Key facts about
the Treaty of Lisbon/Reform Treaty
signed by EU leaders
on 13 December 2007 in Lisbon

ON THIS PAGE

• What everyone should know about the Treaty of Lisbon.

• The Treaty of Lisbon is an insufficient document

• Treaty of Lisbon / Reform Treaty: Foreign policy issues.

• How the Treaty of Lisbon / Reform Treaty came to be written.

• What happens next to the Treaty of Lisbon?
• Why is the Treaty of Lisbon so difficult to understand?
  EU leaders spill the beans - Quotations
• Who is in charge of the EU? What the Treaty of Lisbon says on this topic. (Text extract of Treaty)

ON OTHER PAGES

• Report of UK House of Commons Security Committee on the Reform Treaty (Treaty of Lisbon).
• For and against a referendum
• Text of foreign policy section of Treaty of Lisbon
• Introducing the Treaty of Lisbon
• The reforms the EU really needs
• The reforms EU leaders said they wanted (The Laeken Declaration)
• What Gordon Brown told the House of Commons about the Treaty of Lisbon

What everyone should know about the Treaty of Lisbon

Blueprint for running Europe for years to come

The European Union controls the actions of UK citizens, businesses and government in many areas of life.

If adopted/ratified

1. Blueprint for the future.

The Treaty of Lisbon will be the blueprint for running the European Union for the foreseeable future. Gordon Brown says there should be no changes for ten years. This tells us how important it is in setting out how 27 (or more) European states and 480 million European citizens will be governed.

2. Replaces Constitution.

 It replaces the Constitution which was rejected by French and Dutch voters in referendums in 2005 and which nine EU governments did not ratify.

3. Same in substance as Constitution.

The Treaty of Lisbon is substantially the same as the Constitution. See EU Leaders spill the beans.

4. Each member state must go with decisions of the majority.

In 50 areas of policy the UK will lose its power to refuse to take part in policy decisions. (It will lose its veto because QMV - qualified majority voting - will replace the unanimity rule in these areas.)

5. Quicker decisions and voting nightmare.

The plus side of this: because there will be more majority decisions it will be quicker to get policies agreed. This is called "streamlining decision-making." This is fine for the countries that support a new policy, but the downside is that some countries will be forced to implement laws or decisions which they disagree with.
The planned voting procedure for majority voting is the opposite of streamlined. It will be a bureaucratic nightmare - incredibly and unnecessarily complex. See QMV under the Treaty of Lisbon. It will take mathematicians to calculate the result. Even if ordinary citizens are allowed to know who voted for what they will find it nearly impossible to understand what is happening when they look at a declared vote. Such a bizarre and complex voting procedure should be rejected. Voting procedures should be fair, quick and easy to understand. See "a sensible voting system" in The European Union and You.

6. Doubts about subsidiarity

The Treaty of Lisbon will not guarantee of taking decisions at national or local level where possible. In fact it makes the opposite more likely.
Since the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 the EU has been committed to the idea of taking decisions at the lowest practical level - something it calls "subsidiarity". Unfortunately the EU has no idea how to do this (or perhaps intention) because its principle aim is to "integrate" its member states. In practice this means passing more and more decision-making to Brussels where the power of the EU is rapidly growing.

How subsidiarity rights will be lost

The Treaty of Lisbon re-states a commitment to subsidairity but then sets up arrangements with what it calls "shared competences" and "supporting competences". These are policy areas where the EU can claim a right to make decisions. The EU's  version of subsidairity is not to grant any guaranteed areas of subsidairity but to give member states an unequal opportunity to fight to keep decisions at national level. Member states are to be granted the right to argue that they can do things better, but the final decision will be that of the EU.
This is top down decision-making. An appeal to the European Court of Justice would be likely to fail as the ECJ's job is to interpret the treaties. These commit the EU to "ever closer union". This means ever-decreasing subsidiarity.
Matters such as tourism, education, sport and culture (and others) should be clearly marked for member states to do with as they wish. This would leave the door open for co-operation with member states whenever we wished, without getting involved in any arbitration procedure with the EU. It would be true subsidairity.
For comparison, the Constitution of the United States grants all powers to member states that are not specified, in the Constitution, as belonging to the United States. There are no "in-between" categories of power. The EU needs clarity. - See Reform the EU. This topic is also discussed in The European Union and You.

