The European Union and the Treaty of Lisbon - Essay Example

The European Union and the Treaty of Lisbon Established in the wake of the Second World War, the European Union (formerly the European Economic Community) is a supranational multilateral organization which generates an estimated 30% of the world’s total Gross Domestic Product. In addition to being an economic powerhouse, the European Union (EU) represents near total European integration in the political, judicial, social and economic spheres. Accordingly, the European Union has evolved dramatically in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union and has recently undergone multiple stages of expansion (enlargement in EU parlance). We will begin with a concise yet comprehensive overview of the European Union and will thoroughly address the evolution of the EU following the collapse of state-led communism in Eastern Europe. The European Union has undergone a variety of changes in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union including expansion to the east through the Maastricht Treaty and proposed institutional change through the Treaty of Lisbon. Although it has not always been the case, modern-day Europe is characterized by a unifying democratic political culture. While the concept of democracy originated on its shores, the philosophy of democratic governance was challenged in 20th century Europe by authoritarian political movements, including fascism (expressed by Nazi Germany & Mussolini’s Italy), and communism (as exemplified in Eastern Europe during the Cold War). With Allied victory in World War II and the recent collapse of the Soviet Union, democracy – in varying degrees– is now a universal trend amongst European states. In fact liberal democracy, best expressed by the states of Western Europe with entrenched democratic traditions, is quickly becoming the standard for the continent. Democratic norms and rules have subsequently been established through a pan-European legal framework (see Almond et al 2002). Promoting widespread reform to the existing institutions of the European Union, the Treaty of Lisbon is an international multilateral agreement which would fundamentally alter the institutions and composition of this organization. Accordingly, Lisbon would supersede prior agreements enacted by this multinational organization and a represent significant institutional change to the EU. Seeped in controversy, the Treaty of Lisbon has yet to be ratified by all member states and thus remains on the backburner for most countries of the European Union. Accordingly, the countries which comprise the European Union have embraced transnational integration and coherence with respect to common standards, a common currency for some and a common signatory status to treaties which bind all member states together. Seeking to address the anticipated Treaty of Lisbon and the changes that it will bring to the existing institutional framework of the EU, this essay will explore the ramifications of the ratification of this treaty on the existing ‘Constitution’ of the EU. What sort or changes to the existing structure of the EU will the Lisbon Treaty entail? We will begin with a concise yet essential overview of the history of the EU including an exploration of the legislative precursors to Lisbon. Only by looking at the existing legislation can we understand the types of changes the Treaty of Lisbon will bring to the institutional framework of the European Union. We will explore the important effects the Treaty of Lisbon will have on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union and address the concerns associated with this change. We then conclude with a concise analysis of the issues at stake and the changes to the European Union brought forth through the unimplemented Treaty of Lisbon. Historical Antecedents to the Treaty of Lisbon There a handful of international agreements which paved the way for the establishment of the European Union and were important precursors to the Lisbon Treaty. The Treaty of Rome, signed in March of 1957, proposed a common European economic market throughout the European Economic Community. Historically-speaking this was perhaps the most important precursor to the integration of Europe today (Wood & Quaisser 41). Recent treaties, including the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Treaty of Nice, and the failed EU Constitution all followed the precedent set more than 40 years ago in Rome. Despite some controversies, democracy remains alive and well within the EU political framework. In fact, the recent failure to implement a Constitution for Europe affirmed the democratic underpinnings of the Union and proved that debate and collective decision making are inherent components of the working European Union. The Maastricht Treaty (1993) creating the European Union, replaced the European Community, and paved the way for further economic, social and political integration within Europe. This integration was strengthened through the implementation of three institutional pillars: 1) European Communities; 2) Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), and 3) police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters as well as the acceptance of a single currency, the Euro (Almond et al. 466-8). In addition to the three pillars, the acceptance of the Euro as an official currency of members of the so-called “Eurozone” strengthened economic bonds between member states. Following negotiations in the Dutch city of Maastricht, the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999) represented a further evolution of collective decision making amongst EU members. The Treaty of Amsterdam strengthened the power of the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice, as well as the role of the EU in the fields of public health, immigration, and criminal affairs, as well as enhanced foreign and security policies (Almond et al. 468-9). The development of a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) has been controversial in spite of recent European foreign policy failures, such as the collective European response to genocide in the Balkans (Wood & Quaisser 118). Although largely unfounded, some member states feared the loss of autonomy in key policy areas such as foreign affairs. In spite of worries surrounding increased integration, particularly in the political and social fields, the Treaty