every country taking equal turns.
- Qualified Majority Voting will be extended to 23 new and 26 existing policy areas. These mostly deal with procedure rather than policy (for example, for the appointment of a High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy). But Qualified Majority Voting can be used in important areas of Justice and Policing (where the UK may decide not to ‘opt in’) as well as energy policy, humanitarian aid, and urgent financing of measures within the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. The Reform Treaty will also streamline and speed up decision-making in a number of technical areas such as appointments to the European Central Bank’s executive board.
- Because the UK has insisted on maintaining a national veto in key areas of justice and home affairs, social security, tax, foreign policy and defence – overall – the impact on Britain of the extension of Qualified Majority Voting under the Reform Treaty will be significantly less than, for example, under the Single European Act or the Treaty of Maastricht. It should be noted that if the UK exercises the right to ‘opt in’ to decisions on Justice and Home affairs it will not be able to ‘opt out’ again. These special arrangements for the UK are sometimes referred to as the British government’s ‘red lines’ which had to be respected for the UK to agree to the Reform Treaty.
- A new, simpler mechanism has been devised for deciding what constitutes a “qualified majority” in the Council of Ministers. This is designed to give a fairer weighting to Member States who previously believed they were under-represented in terms of their population size. Under the new ‘Double Majority Voting’ system, a minimum of 55% of the Member States (currently 15 out of 27 countries) representing a minimum of 65% of the EU’s population must vote in favour for European legislation to be passed. The new system will start to come into force in 2014, with a transition period to 2017. The UK’s share of votes in the Council of Ministers will increase.
- The European Parliament will help decide EU legislation in 40 new policy areas. This will give MEPs significant powers of law making (known as ‘co-decision’), alongside national ministers in the Council of Ministers where decisions in future can be taken by Qualified Majority vote. For example, laws passed to tackle carbon emissions and climate change will now be taken jointly by the Council of Ministers representing Member State governments and the European Parliament.
- The European Parliament will be able to elect the new President of the European Commission. This opens the way for the pan- European political parties, which have been formed by like-minded national parties to fight elections to the European Parliament, to nominate their candidates for the post of European Commission President in the 2009 election. This would allow voters to effectively choose who will lead the most important of the EU supra-national executive bodies – the European Commission.
- The rules governing ‘enhanced co-operation’ where groups of EU countries may choose to integrate more closely with each other on certain issues – under an EU legal framework – are simplified. This protects the rights of countries which do not wish to participate. Under the Reform Treaty, at least a third of the Member States must want to co-operate, and others must be free to join at any time if they choose.
- The Charter of Fundamental Rights is incorporated into EU law. The Charter sets out in one place the rights which citizens across the EU already have, for example through the European Convention on Human Rights, or through existing EU law. Its aim is to ensure that EU institutions respect those fundamental rights. The Charter reaffirms existing rights and will apply to all Member States when they implement EU law. In other words the European Court of Justice can only make judgements when cases are brought against the EU institutions (European Commission, European Parliament, Council of Ministers). National courts will retain jurisdiction in cases involving domestic violations of the rights set out in the Charter.
- The Charter will not extend the powers of the European Union and the UK government has negotiated language in a protocol – a form of words added to the Treaty – to deny the right of the European Court to adjudicate on case law in ways which might affect UK legislation. The government says this arrangement will prevent the creation of any new social or economic rights other than those that are already provided in UK law. This has angered trade unionists and others concerned with issues of social justice in the UK. There may also be challenges to the UK protocol in cases where the European Court is obliged to take the provisions of the Charter into account in making case law. Under EU laws all rulings of the European Court of Justice should apply equally to all Member States.
This section is taken from Unlock Democracy's pamphlet The European Reform Treaty - How will it affect the UK? by John Palmer and Peter Facey
House of Commons debates
Foreign, Security and Defence Policy (Wednesday, 20th February)
David Miliband (Secretary of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office) introduced the debate,
"the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning foreign, security and defence policy."
The opposition’s response highlighted the overwhelming similarities
"between the provisions on Foreign Policy in the Constitutional Treaty which the government made subject to approval in a referendum and those in the Lisbon Treaty".
David Miliband opened by saying that,
"The treaty does not, repeat not, change the fundamental nature of common foreign and security policy co-operation."