7. No limit to enlargement

The Lisbon Treaty does nothing to limit enlargement - the adding of more countries to the EU and allowing more migration of people across the EU. This may be good for some but certainly creates difficulties too. These include pressure on public services, the loss of needed workers in poorer countries, sudden and unpredictable housing shortages, the transfer of unemployment from states where there are very high levels of unemployment (and often low wages) to the better off countries.

8. The Lisbon Treaty reduces trust in the European Union

In 2001 EU leaders themselves acknowledged that openness, accountability, democracy and "not cutting deals in secret " were desirable reforms. Their approach to developing the Treaty of Lisbon shows hostility to open, accountable democratic government. The way this treaty has been planned to appear not to be the Constitution was an attempt to deceive the electorate. The way it was contrived in secret with, even now (January 2008), no complete text of the treaties as they will appear when they are amended by the Treaty of Lisbon was unhelpful. It was a clear attempt to exclude the public from knowledge and participation in the formulation of the most important EU agreement this century. The chosen procedure was one more suited to a dictatorship than a democracy. See EU leaders sow confusion.
The Treaty of Lisbon totally fails to address the real problems faced by the EU. It does not bring about any of the reforms which EU leaders themselves identified as desirable in 2001. See Reform the EU.

9. The needed increase in democracy is made even more necessary

The Treaty of Lisbon makes one or two feeble gestures towards giving more democracy. For example, citizens themselves can request that a law be passed. All we have to do is collect a million signatures and then the Commission will decide if it will agree to let the proposal be considered. Real power to the people or a hollow joke? Another gesture is to allow parliaments of member states an extra couple of weeks to argue for the right to legislate on a topic the EU has proposed that it will legislate on. Big deal!

Less democracy. The most undemocratic element of the EU is the very powerful Commission. This body is appointed, not elected. It is independent of any minister, body or state by the terms of EU treaties. At the moment the leader of each member state of the EU nominates a person to serve as a Commissioner (a person in charge of a major policy area such as trade). From 2014, by the terms of the Treaty of Lisbon, the number of Commissioners will be drastically reduced. This will mean that member states will have even less representation on this key body with not even an appointed policy chief.

10. The superstate idea is still being developed by the EU

One of the chief complaints against the EU is that it is becoming a superstate. EU leaders are very sensitive to this point and that is why they claimed that the  "constitutional concept" has been "abandoned". In fact, they have only attempted to remove the appearance of being a state. See Angela Merkel's explicit acknowledgement of this fact in her comment in the section EU leaders spill the beans, and the Laeken Declaration.

The EU is moving towards being a superstate by passing more and more power to EU central authorities in Brussels. This has been the plan since 1957 and The Treaty of Rome. Succeeding treaties (including The Treaty on European Union and The Treaty Establishing the European Community) continue to repeat the aim of "ever closer union" - union without limit, total unification. To step back from this aim and become simply a co-operating association of European states the Treaty of Lisbon would need to remove the commitment to ever closer union from the two treaties it is seeking to amend. And, as mentioned above, it would need to ensure true subsidiarity in contrast to the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon.

11. The Treaty of Lisbon is an insufficient document

The Treaty of Lisbon is not a treaty as normally understood. It is not a complete, coherent, stand-alone, intelligible document. It lacks about two thirds of the text needed for full understanding. It is a set of instructions for changing and making additions to two existing treaties. Only when the amendments have been made to the existing treaties will we have something approaching a new treaty. As the two treaties to be amended have to be taken together to form a full picture of the proposed principles, institutions and procedures for running the EU, it might be helpful if these two treaties in their amended form had a unifying title. (Such as Treaty on the Governance of the European Union or even The European Constitution. Why not?).
When this final amended document (or two final amended documents) is/are available to read can leaders, MPs, MEPs and ordinary citizens at last have something on which they might make a judgement.
No parliament has the right to ratify a half-written, two thirds incomplete purely preparatory document.
See Sample pages of Treaty of Lisbon.
Another matter of great concern is the way EU leaders have made it as difficult as possible for journalists and ordinary citizens to know about and follow the development of the Treaty of Lisbon. See EU leaders sow confusion to minimise democratic involvement

Other failings of the Treaty of Lisbon are explored fully in The European Union and You.

