Assignment 2
The constitution for Europe and how was it implemented in the treaty of Lisbon?












European integration
EU treaties
Constitution for Europe
Future for Europe
European pillar structure
Treaty of Lisbon
Taboo culture
Policy frameworks
1. What was the pillar structure of the European Union?
Nugent
Three pillars of policies:
 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (European Communities)
(supranational)
 Common Foreign and Security Policy (intergovernmental)
 Police and Judicial Cooperation (JHA) (intergovernmental)
2. How did each treaty contribute to the framework? (Focus on the Lisbon Treaty and
the CT)
Nugent
Maastricht
- Constructed two non-Community pillars
- Non-inclusion of member-states into core policy (EMU)
- Emphasis on subsidiarity, without clear description
Amsterdam
- New policy opt-outs
- Enhanced cooperation provisions
Nice
- Enhanced Amsterdam cooperation treaties by making them easier to apply
CT



Aimed at consolidating existing treaties into one treaty
Had an article on symbols of the EU – Flag, anthem, currency
Was supposed to be based on the Charter of fundamental rights
1


Aimed to create laws as legislative acts instead of regulations
Aimed at the creation of the office of a “Union Minister for Foreign Affairs”
Lisbon


Based on elements of the Constitutional Treaty
- Removed constitutional elements of symbolic power
Dissolved pillar three of the Maastricht Treaty (JHA) and incorporated it in TFEU
“European Community” in the treaties disappears  Union
Gave EU legal personality
- Enables EU to negotiate external treaties as an entity
Renamed the co-decision procedure with the ordinary legislative procedure
EP and Council become co-equal decision makers
Assent procedure is extended
Gave European Council greater institutional capacity
- Created a semi-permanent post for the president
- President of the Commission must be nominated by the European Council
Enhanced the EU’s external profile
- Mergence of the post of the commissioner External Political Relations with the post of the High
Representative
Facilitated decision-making processes through enabling the Council for increasingly QMV
Replaced the weighted voting system in the council by a simpler one
Increase democracy by applying co-decision procedure (which strengthened EP) and giving citizens the right
to call the Commission to initiate a legislative proposal
Fixed size of EP for 750
- Seats were distributed according to depressive proportionality
From triple majority to double in QMV
Extended applicability of OLP and hence strengthened EP
Was introduced as an extension treaty of the Maastricht Treaty – could hence be ratified by national
parliaments rather than by referendums
Created legal basis for tackling climate change and for prioritising member state solidarity on energy policy
Gave and strengthened EU competences (internal security and energy sector)
Increased the power of larger member states within the European Council through new voting rules
Extension of co-decision procedure and revision of budgetary procedures have extended power of EP
Maintained the nice system of one assigned commissioner per state (as a concession for the Irish)

Simplified and clarified the nature and enhancing the operations of the enlarged EU



















2
3
4








3. What issues did the treaties bring?
Nugent
Oppermann (2013)
Periodic revision of the treaties due to unsatisfied
 Due to the failed CT, EU governments applied
outcome of intergovernmental bargaining
strategies to devise the LT in a way that it
Tension between strive for a more effective union and
would not require referendums
national sovereignty
Reasons for referendums on CT in 10 countries
Multiple treaties with multiple protocols and
 CT: ten countries sought ratification through
declarations make understanding complexity more
popular votes
complicated
- LT: Only one country hold referendum
Three phases
 Danish case
- Governments realise advantages cooperating
- CT applied to section 20 of Danish
with EU members
constitution (transfer of powers)
- Clear treaty recognition
 Government had to make sure that
- Supranational route
section 20 didn’t apply to LT
Treaty of Lisbon
 Dutch case
- Irish referendum rejected the treaty
- Referendum on CT politically forced by
Constitutional Treaty meant as a symbolic act to assist
CD party
in times of good integrational spirit – recent EU
 Polish and Czech case
enlargement
- Parliamentary opposition required
In the history making process of devising treaties,
popular support to ratify treaty
most power resides with national governments
 UK, Fr, Lux, Por, Span case
- Integrationist advance depended on member
- Referendum
due
to
strategic
state’s judging that it’s in their interest to
government choices
promote integration
Reasons for no referendum on LT in 9 countries
- Demand special benefits in addition to
 Since Lux and Spain passed referendums on
general benefits
CT, argued that referendum for LT not
 Maastricht Treaty creating
required
Cohesion Fund benefitting the
 Fr and NL argued that LT didn’t require
four poorest members
referendum because it was too modest
- Treaties are devised as IGC since SEA
 Some countries had aimed at referendum for
 Treaty making process had
CT, but rejected when Fr and NL failed
started with a decision of the
- Also argued for LT that it was too
European Council to hold IGCs
insignificant
 Unanimity required
 Denmark: Official legal advice confirmed that
- European institutions largely excluded from
LT didn’t fall under section 20 of Danish
negotiation process
constitution
Three factors which avoided referendum
Integration process to a large share elite driven and European-level collusion between governments
does not always reflect popular concerns
 “Governments use international negotiations
 Danish referendum rejecting first version of
to exchange political resources in order to
Maastricht Treaty
broaden each other’s win-sets”, thereby
improving ratification prospects
5