He then quoted Mike Gapes (Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Labour MP, Ilford South)
"highly likely that, under the Lisbon Treaty, the Common Foreign and Security Policy will remain an intergovernmental area, driven by the Member States."
William Hague (Conservative MP, Richmond, Yorks) quoted Professor Whitman of the university of Bath,
"the CFSP could carry on working quite happily without the changes that are in that treaty."
Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat MP, Kingston & Surbiton) criticised William Hague’s questioning of the Treaty,
"Foreign and security policy remains in the control of member states, as it always has been. Britain retains its veto on all key decisions —that is how radical the treaty is on that point."
Davey later added, "Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the treaty's modest changes on common foreign and security policy."
David Miliband outlined the new role of the High Representative,
"the high representative will be the servant of the Council of Ministers on CFSP matters. He or she will be appointed by national Governments, and will be responsible to them through the Council."
James Clappison (Conservative MP, Hertsmere) asked "What is the difference between the posts of Union Minister for foreign affairs and high representative?"
David Miliband responded, "The difference is that the treaty is different, and given that we are debating the treaty, I do not know how we can avoid recognising that."
David Miliband "In short, Britain will continue to decide on its own foreign policy, and where we agree with others in the EU, there can be a common European role in helping to deliver it."
William Hague argued that the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty with regards to Common Foreign Security and Defence Policy are, "more substantial than the Government have acknowledged."
Miliband said about the UK’s commitment to the United Nations Security Council,
"Like every hon. Member, I support that presence: we argued for clarity in the Convention and the treaty to safeguard that position, and nothing in the treaty will undermine it. Only sovereign states can hold seats at the Security Council and the EU is not a state, and will not become one."
Edward Davey agreed, "It simply means that a policy position that we support gets presented again, with the force of a spokesman who represents 27 member states."
Tobias Ellwood (Conservative MP, Bournemouth East) spoke of his concern towards a European Common Security force because the EU would not be able to agree unanimously on the deployment of troops,
"We will have to fall back on the United States as a back-up, which leads to the conclusion that we should retain NATO as the structure and not even try to play around with an EU defence force."
Edward O’Hara (Labour MP, Knowsley South)
" The reform treaty will improve the situation in a number of ways to allow for positive, more effective action, such as the merging of the jobs of the high representative and the Commissioner for External Relations, and the downgrading of the rotating presidency… I commend the treaty to the House"
The Single Market (Wednesday, 6th February)
John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department of Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform) introduced the topic for debate, the single market, ‘the founding purpose of the European Union was to try to secure a lasting peace throughout our continent by establishing, first, a common market.’
The debate focused around the benefits of qualified majority voting (QMV) and that the idea that without further QMV Britain will not be able to progress in the single European market. Whereas the Opposition proposed an amendment which criticised the Lisbon Treaty’s new protocol on competition policy.
John Hutton started by praising the Single European Market (SEM), ‘Nearly 60 per cent. of our total trade in the UK is now with other EU member states and around 3 million British jobs are linked to the export of UK goods and, increasingly, services to the European Union.’
John Hutton went on to say that the Lisbon Treaty was now needed due to enlargement, ‘we cannot rely on structures designed for the EU 15 to help us fully reap the economic and political benefits that we believe an enlarged Europe of 27 member states offers.’
He then went on to speak of the progress made by qualified majority voting (QMV), ‘Without it, Europe would not have made the same economic progress that it has in the past 20 years.’
John Gummer (Conservative MP, Suffolk Coastal) responded, ‘qualified majority voting gives greater power to individual nations than the veto, because everyone else knows that they could be steamrollered if they do not join a common enterprise together?’
Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrat MP, Twickenham) later spoke about the advantages of QMV with regards to the liberalisation of services, ‘Clearly, for services liberalisation to progress faster, there would have to be more qualified majority voting and more European Union decision making on the matter.’
Philip Hammond (Conservative MP, Runnymede & Weybridge) criticised the movement of the competition policy from the body of the Treaty into a protocol, ‘The change of direction represented by the symbolic relegation of the endorsement of undistorted competition from the opening articles of the treaty to a protocol at the back does matter.’
He then outlined his reasons for concern, ‘it matters because of the political signal sent and received about the future direction of EU economic policy and its subordination to social policy,’ and also, ‘because of the legal significance.’