Foreign Policy Issues

Foreign Policy Issues

The Treaty of Lisbon develops the process of passing power to the EU in matters of defence, military action and our relationships with foreign countries. (The UK government claims that this is not the case. Details are given below. EU power in foreign policy will be developed (and member state power will be weakened) in 4 main ways:

1. EU will establish an EU foreign office It will set up the EU's own foreign service of experts to study and talk to foreign governments and businesses. Some of our own Foreign Office civil servants will take part in this. Over a period of years more and more responsibility will pass to this new EU body.
   In fact the EU is not waiting for the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon before setting up the Foreign Office of the European Union. It is being set up now.

2. The EU will develop the European arms industry The Treaty of Lisbon will set up a body of experts to tell member states what they should do to improve their military capability and will commit member states to year on year increases in military spending. The new body is called The Defence Agency.
   The EU is not waiting for the Treaty of Lisbon to be ratified before setting up the Defence Agency. It has already been set up. Denmark has said that it will not be part of or bound by the Defence Agency.

3. EU will have its own Foreign Minister The Treaty of Lisbon establishes the role of supremo for EU relationships with other countries. The Constitution would have called this role "Minister for Foreign Affairs". This would have been an accurate and simple job title. In a move towards making the title too long to be usable, and to take away a title which might suggest that the holder of the title is a minister of a state, the Treaty of Lisbon will rename the Minister for Foreign Affairs "The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy" - perhaps HRUFASP for short.
   The HRUFASP will speak for the European Member States on policies agreed by EU leaders. This role can be predicted to increase in importance and the role of Foreign Minister of member states can be expected to diminish in time.

4. Member states will have limited independence in foreign policy. This is a complex topic. The first difficulty is that the Treaty of Lisbon makes contradictory arrangements. We will set these out. Having done this we will see that, in practice, member states have severe limitations and whole no-go areas in foreign policy.

The contradictory positions. The Treaty of Lisbon (Declaration 14) states, "The conference underlines that the provisions covering the Common Foreign and Security Policy will not affect the existing legal basis, responsibilities and powers of each member state in relation to the formulation and conduct of its foreign policy." UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, told parliament on 17 December 2007, "Nothing in the new treaty affects the existing powers of member states to formulate and conduct their foreign policy."

But there are restrictions. The EU claims a right to control all foreign policy and security throughout the EU. In contrast with the above assurances the Treaty of Lisbon states, (point 27), “The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence.” [Emphasis added.]

Member states are committed to solidarity. Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Treaty on European Union (not changed by point 27 of the Treaty of Lisbon) states: "The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. The Member States shall work together to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity. They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations. The Council shall ensure that these principles are complied with."

Clearly, the Treaty of Lisbon needs re-writing at this point. It needs to acknowledge the following limitations on the ability of members states to act independently in matters of foreign policy.

Limitation 1. Inflexibility and solidarity. One area of policy in which member states cannot act is the obvious one of “agreed areas of common policy”. Once these are established they cannot be undermined by independent decisions of member states. How might this tie the hands of the UK government?

• Example one: The EU has a policy of support for Israel and against the Hamas - led Palestinian territory of the Gaza Strip. There is a humanitarian crisis there as a result. What can the UK government do? There is no opportunity here for independent action.

• Example two. Consider this scenario. The EU, with the agreement of the UK, adopts a policy of free trade with a repressive regime as a means of opening dialogue and influence. After a general election, with a new party in power, the UK decides that there should be sanctions against the repressive regime. At this point the EU insists that the UK must abide by the decision of the former UK government. The EU cannot accommodate unilateral changes of mind. Where is the independence in this?

There are already many agreed areas of policy and agreed guidelines with which member states must comply.

Limitation 2. The EU homeland. Before the UK joined the EU the 26 other current member states of the EU were "foreign states". The UK was able to decide how to conduct its relationships with these countries. For example, the UK could decide what immigration policies it might adopt with each. Now, these countries are not foreign, They are members of the Union, the state that we are part of. There can be no restrictions on, for example, trade or migration as far as these countries are concerned. We have been unified and we cannot make independent foreign policy decisions with regard to these countries.

