The Lisbon Treaty and the Development of the European Union - Essay Example

The Lisbon Treaty will be instrumental in promoting the EU ideologies and values throughout the Member States. Opponents to this Treaty contend that such promotion of values could lead to the emergence of a Federal European State, which would then become the United States of Europe. On the other hand, its proponents welcomed the Treaty and claimed that it would promote the existing principles of the treaties to a much greater extent1. The Lisbon Treaty fortifies democracy in the EU, and it bestows a legal character upon the charter of fundamental rights. The principal objective of the Lisbon Treaty is to make the EU a single legal entity. The other objectives of the Treaty are aimed at the protection of the environment and enhancing security to the energy sector. Under the principles laid down by the Lisbon Treaty, the Member States can leave the EU voluntarily. The Lisbon Treaty suggests an amendment procedure to the EU Treaties of the future; without having to convene a meeting of the Member States for that specific purpose2. Moreover, it brings about new changes to the EU system. At the proposal stage itself, there was intense debate between the drafters of the Treaty. It makes the fundamental rights charter of the year 2000 legally binding. The Member States treated this charter as a political declaration in order to formulate the rights of EU citizens and to pronounce them with greater emphasis. The Lisbon Treaty renders this charter binding on all the Member States; and this charter consists of 54 civil, political, economic and social rights. All these rights are applicable to the citizens of Europe. In addition, residents in the EU are provided with the right to life, the right to marry, the right to strike and the right to conduct business within the EU3. It failed, due to the non – ratification by all the Member States of the European Union. This has necessitated the enactment of legislation that will form the basis for the numerous EU institutions and systems to function. From a mere handful of countries in the initial stages, the EU has expanded to 27 Member States. Moreover, its responsibilities have continued to increase with the passage of time. All this makes it essential to establish a new legal basis for the EU. Albeit, such a new legal foundation is now indispensable, there should be no dilution of democracy. Consequently, the Irish referendum provides invaluable lessons for the future of the EU4. The complexity of the EU’s legal basis required simplification, and the outcome of this realization was the initial proposal for a European Constitution. This proposal was rejected by the populace of France and the Netherlands. Later on, it emerged as the Lisbon Treaty. This compelled the Member States to rely on the Rome and Maastricht Treaties. As such, the Lisbon Treaty is a compendium of sequential amendments, and is to be read in conjunction with its previous treaties. Hence, it can also be termed as the Reform Treaty. This Reform Treaty is accordingly, of great complexity and inaccessibility5. It cannot become effective, unless it is ratified by all the Member States. Moreover, this treaty promotes development, like never before; and enacts among other things, legislation for humanitarian aid. In addition, it attempts to secure peace, security, free and fair trade, human rights and the mitigation of poverty. These objectives are extremely likely to endow the European Union with a responsible role in the comity of nations6. Article 208 of this Treaty requires the EU to evaluate the effect of its policies on the developing world. This requirement, echoes the sentiment of the extant commitments of the world body, in respect of the obliteration of poverty, in general and the Millennium Development Goals, in particular7. Trade deals, involving education and health cannot be proscribed by any Member State, consequent to Article 188c of the Treaty. This Treaty Article has enabled financial speculators to cull out the most lucrative characteristics of education and health. There is a very real danger that these speculators would levy additional charges, thereby causing untold damage to crucial public services8. The extant policy of furthering the right to trade, which in effect elevates profit making to a higher level than the rights of the workers, was sought to be further strengthened by the Lisbon Treaty. As such, it made it more convenient for decisions favourable to big business, at the cost of workers, to be delivered by the European Court of Justice9. The rights of workers and privatisation were the major issues raked up by the Socialist Party, in its campaign against the Lisbon Treaty. This so called ‘No to Lisbon’ campaign, proved to be immensely successful and had a significant impact10. It had been alleged that the Lisbon Treaty posed a threat to NATO and sought to jeopardize democracy, by empowering the EU, to a much greater extent, than at present. It was also contended that the Lisbon Treaty could cause serious injury to the collaboration of the armed forces of the United States of America and the European Union11. The European Union at 55% of the total aid donates the major share of the development aid to the world. It plays an important role in relation to matters like environmental change, migration and security. As such, its global influence is enormous. Consequently, the institutions of the European Union have to work in an efficient manner. Moreover, since the EU is increasing its aid to 67% of the total aid by the year 2010, it is incumbent upon the EU institutions to have the best systems and institutions to live up to its unmatched image12. According to the European Commission, the charter of fundamental rights does not establish any new rights. It only attempts to make the existing rights, available to the citizens in an express manner. The existing rights have been provided by the various EU Treaties and not by the Lisbon Treaty. Moreover, the existing rights had also been provided by the European Convention on Human Rights or ECHR and by the case law of the ECJ. The European Council and the Government state that the ECJ would not compel the Member States to incorporate these rights into their domestic law13. They also assured the Member States that the ECJ would not