Philip Hammond added that if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, ‘the EU's approach to the development of the single market will change. It will be more interventionist, less focused on free and open competition and more focused on picking winners.’
Frank Dobson (Labour MP, Holborn & St Pancras) brought to the debate his concerns on the management of health services, ‘I am extremely concerned about recent developments in the EU, and in particular about the application of fair and open competition in the internal market to health care.’
He went on to say that if the Treaty were to be passed it would be impossible for Britain to stop new measures, previously suggested by the Commission, ‘People would be entitled to get treatment in Europe. They would be given a voucher or, after they were treated, what they spent could be repaid.’ He argued that this would only benefit those who could afford to front the cost and were well informed, therefore leaving the less well off at a disadvantage.
Vincent Cable responded, ‘I do not see anything fundamentally wrong with enlarging the concept of a single market to include health,’
Vincent Cable then added, providing the basic framework of the NHS remained, ‘if it is right for people to buy a house, travel or exchange goods in Europe, what is wrong with their trying to pursue a higher life expectancy in countries that have better cancer treatment?’
Human Rights (Tuesday, 5th, February)
Jack Straw (Lord Chancellor, Ministry of Justice) initiated the debate on the, ‘Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning human rights.’
The European Charter of Fundamental Rights would be legally binding throughout the European Union, however the government also signed a protocol to limit the effect on UK law.
Edward Garnier (Conservative MP, Harborough) asked, ‘why (does) the Government think it appropriate for this additional charter—the charter of fundamental rights—to come into existence and to become an integral part of European Union law, as opposed to European convention law. Are we not simply duplicating?’
Jack Straw answered, ‘The benefit of the charter is, as the European Commission said, that it assembles existing rights, which were previously scattered over a range of sources.’
John Redwood (Conservative MP, Wokingham) said on behalf of the opposition, ‘We do not disagree with individual rights—we disagree with the legal process which means that they are defined and imposed on us instead of defined and imposed from here.’
Jack Straw responded, ‘The Government ensured through the Human Rights Act 1998 that the rights contained in the convention were brought home to become directly enforceable by British judges in British courts.’
Rob Marris (Labour MP, Wolverhampton South West) said of the opposition, ‘They do not understand that membership of the European Union is a two-way street… they do not understand the protections that our citizens can enjoy abroad owing to those fundamental rights.’
David Lidington (Conservative MP, Aylesbury) ‘First, does the fact that the Lisbon treaty gives legal force to the charter of fundamental rights transfer powers, either actually or potentially, from national Parliaments and Governments to the institutions of the Union, and especially to the Court of Justice? Secondly, if the treaty does have such an effect, do the words of the protocol that the Government have secured provide the safeguards for this Parliament that Ministers claim?’
David Lidington then added, ‘The charter sets out a number of rights that would, as a consequence of Lisbon, become for the first time rights that are embodied in EU law and judicable by the European Court of Justice (ECJ),’ Lidington argued that therefore the Treaty would allow the ECJ new rights.
Lidington said this would then affect national governments, ‘the decision about whether a particular interpretation of rights is "in harmony" with national traditions will be made not by national Governments or Parliaments but by the ECJ.’ Lidington went on to point out that the ECJ would not take a nation’s specific traditions into consideration but rather, ‘the traditions common to all member states.’
Denis MacShane (Labour MP, Rotherham) criticised the Opposition’s attitude towards the ECJ, ‘I think Conservative Front Benchers accept, that Britain should have a unilateral right to take no notice of ECJ rulings. On that basis, the single market collapses.’
Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat MP, Kingston & Surbiton) argued that the protocol is unnecessary,
He then accused the government of being ‘too defensive’ and added, ‘We should be proud of the role that Britain has played in the development of human rights in Europe.’
Colin Burgon (Labour MP, Elmet) raised the issue of workers rights in the European Union using the example of ‘Laval’ a Latvian company who lost trade in Sweden as a result of a Swedish strike against their lower wage rates.
As a result the European Court of Justice (ECJ) argued that, ‘because the EU posted workers directive set out minimum rights, it was unreasonable to force the company to comply with further agreements at local or national level.’ Burgon argued that this set the standard for low working standards. Burgon then quoted
John Monks (General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation), ‘The court has ruled in effect that the right to strike is not as important as the unimpeded free flow of services and labour.’