of Amsterdam put in place measures for the EU to safeguard the rights of European citizens continent-wide. The European Court of Justice is arguably the most pronounced example of the attempt to ensure common judicial standards throughout Europe. Following the framework established in Amsterdam, the Treaty of Nice (2001) set out to prepare the EU for enlargement and provided an institutional basis for growth in Eastern Europe (Warleigh 13). Nice also amended the electoral framework of the Council, enlarging the EU Parliament and determining how power should be shared following enlargement. New articles were made subject to qualified majority voting (QMV), an important aspect of the EU’s commitment to democracy. The voting capabilities of states were also re-weighted following Nice. This was controversial because large states (the “big four”: Britain, Germany, Italy and France) would receive a greater share of voting power vis-à-vis smaller states (Wood & Quaisser 119). Additionally, states kept their veto power over key domestic issues such as taxation and social policy. Nice established the rules of the game for enlargement and gave the elder players (Britain, Germany, Italy and France above) a privileged position within the enlarged framework. More controversially, the Irish Republic rejected the Nice Treaty in a referendum, the only country legally obligated to hold a vote on the subject. Despite the fact that Ireland initially rejected the proposed enlargement of the EU, a year later it accepted the provisions of Nice, providing a fine example of European democracy at work. The Treaty of Lisbon Seeking widespread reform to the existing institutions of the European Union, the Treaty of Lisbon is an international multilateral agreement which aims to fundamentally alter the institutions of the EU. Seeped in controversy, the Treaty of Lisbon has yet to be ratified by all member states and thus remains unimplemented. The reform provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon are vast and include an amendment to both the Maastricht and Rome treaties signifying important changes to the composition and outlook of the EU. In addition to structural changes, a variety of controversial moves including qualified majority voting in the EU Council, the elimination of the pillar system and the creation of the role of President of the European Union represent significant departures from pervious EU treaties and agreements. The implementation of the Europe Union’s Human Rights Charter as a legally binding document has wide ramifications across the European continent particularly with respect to questions of state sovereignty and the autonomy within the larger EU political framework. Finally, the establishment of a High Representative for Foreign Affairs creates a new role in the foreign policy realm which attempts to unite a common foreign policy standard throughout the Union, again raising questions of state sovereignty and national autonomy within the larger EU political framework. Since the creation of a High Representative for Foreign Affairs and the implementation of amendments to the CFSP represent significant changes for the EU the following will analyze the need for a CSFP and the critiques of Lisbon with respect to this important agreement. The CFSP and the Treaty of Lisbon In December of 2003, the European Council of the European Union adopted the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), a sober assessment of the security situation in the post 9/11 world and a proactive attempt to enhance international security. Understanding that EU member states face common security challenges and that the most dangerous threats facing Europe today are the same that the United States has had to confront post 9/11, the CFSP represents the most clear European strategy to combat global terrorism. Accordingly, this document makes explicit the transatlantic threats posed by international terrorists and necessitates an active role for the European Community in combating terrorism. Sadly, the Madrid bomb attacks (March 11 2004) and the London bombings (July 7 2005) respectively brought home just how real and sustained the terror threat is to the democracies of Europe. Understanding that Europe is not immune to attacks from Islamic fundamentalists and terror in general, the Common Foreign and Security Policy reaffirms the commitment of EU member states, in conjunction with their NATO allies, to work together in the spirit of global security. A major component of the CFSP is the need to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ensure forth righteously that these weapons do not land in the hands of terrorists bent on wreaking havoc on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Furthermore, the adoption of the CFSP recognizes that failed states and regional conflict can also provide haven for terrorist and seeks to address these issues accordingly. The adoption of the Common Foreign and Security Policy clearly brings the European and North American perceptions of threat closer together and is “an immensely valuable contribution to the transatlantic security relationship” (Bereuter 21) . NATO is an important safeguard of transatlantic defence and during the 1990s, the most important issue facing the transatlantic defence community was the question of whether or not NATO would act outside of its traditional scope or sphere of operations and play a role in establishing security beyond the territory of its member states. Following the violent break-up of the Yugoslav Federation, the peace operation undertaken by NATO in Bosnia and Herzegovina forcefully demonstrated that NATO would act outside of its traditional sphere of operations to ensure that civil war on the periphery of its member states would not threaten the security of its European members nor those of the European Union. Later, the decision by NATO to send AWACS to patrol the skies of the United States that fateful morning of September 11, 2001, emphatically demonstrated that NATO would protect not only the skies of Europe but also North American ones as well. Accordingly, the decision by NATO to lead Afghanistan’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in August 2003 showed just how willing this organization, composed of Europeans and North Americans, is to confront and combat the threats of the world, wherever they may be. Stressing the importance of