refer to this charter, while deciding upon cases relating to the violation of fundamental rights. Under the provisions of Article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty, the charter cannot extend the operability and applicability of the power of the EU; and its competences would maintain their status quo ante. Article 51 of the charter states that in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, it is addressed to the EU institutions, EU bodies, offices, and agencies of the EU, only when they are implementing the EC law; and the Member States have to refer to this charter, while dealing with EC law14. In practice, the Lisbon Treaty provides some new competencies to the EU, and fortifies the stance of the EU when it has the right to act. Under this new competency, the EU would deal with Member States and their competencies, in a much more efficient manner. Thus, the Lisbon Treaty extends the jurisdiction of operation of the EU. According to Article 1.6 of this Treaty, the EU should operate within the limits of the power and competences conferred upon it by the Member States, through the various Treaties15. Moreover, the EU is to intervene only when the Member States fail to achieve the objectives of a proposed action. Countering climate change and environmental protection, and enhancing energy security are the major areas of the Lisbon Treaty. The Member States have provided their consent to the achievement of these two objectives. The EU will have to deal with major issues that pose a threat to Europe. In order to achieve this, there must be concerted action by all the Member States and the EU16. The Constitution would not resolve the conflicts between supernationalists and intergovernmentalists. Thus, the debates between the supporters of the two concepts of dirigiste, the government control of the market and the laissez-faire, the free market, was destined to continue forever. Both France and Britain are intergovernmentalists, and they support the tenet of laissez-faire. However, France is the chief actor in the EU and acts as the engine for the European Union17. In the process of integration, the least abrasive proposal is that of Multispeed Europe. This method of achieving European integration, presumes the capacity of the Member States to define and implement common integration aims. Nevertheless, the inherent economic disparities between the Member States will prevent the simultaneous realisation of this objective, in all the Member States. The chief benefit of this method is that it permits a Member State to achieve policy objectives, at its own pace18. The Constitutional Treaty comprises of a definition of the objectives, powers, procedures and institutions of the EU; the Charter of Fundamental Rights; actions and policies of the EU specified in the extant Treaties; and final clauses, which also specify the procedure for review of the Constitution and its adoption. In addition, the Constitution, aims to reduce the legal instruments to just a half – dozen from the existing fifteen19. The Maastricht Treaty permits a Member State to opt out of the Euro. This proviso has been utilised by the UK, and there are no indications that it will adopt the Euro. The UK specified some economic conditions that would have to be met if it were to adopt this single currency. There is every possibility that the Gordon Brown government will hold a referendum, in this regard20. Albeit, the Member States had affixed their signature to the Lisbon Treaty, ratification proved to be a different matter altogether. There was a dismal lack of consensus amongst the Member States, in this context; and Ireland had gone to the extent of conducting a referendum to obtain the approval or otherwise of its populace. This has effectively rendered the interests of 500 million European citizens, subject to the whims and fancies of Irishmen, who constitute a miniscule 1 percent of the total EU’s population. The fear of the Irish is that their power would be significantly mitigated, on account of the deposition of their commissioner. In addition, they fear that their neutrality and tax laws would be seriously compromised by the Lisbon Treaty21. The EU had been constructed to deal with the balance of institutions and decision – making processes. There are two types of institutions. First, intergovernmental institutions – the European Council and the Council of Ministers fall under this category. These two institutions provide the platform for the Member States, to express their demands and needs. Second, the supranational institutions, namely, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. Every Member State has to be bound by the authority of these institutions22. There is a separation between the European Community and intergovernmental procedures. This separation is also to be found between the Small and Large Member States. The small states, having realised that the European Council is dominated by the Large Member States; tends towards the European Commission. The dichotomy is also found between the first pillar and the second and third pillars. In addition, there is separation between qualified majority voting and unanimity. Supranationalists want to extend the areas covered by the Community, and they want to extend the applicability of qualified majority voting to other sectors. Thus, the concept of unanimity and the applicability of qualified majority voting would be restricted to limited matters and areas23. The Large Member States have veto power, which they can and do exercise in critical matters. The Small Nations have no such veto power. In the Luxembourg compromise, there was an informal agreement, according to which if qualified majority voting applies and a Member State invokes its interests, then it is the duty of the Council to resolve the matter within a reasonable period24. This resolution must be followed by all Member States of the Council. They can respect their mutual interests between themselves and with the Community. Qualified majority voting did not remove the veto power of Small Member States. For instance, the agriculture policy was not a subject of unanimity. However, France and Germany had to give their consent for any major decisions in this area25. There are two problems with the EU institutions. The first of these is the overlapping of