Peter Lilley (Conservative MP, Hitchin & Harpenden) spoke of his concern that the implementation of a fundamental charter of rights would hand decisions over to the ECJ rather than parliaments, ‘we believe in rights, but ultimately they should be defended, protected, developed and evolved by the parliamentary process and not by a foreign jurisdiction over which we have no control and to which there is no recourse.’
Jon Trickett (Labour MP, Hemsworth) responded [economy has escaped our national boundaries ‘our economy has escaped our national boundaries… I believe that there has to be some sort of supranational collaboration.’]
Energy (Wednesday, 30th, January)
John Hutton (Labour MP, Barrow & Furness) introduced the debate on provisions concerning energy, ‘The twin challenges of tackling climate change and energy security are perhaps two of the biggest challenges that this generation of European politicians and leaders must resolve.’ Whilst the opposition, specifically the front bench, argued that although they support energy liberalisation, they believe the Treaty’s energy provisions are not needed to achieve this.
John Hutton outlined the three main energy clauses of the Reform Treaty, ‘First, the treaty protects and secures our rights over our national oil and gas reserves... Secondly, it will make sure that we can always act to ensure security of supply in emergencies... Finally, the new article will not impede progress in opening up EU energy markets.’
John Hutton also praised the use of majority voting (QMV) with regards to the energy markets, ‘We are unlocking decision making, breaking down time-consuming bureaucratic stalemates and helping to promote policies.’ Stuart Bell (Labour MP, Middlesbrough) later added, ‘Overall, the impact of QMV under the Lisbon treaty will be significantly less than, for example, under the Single European Act or the treaty of Maastricht.’
Ian Taylor (Conservative MP, Esher & Walton) addressed the issue of imported energy, ‘The key to this debate is that Europe as a whole is already 50 per cent. dependent on imported energy, 25 per cent. of which comes from Russia. Both of those percentages are rising. As a result, it is crucial that the treaty provision on solidarity is supported.’
John Hutton praised the UK’s energy market, ‘the UK strongly supports a liberalised European energy market, one built on strong ownership unbundling, strong and effective independent regulation and greater transparency.’ Michael Weir (Scottish National Party MP, Angus) then responded, ‘explain the fact that when one energy company puts up its prices, most of the rest follow at a respectful distance thereafter?’ John Hutton replied, ‘The sad truth is that energy prices have been rising across the world, and it is inevitable that some of that will be reflected in prices here in the UK.’
Philip Hollobone (Conservative MP, Kettering), questioned signing up to the Treaty at all, ‘The whole House would agree that liberalising Europe's energy market is a good thing, but it can be done under existing powers.’ Alan Duncan (Conservative MP, Rutland & Melton) agreed, ‘the European Commission already has the legal base on which to make progress on liberalisation, contained in the single-market provisions and in the 40 or 50 existing directives on energy.
Stuart Bell emphasised the need to secure energy supplies, ‘It must be said that member states are unlikely to run out of energy in the next 50 years, but that does not lessen the obligation to plan for the worst while hoping for the best.’ Patricia Hewitt (Labour MP, Leicester West) reinforced Europe’s interdependence with oil and gas exporters, ‘There are many, many more importers and fewer exporters, and many—perhaps most—of those exporters are hardly what one would call stable democracies.’
Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat MP, Northavon) said that when tackling climate change, ‘a co-ordinated effort is needed. That is why I welcome the Europe-wide measures on renewables that were announced last week.’
Peter Luff (Conservative MP, Mid Worcestershire) spoke of the energy targets, ‘The EU has a target for the generation of 20 per cent. of all energy from renewable sources by 2020, from which we now know that the UK's target is likely to be 15 per cent.’ He then highlighted his concern, ‘There is some speculation that the then Prime Minister Tony Blair did not understand the difference between energy and electricity when he negotiated the figure.’
Peter Luff, ‘So far in today's debate there has genuinely been little disagreement about the objectives that we all share. It has been very much a debate about mechanisms.’
Fighting cross-border crime; justice; policing; human trafficking; and asylum and migration policy (Tuesday, 29th, January)
Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith (Labour MP, Redditch) introduced the matter of the day, ‘fighting cross-border crime; justice; policing; human trafficking; and asylum and migration policy’.