NATO’s role in Afghanistan, former NATO secretary general Lord Robertson stated “If we fail, we will find Afghanistan on all of our doorsteps…”(Bereuter 27). The European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) works to unify the concerns of NATO with the challenges facing the European Union. In line with NATO’s engagement in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the CFSP accepts preventative engagement and understands the need to be proactive in dealing with the threats of global terror. As long as terrorism continues to threaten both Europe and North America, NATO remains the primary institution through which common defence is provided. Although officially two separate organizations with differing mandates and agendas, the European Union and NATO actually have a complimentary relationship when it comes to security and securing North America and Europe from the threats of tomorrow. While mandated to protect its constituent members, the Atlantic Alliance, as was proven in the former Yugoslavia, can play a proactive role in preserving peace in Europe as well as abroad. Thus, an arm of the EU, the European Defence Agency, can work in tandem with NATO in ensuring peace and prosperity throughout the Atlantic region. From a pure security perspective, these two organizations now work to compliment and reinforce each other. What are the implications of the Lisbon Treaty on the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)? Critics of the EU argue that this multinational organization which inherently undermines national – local – concerns of member states. They also describe the EU as an undemocratic and unrepresentative form of government. The role of High Representative for Foreign Affairs is not fully defined by the pending Treaty thus lending to important questions concerning this new role. Furthermore states worry about their loss of national independence and sovereignty in important decision-making realms such as foreign or economic policy. Thus while the reforms proposed by Lisbon will have a significant impact on the organizational structure of the EU, changes to the CFSP remain controversial and hotly contested. Enlargement may also pose significant challenges to the integration of foreign policy continent-wide. As new members are inducted each brings along a different set of policy prescriptions and foreign initiatives which may not cohere with that of a United Europe. These concerns are by no means mutually exclusive but as Europe continues to expand, most recently into Romania and Bulgaria, the opportunities for a united foreign policy seem to become smaller and smaller. It’s a basic law of numbers and as the community continues to grow, concerted action on a front as delicate as foreign policy will become less and less likely to bring to fruition. Debate ensued over the complexity and length of the proposed Draft Constitution, the extension of qualified majority voting, the question of national versus union law, and the role of the Commission in the democratic functioning of the Union. Because the European Commission is made up by appointees and not elected officials, the democratic legitimacy of this unelected body was cast into doubt. Described by many as a “democratic deficit” within the EU, it was likely an important factor for the failure of the Draft Constitution to be implemented as law. Additional concerns included the potential ascension of Turkey into the ranks of the EU. Although the Draft Constitution has not yet been fully implemented the debate that it stimulated amongst members of the EU, as well as within member states, is important. Democracy was again displayed when conditions were made to ensure that the Draft Constitution was ratified by all members and not simply imposed from above. (Wood & Quaisser 65-75) Concluding Remarks The European Union is arguably the world’s most successful attempt at regional integration. The motto of the EU is “unity in diversity” (Wood & Quaisser 118) and collective bargaining, negotiation and a plurality of opinion are attributes of today’s EU. The European Union represents democracy at work and recent treaties obligating all members to abide by common standards in the political and social realms affirm a common standard among the states of Europe. In fact, “by agreeing to pursue that interest within an organization as constraining as the European Union, the member-states have recognized the ultimate superiority of multilateral, as opposed to unilateral, decision making and action in a variety of policy arenas” (Almond et al. 455). Accordingly, multilateralism, democracy, and collective decision making are at the heart of today’s European Union. Described as a “confederated state” (Almond et al. 7), the European Union represents an evolution of the European democratic tradition. Europe is the cradle of modern democracy and modern European states have successfully maintained a democratic tradition for centuries. Despite claims that legislation enacted in Brussels bypasses the rights of individual states, the opposite is true. All states within the union participate in its decision making processes (Almond et al. 455). The Treaty of Lisbon is the most recent attempt at regional integration and it promotes significant changes at levels of the EU decision making process and it will have a significant impact on the CSFP. Concerns with respect to the role of a President as well as the establishment of High Representative for Foreign Affairs represent some of the most important concerns with the changes being proposed by the Lisbon Treaty. Works Cited Almond, Gabriel A, Russell J. Dalton & G. Bingham Powel Jr. European Politics Today, 2nd edition. New York: Longman, 2002. Bereuter, D. “NATO and the EU Security Strategy”. Oxford Journal on Good Governance. (2004, 1,1), 21-27. Helm, James. “Ireland: an EU Success Story”. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2007. 10 June 2008 Morris, Chris. “Arafat calls for EU help for peace” British Broadcasting Corporation 2003. 13 June 2008 < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3177395.stm > Tilly, Charles. European Revolutions. London: Blackwell, 1993. Warleigh, Alex. European Union: The Basics. New York: Routledge, 2004. Wood, Steve and Wolfgang Quaisser. The New European Union: Confronting the Challenges of Integration. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2008. Read More