Limitation 3. Member states must ask for permission before acting. Point 35 of the Treaty of Lisbon states, "Before undertaking any action on the international scene or entering into any commitment which could affect the Union's interests, each Member State shall consult the others within the European Council or the Council. Member States shall ensure, through the convergence of their actions, that the Union is able to assert its interests and values on the international scene. Member States shall show mutual solidarity."

"When the European Council or the Council has defined a common approach of the Union within the meaning of the first paragraph, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Member States shall coordinate their activities within the Council.

The diplomatic missions of the Member States and the Union delegations in third countries and at international organisations shall cooperate and shall contribute to formulating and implementing the common approach."

Limitation 4. States are committed to converge their foreign policies. The Treaty of Lisbon (part of point 27) states "The Union shall conduct, define and implement a common foreign and security policy, based on the development of mutual political solidarity among member states, the identification of questions of general interest and the achievement of an ever-increasing degree of convergence of member states actions."
"The Council and the High Representative shall ensure that these principles are complied with."

Limitation 5. The EU decides trade policy. Trade with other countries is a major concern of any government's foreign policy. In the EU all trade negotiations with other countries are conducted by the Commission and the agreements the Commission makes are binding on all member states. It is true that during negotiations the Commission is in frequent contact with senior civil servants and ministers from member states, but any member state may be overruled by a qualified majority decision. This may generally produce satisfactory results, but it is not the same as having independent powers of action in this area of foreign policy.

Limitation 6. The unanimity rule is not the same as independence. Point 24 of the Treaty of Lisbon states, “The European Council shall act unanimously on a recommendation from the Council, adopted by the latter under the arrangements laid down for each area. Decisions of the European Council shall be implemented in accordance with the procedures provided for in the Treaties.

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, for the area of common foreign and security policy, and the Commission, for other areas of external action, may submit joint proposals to the Council."

This means three things. a. Every member state will be involved in foreign policy decision-making. b. Any member state may veto a foreign policy proposal (so a cherished idea of any member state may be thwarted by just one unconvinced country). c. Once the EU has decided to act in a given area or set out guidelines there can be no independent action by member states.

Limitation 7. The EU would take charge in the event of an EU war. In the event of an EU-led war the Political and Security Committee would take charge. This committee is mentioned in point 44 of the Treaty of Lisbon, but the significance of the Treaty of Lisbon at this point is that it leaves intact paragraph 3 of article 25 of the Treaty on European Union (also Constitution article 307). That committee may, “take the relevant measures concerning the political control and strategic direction of the operation”.

The Treaty of Lisbon spends 8 pages explaining just how EU foreign policy will operate. This is not a sign of complete independence of member states in this policy area. See Treaty of Lisbon on Foreign Policy for the actual text.

There is further exploration of this topic in The European Union and You.

UK Military Commitment
Details of the UK's commitment to supply soldiers and military equipment to EU military operations are outlined in The European Union and You. Troops, planes and battleships committed to the EU are no longer completely free to be used by the UK.

Treaty of Lisbon / Reform Treaty. How it came to be written.

Treaty of Lisbon / Reform Treaty. 
What happens next.

To come into effect the Treaty of Lisbon has to be agreed by parliaments in all 27 member states of the European Union.  In Ireland the Irish Constitution requires that they hold a referendum to approve the new treaty.

In the UK the Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, claims there is no need for a referendum. The opposition Conservative and Liberal parties claim there is a need for a referendum because this was promised in the last Labour Party manifesto in relation to the Constitution. The Treaty of Lisbon, beyond dispute, replaces the Constitution. The IGC Mandate makes it clear that the new treaty uses the "innovations" of the Constitution. Although there are some changes it is also clear that almost all the substance of the Constitution is there. EU leaders claim that the substance of the Constitution has been kept in the New Treaty.

Failing a referendum the UK parliament will vote. It is unlikely to be a free vote.

Throughout the EU the Treaty of Lisbon will be approved without being, without being understood - a sad reflection on the way the EU operates and another blow to the credibility of the EU and politicians in the eyes of EU citizens.