The debate centred on the issues of the European arrest warrant, controlling international crime and co-operation. Jacqui Smith argued that the Treaty introduces and encourages European co-operation, which in turn allows Britain to better control the problems of international crime. The opposition argued that although co-operation is essential the Treaty fails to implement any new advantages and furthermore the Treaty will force parliament to hand over power to the EU institutions.
Jacqui Smith spoke of the European arrest warrant and used the example of Hussain Osman, whom was extradited from Italy, ‘one of those suspected of the attempted bombings of 21 July 2005’, Jacqui Smith said that ‘Without the European arrest warrant, we would still have to face the fact that some member states refused to extradite their own nationals.’
Dominic Grieve (Conservative MP, Beaconsfield) argued that under the European arrest warrant, ‘the Government will lose all control over standing up for United Kingdom interests in these areas’ then added, ‘Once in place, such things are irrevocable’. Dominic Grieve later added, ‘it would be impossible on any reasonable analysis to argue that the European arrest warrant has improved protection for defendants facing extradition.’
Jacqui Smith then spoke about the establishment of the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre of Narcotics, ‘By sharing intelligence with our partners and backing it up operationally, we increase opportunities for intercepting drugs and help to cut the supply of drugs before they reach our streets.’ Jacqui Smith continued speaking about ‘shared information’ and ‘co-operation throughout the EU’ and claimed it would help with, ‘speeding up extradition, strengthening our borders and improving asylum arrangements; smarter ways of working to stop drug smugglers; joint action against human trafficking; new protections for children.’
Keith Vaz (Labour MP, Leicester East) then questioned this shared information by asking whether, ‘data that we send them will be protected and data that come to us will also be protected?’ Speaking on the same subject Keith Vaz later added, ‘The Home Secretary gave me an assurance quite strongly that she had brought to the attention of European colleagues the need to protect those (that) data.’
John Redwood (Conservative MP, Wokingham) then suggested that as Britain agrees to the Treaty parliament will lose power, ‘every time the Government opt in to an area of competence under the treaty, the House can no longer reach a free and independent view and repeal and amend it and it cannot be debated sensibly in a general election.’
Dominic Grieve agreed and quoted the Home Secretary’s Labour party briefing, ‘The European Court of Justice will have jurisdiction across all Justice & Home Affairs—except for some aspects of police co-operation and Member State action concerning law and order and internal security.’
Ken Purchase (Labour MP, Wolverhampton North East) responded by saying that ‘What our Government set out to do in that negotiation was to achieve their red lines, and that is what they have done.’
Dominic Grieve argued that, ‘Far from solving their problems, the opt-ins and red lines will simply postpone over a four and a half-year period a series of decisions.’
Speaking on Britain’s ‘safeguards’ David Davies (Conservative MP, Monmouth) asked, ‘Although the provisions have been moved at the moment, there is a danger that they might be moved back again? ...For example, Britain was given an opt-out on the social chapter one minute, only for the EU suddenly to decide to implement limits on working hours under health and safety regulations the next.’
James Clappison (Conservative MP, Hertsmere) asked Christopher Huhne (Liberal Democrat MP, Eastleigh), ‘will he say whether it will be Liberal Democrat policy to sign up to that chapter (of the Treaty)?’ to which Christopher Huhne responded, ‘I am very happy to say that we want to co-operate with our partners on matters for which there would be a clear, practical effect in tackling international crime such as terrorism, drug-running and gunrunning.’
David Heathcoat-Amory (Conservative MP, Wells) said of parliamentary decisions, ‘we are being invited to export those decision-making powers to people for whom by and large we do not vote, whom we cannot remove and who are unknown to the people we represent.’
David Heathcoat-Amory went on to question the need for the Treaty, ‘The essential fallacy in this debate is that international co-operation depends on centralisation and common law-making. It does not.’
Christopher Huhne rejected this idea and accused the opposition of being ‘paranoid’ he went on to say, ‘I was involved for six years as an MEP. I urge Conservative Members to use the allowances so generously supplied by this House to get on a Eurostar, visit Brussels and find out what the case is for themselves.’