 Populations in Ger, Fr, UK also opposed Treaty to a
 German council presidency actively delarge share
constitutionalised the LT, so that Fr and NL
- No popular participation in the treaty-makingwouldn’t have to go for referendum
processes
 German council presidency and other
- Only Danish and Irish governments included
governments accommodated priorities for
referendums on the Treaty of Maastricht
those countries which faced greatest domestic
- Only Irish held referendum on the Treaty of
challenges (DK, NL, FR, UK)
Nice – was rejected
- DK: Specific changes to avoid section
All treaties had ratification problems
20
- Most ratified through parliamentary votes
- NL: Was granted principle of
- At least one referendum per treaty
subsidiarity for national parliaments,
 CT not ratified, although most its contents
emphasis on Copenhagen criteria for
appeared in the Lisbon Treaty
EU enlargement
- Constitutional Treaty rejected by the public of
- FR: Removal of neo-liberal language
Fr and NL
- UK: Limited JHA, tax policy, FASP
 Governments reduced referendums to a Changes of domestic contexts through reflection time
minimum
(2005-2007)
Integrational problems highlighted by the failed CT
 New
governments and parliamentary
and LT resulted in little motivation for further treaty
majorities came into office
reforms
- New governments were better able to
- European Council declared treaty framework
sell the treaty as something new
stable with LT
- Example NL: Two parties in favour of
- Recognition that further treaties would have
referendum got into opposition
to increasingly pass national referendums
 Shift in electoral cycle
- New governments in NL, FR, DK, PL,
 Did not have to campaign
 Change of the importance of the political
debate
- Reflection time defused domestic
interest
- Public visibility of the treaty was kept
to a minimum
- Drop of media interest
- Example UK
 Public interest dropped
 Opposition groups had
dissolved
Governance of depoliticising
 Aims to take an issue out of legitimate
political contestation
 Judicial depolitisation
6
-





Governments invoke court decisions to
remove decision-making from the
arena of political choice
 Delegitimises political alternatives
- Danish example: Ministry of Justice
provided legal judgement that LT didn’t
fall under section 20 of Danish
constitution
Rule-based depoliticization
- Tying decision-making to explicit and
externally verifiable benchmarks
- Governments publicly commit to
certain objectives  Argue that no
referendum is necessary if these
objectives are fulfilled
- UK example of four red lines: No
popular vote required, if four lines are
defended
Decoupling contentious issues from the
debate by shifting them to separate
referendums
- Committing referendums on specific
European questions
- Danish example: Post popular vote on
the Danish opt outs, providing
legitimacy
4. How did European integration proceed in the recent past without any treaty
alteration?
Nugent
After LT, there was still pressure for reform
- Further improve operation of EU
- Strengthen its competences
- Increase democratic legitimacy
- Coordinate eurozone and non-eurozone
Article 48 of post-Lisbon TEU provided two ways of future treaty reform
Ordinary revision procedure
- Traditional way, but Convention method integrated into the procedure
- With consent of EP, European Council can decide that scale of proposed amendments doesn’t
require convention
7


 Has never been implemented
 Disadvantage: High probability of referendums
Simplified revision procedure
- Does neither require a Convention nor an IGC
- Use limited to specific circumstances
 Variant 1:
European Council may take an amending decision by unanimity after consulting
with EP and EC, has to be approved by all member states
 May not increase competences
 Applies only to part III of TFEU
 Variant 2:
If no national parliament objects, a majority of MEPs give their consent, and the
European Council acts by unanimity, QMV can be extended (TEU) and a special
legislative procedure can be changed to an ordinary legislative procedure (TFEU)
(omitting consultation process)
- Advantages of the simplified revision procedure:
 Requires neither convention nor IGC
 Little chance of referendums
- But:
 Requires still unanimous agreement by national governments
 Has only been implemented once
Recent intergovernmental treaties that don’t involve all EU member states
- Treaty Establishing the ESM
 Only between Eurozone members
 Is expected to be incorporated into EU framework by 2025
- Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union
 Strengthens fiscal and economic policy coordination
 Enables penalties for eurozone member states which don’t follow public deficit
and debt requirements
 Was not signed by UK and CR
 Some of its terms also apply to non-eurozone states
 Shall also become part of official EU legal framework
5. Which of these treaties was the most important and which one failed?
Nugent
8