jurisdictions, and various agreements were entered into to resolve this problem. The second one relates to the excessive faith reposed in government policy and dirigiste. This issue is yet to be resolved. The Constitution had successfully resolved the first problem of jurisdiction. The second problem cannot be resolved in the near future as it involves culture of the Member State and the government’s role with regard to the free market26. The Lisbon Treaty makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding. This charter lists several civil and social rights of the citizens of Europe. It provides the right to strike and a right of access to preventive health care. These rights were not covered by the earlier treaties. In addition, the EU has few direct powers to regulate industrial disputes or national health services. The ECJ will no more be allowed to deal with human rights issues27. The number of top-level politicians would be reduced in the European Commission. Consequently, by 2014, the Member States would not be able to send a commissioner to the headquarters in Brussels to represent their nation. The total number of commissioners would be reduced to two-thirds of the number of the Member States. The latter would be permitted to protest against any EU law that consider unnecessary28. The EU was not created all of a sudden. It was established by a group of European countries. These nations had different secular histories and many of them had been at war with each other. However, these nations came together to form an association that would bring about their cooperation and ensure the exchange of resources. They were well aware of the fact that such an institution would of a certainty, mitigate their sovereignty to a considerable extent29. However, they went ahead and created the EU with special emphasis on a reasonable balance between their needs and their sovereignty. There were problems with regard to institutional balance and overlapping jurisdictions. There were conflicts between institutions. There was confusion over the allocation of powers between Member States and the EU’s institutions. This was mainly because of the absence of transparency in the EU’s functionality30. Another major problem was the clash of different views of government. The government used to interfere with market activities in the southern parts of Europe and parts of continental Europe. In addition, the Anglo – American attitude was much favoured; and under this concept, there were free markets that functioned optimally, and there was no institutional centralised intervention policy31. The Lisbon Treaty was signed on the 13th of December 2007 by all the 27 Member States in the capital of Portugal, Lisbon. It aims to modernise the institutions of the EU and to optimise its methods, in order to make the EU capable of surmounting the challenges posed by the modern world32. In this changing world, Europeans hope that the EU will take all the necessary measures to effectively deal with the problems posed by globalisation, climatic change, energy, security and demographic change. The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty will result in the strengthening of democratic principles and institutions in the EU. In addition, this Treaty will prove to be very effective in furthering the interests of the EU citizens33. The Lisbon Treaty strengthens and promotes the development policy of the European Union. This development policy plays a major role in establishing a system for cooperation with other nations in the world. The Lisbon Treaty will set out a political framework to strengthen Europe’s position in development aid34. It is estimated that by 2010 the EU will become the key contributor for global aid. The Lisbon Treaty creates a new EU foreign policy authority; and this authority could possibly act as a barrier to the anticipated goal. Most people fear that the aid contribution of Europe would be politicised by this new foreign policy authority35. The recent upsurge in the diversity of the European Union has been occasioned by the advent of several new entrants. The avowed objective of achieving convergence has been defeated to some extent, by the continuing existence of differences in the social, political and economic spheres. In addition, perceptions about the future of the EU continue to vary. Consequently, enhancing integration seems to be an onerous task. Hence, the trend seems to be to adopt the paradigm of differentiated integration, which had been proposed by Brandt and Tindenman, some two decades ago36. Bibliography Alberto Alesina & Roberto Perotti, ‘The European Union: A Politically Incorrect View’ The Journal of Economic Perspectives (Vol. 18, No. 4, 2004) 27-48 ‘Constitutional Treaty – key elements’< http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/constitutional-treaty-key-elements-archived/article-128513l> accessed 10 December 2008 ‘Dóchas Discussion Paper The EU Reform Treaty from a Development Perspective’ < http://www.dochas.ie/documents/Reform_Treaty_paper.pdf > accessed 7 December 2008 EU development policy and the Lisbon Treaty, accessed 7 December 2008 Foreign & Commonwealth Office, ‘EU Treaty - Implications for aid’ < http://ukincroatia.fco.gov.uk/en/new-pages/eu-treaty---implications-for-aid > accessed 7 December 2008 Jamie Smyth, ‘Does the treaty express new values?’ accessed 7 December 2008 Joseph Curtin and Johnny Ryan, ‘The Lisbon treaty and the Irish voter: democratic deficits’ accessed 6 December 2008 ‘Lisbon Treaty 'No' vote delivers major shock for political and big business Establishment’ accessed 6 December 2008 Michelle Cini, European Union Politics (Oxford University Press, 2007) 396 Sarah Lyall, ‘Fate of EU treaty hangs on Irish referendum’ International Herald Tribune (Dublin 12 June 2008) accessed 10 December 2008 Simon Johnson, ‘John Bolton: Lisbon Treaty will undermine democracy’ accessed 7 December 2008 ‘Taking Europe into the 21st century’ < http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/take/index_en.htm > accessed 7 December 2008 ‘The Single Currency’ < http://www.responsiblecitizen.co.uk/single-currency.html> accessed 10 December 2008 Werner Weidenfeld, ‘Making the Case for a Multi – Speed Europe’ accessed 10 December 2008 ‘What Lisbon contains’ Economist (10/27/2007, Vol. 385 Issue 8552; AN 27237359) p60-61 Read More