Programming Motion
The debate for the Lisbon Treaty programming motion took place on the 28th of January. The discussion was about the time allocated to the consideration of the various topics involved with the Treaty. The Government proposed 12 days of talks split into the various policy areas with each day divided by four and a half hours of debate and the then one and half hours dedicated to specific amendments. The opposition argued that this would not be a sufficient timescale in which to discuss the Treaty and put forward an amendment with an additional six days of debate on areas such as asylum and immigration, economy, social security and public policy. The opposition would also split the days evenly between debate and amendments.
Sir Patrick Cormack criticised the timetable, ‘The motion before us is so constricting and constraining that it will be impossible for the treaty to be properly debated in this House’. He added that under previous governments, ‘we were doing what we conceived to be our parliamentary duty. That duty has been taken away from us by the move to automatic timetabling, and particularly by the motion before us tonight.’
Jim Murphy responded for the Government by saying the 12 days allocated were sufficient as this, ‘was the total time given to the ratification process for the treaties establishing the Single European Act, the Amsterdam treaty and the treaty of Nice.’
Murphy then outlined the agenda,
William Hague questioned the time allocation of the timetable,
Hague argued that the government did not want further discussion on the issues because, ‘The more detailed consideration there is, the more clearly the treaty will be exposed as the almost identical copy of the constitution on which the people of Britain were promised a referendum’
Gwyneth Dunwoody said she was concerned for the timetabling of the motion, she said parliament would not be able to fulfil its role, ‘We are not going to be given the chance to have that debate.’
Second Reading debate
The European Union (Amendment) Bill received its second reading on the 21st January. The debate focused on whether or not Britain should hold a referendum on the ratification of the Reform Treaty. The Secretary of State, David Miliband argues that the Treaty is an entirely separate entity from the former constitution and therefore there is no need for a referendum. In opposition are those whom refer back to former election promises of a referendum and the need for the people to have a say on such a fundamental step into Europe.
David Miliband gave a brief history on former EU Treaties and then introduced the Reform Treaty.
Frank Field stated that, ‘A number of Committees of this House have reported that there is no substantial difference between what was the constitution and is now the treaty.’ Miliband then responds by saying that the relevant committees (The Foreign Affairs Committee and European Scrutiny Committee), voted decisively on many occasions against having a referendum.
Malcolm Rifkind then reminded Miliband of Blair’s commitment to a Referendum in 2004,
Soon to follow on the subject of a referendum was Philip Davies, ‘why will the Secretary of State not have the courage of his convictions and put it to the British people? Does he think that the British public are too thick to understand its benefits.’
John Maples then joined the debate on the subject of a possible Referendum by once again questioning the differences between the Treaty and the previously rejected Constitution. Maples citied a Report by the European Scrutiny Committee, ‘The Reform Treaty will introduce into the existing Treaties all the 'innovations' that were in the constitution apart from the symbols, referring, I think, to the flag and the "Ode to Joy"’. David Heathcoat-Amory then added, ‘the current treaty is substantially the same as the constitution,’ he then quoted the Foreign Affairs committee; ‘there is no material difference’.
Miliband responded by saying that the Treaty is different from the Constitution in both ‘structure and consequence’ as well as content,
Miliband then compared the situation to the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, ‘we are a parliamentary democracy and this is an amending treaty’.
Miliband went on to say, ‘Left of centre parties in all 27 European countries support the treaty; liberal parties—as well as social democratic and socialist parties—in all 27 countries support the treaty; and conservative parties in 26 countries support the treaty. Only in Britain do we have a major party opposed to the contents of the treaty.’ Miliband also gives a list of organisations that he claims support the Treaty, including voluntary sector leaders and environmental organisations. He then called for the opposition to support the treaty saying, ‘the Opposition's policy would lead to a second decade of institutional inertia that diverts Europe from the real issues that confront it.’
Gordon Banks then asked the Foreign Secretary his view on how the changes to Qualified Majority Voting will affect national interests, Miliband responded by stating the QMV will be in national interest, ‘in respect of development, energy liberalisation and development aid.’
Miliband then brought into focus the new role of the President of the European Council, claiming the new longer terms would allow for, ‘consistency and follow-through’. He then spoke in favour of the Treaty’s reform on voting systems, including the proposal for the, ‘proportion votes in UK hands to rise from 8 to 12 per cent’.