The process of ratification should be completed in 2008 with the Treaty of Lisbon planned to come into effect in 1 January 2009.

EU leaders spill the beans about how they set out to mislead the citizens of Europe

EU leaders have admitted that the elaborate re-assembly of the Constitution into the Treaty of Lisbon was an attempt confuse and deceive the people of Europe.

The Treaty of Lisbon was all about avoiding referendums on the Constitution, avoiding dealing with legitimate complaints against the Constitution, confusing the electorate, excluding ordinary citizens from understanding the new documents and so excluding us from any ability to criticise what EU leaders were planning. It was about keeping the substance of the Constitution and moves towards further integration whilst pretending the Constitution has disappeared
 

What they said about confusing the electorate

Jean-Luc Dehaene

The Economist of 9 August 2007 quoted some revealing remarks by the former Belgian prime minister, and former Vice President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution, Jean-Luc Dehaene. The Economist said that in an interview in Le Soir, he said it was “dangerous talk” to want “too much transparency and clarity” in the EU. On 17 October 2007 European Voice quoted him as saying, “The paper [the Reform Treaty] is incomprehensible. Good! We need incomprehensible papers if we are to make progress . . . We have to be realistic.”

Giuliano Amato

This policy of non-engagement with the European people was taken even further by Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and the other former Vice President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution. His remarks on the writing of the Reform Treaty show contempt for eurocitizens. He said, at a meeting of the Centre for European Reform on 12 July 2007 that EU leaders “decided that the document should be unreadable. . . In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand!”

Valerie Giscard d’Estaing

Valerie Giscard d’Estaing, President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution, writing in Le Monde on 14 June 2007, a few days before the form of the “reform” proposals had been settled: "A last good idea consists of wanting to preserve part of the Constitution and camouflaging this by distributing it among several texts. The more innovative provisions [of the Constitution] would be simple amendments to the Nice and Maastricht treaties. The technical improvements would be gathered together in a bland and uncontroversial treaty. These texts would be put to Parliaments to vote on them one at a time. Thus public opinion would be led to accept, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly."

On 26 October 2007, writing again in Le Monde he said, “The Lisbon Treaty itself cannot be understood by ordinary citizens since it can be understood only by also reading the treaties which it amends. . . The institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty – the only things which mattered for the members of the European Convention – are in the Lisbon treaty in their entirety but in a different order and inserted into previous treaties. - What is the purpose of this subtle manoeuvre? First and above all to escape from the constraint of having to hold a referendum by dispersing the articles and by renouncing the constitutional vocabulary.”

No appearance of a superstate, but go for it all the same

Angela Merkel

EU leaders in 2001 acknowledged that there was popular opposition to creating an EU superstate (although this is, with some qualifications what we actually have already as the EU takes most of the big decisions on behalf of

member states). How have EU leaders dealt with this issue in the writing of the Treaty of Lisbon? The approach has been to retain the reality they wanted whilst dropping words which might imply that the EU is any kind of state. Angela Merkel (President of the EU from 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2007) has explained, “We have renounced everything that makes people think of a state.” Gone are the words, constitution, flag, anthem and motto.

This is all very foolish. These minor trappings of a state have been with the EU for many years and don't cause anybody any worry. Who cared that at the signing ceremony of the Lisbon Treaty on 13 December 2007 they played the EU anthem and signed the document in front of the EU flag. So much for renouncing these symbols of statehood!

Keeping the Constitution's moves towards greater integration (superstatehood)

Speaking to the European Parliament, on 27 June, Angela Merkel was keen to point out, “The agreement reached in Brussels [23 June 2007]enables us to retain the substance of the Constitutional Treaty.” And she was equally clear on the purpose. “European integration has to be striven for and consolidated time and again.”

That's what it's all about. The same as in each new treaty. The same as it was at the beginning of the EU fifty years ago. The abiding aim of EU leaders, an aim, maybe good, maybe bad, but never agreed by the people of Europe by any democratic process.

Who is in charge? What the Treaty of Lisbon says

(Text from EU document C306 pages 46 and 47, Official Journal of the European Union, 17.12.2007)