Miliband then went on to the topic of red lines and quoted Cambridge Professor of European Law, Alan Dashwood, ‘the provisions we have negotiated constitute "a very solid safeguard"’.
William Hague came forward and complained about the lack of time the government had given ‘to debate a measure of far-reaching importance in which there is widespread public interest’.
Mike Gapes spoke of the findings of the select committee’s report quoting, ‘the Common Foreign and Security Policy will remain an intergovernmental area, driven by the Member States. We welcome this.’
Edward Davey confirmed that the FAC provided, ‘an analysis that confirms that the Lisbon treaty keeps foreign policy on an inter-governmental basis but makes changes to the institutional workings that will enable British foreign policy to be more effective.’
Davey then said that new bureaucracy is needed as a response to enlargement and that previous treaties (namely Amsterdam and Nice) had ‘failed to streamline the EU's institutions and to make the EU more accountable and transparent’, thus the Liberal Democrats ‘welcome the treaty’.
An important point was then brought forward by Geraldine Smith, ‘what is fuelling the desire for a referendum is the fact that no one under the age of 50 has had a chance to vote on our membership of the EU.’
Davey explained the difference between the treaty and the constitutional treaty. ‘While Lisbon is just another amending treaty making a number of important, if modest, reforms, the constitutional treaty was something quite different. It abolished all past treaties, to replace them with one document: a new constitution.’ He then added, ‘I believe that people have passed over that point and failed to grasp its significance’. Davey then explained his support for a referendum on EU membership.
Michael Connarty spoke about the move towards the ‘community method’, which involves an increase in QMV and co-decision and the final appeal going to ECJ. ‘We must accept that that is where Europe is going. We must either be there, influencing Europe in that format in the future, or we must walk away. There is no middle ground.’
Kenneth Clarke, ‘I personally think that referendums are a way of weakening Parliament and getting round parliamentary authority’.
Frank Cook went on to emphasis that the focus of the debate should be on the Treaty and not just a possible Referendum, ‘Only in the last three speeches have we been able to get down to the nuts and bolts of the treaty—the essential matter that we should be discussing.’ Cook then confirmed he was for a referendum but then accused the Conservative Party of concentrating their entire argument on the issue of a referendum rather than the treaty itself, ‘Front Benchers: for heaven's sake, reconsider having a referendum. If they did, three quarters of the people on the Conservative Benches would have nothing left to say!’
Mark Hendrick spoke of the advantages the UK gains from membership to the EU and vice versa, ‘Angela Merkel said recently that it would be impossible to imagine the EU moving forward without Britain’.
David Heathcoat-Amory then spoke and criticised the EU as a whole, the production of the treaty and accused the government of denying the people their democratic powers. He then emphasised the notion that decisions made within the treaty were irreversible.
Austin Mitchell congratulated speeches made by the opposition and claimed the treaty would, ‘advance a European superstate,’ he then criticised his party for not allowing a referendum. Mitchell then continued the argument of the close similarities between the treaty and the constitution, ‘if it looks like a constitution, smells like a constitution and reads like a constitution, as far as I am concerned it is a constitution.’
FASC report published
The remit of the Foreign Affairs Committee is scrutiny of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and its associated bodies in their expenditure, policy and administration. In their report, Foreign Policy Aspects to the Lisbon Treaty, the Committee seeks to inform the House of Commons considerations on the ratification of the European Union (Amendment) Bill published 17th December 2007, and to identify policy issues for the FCO in responding to the new implementations.
The Committee concluded that:
- the new institutional arrangements for EU foreign policy created by the Lisbon Treaty have the potential to encourage more coherent and effective foreign policy-making and representation.
- the Government should publicly acknowledge the significance of the foreign policy aspects of the Lisbon Treaty. The post of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and of the European External Action Service, represent major innovations in the EU's foreign policy-making machinery. Although the Committee believes that their establishment does not risk undermining the Common Foreign and Security Policy's intergovernmental nature, the Government is underestimating, and certainly downplaying in public, the significance of their creation. This is unlikely to be beneficial to the UK's position in the EU.
Significantly the report states:
“We conclude that there is no material difference between the provisions on foreign affairs in the Constitutional Treaty which the Government made subject to approval in a referendum and those in the Lisbon Treaty on which a referendum is being denied.”
