FOREWORD—What this Report is about
This report assesses the impact of the Treaty of Lisbon. The Government are asking the two Houses of Parliament to enable them to ratify the Treaty by passing the European Union (Amendment) Bill. This report aims to inform the House of the most important aspects of the Treaty, by comparing its provisions with the status quo, and assessing their impact on the institutions of the EU, on the Member States in general and on the UK in particular.
Looking at the general provisions of the Treaties (Chapter 2), we analyse the effects of the changes to the structure of the EU Treaties, and of the amendments made to the Union's values and objectives. We discuss citizenship under the reformed Treaties, including the introduction of "citizen's initiatives", and the new explicit Union power to introduce measures on social security and social protection linked to rights of movement and residence. We consider the Treaty's statements of the Union's competences, and the distinctions between competences that are the Union's alone, competences that are shared with the Member States, and areas where the Union may act only to support Member State action. We also look at the effect of conferring legal personality on the Union, especially in relation to the Union's ability to make international treaties.
We discuss the simplified revision procedures and passerelles (Chapter 3), which could be used to alter significantly the provisions on the face of the Treaties. Under the European Union (Amendment) Bill, government agreement to any passerelle affecting decision-making procedures will be subject to approval by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
When it comes to the EU institutions (Chapter 4), we consider the changes which the Lisbon Treaty makes to the European Council, including the creation of a full-time European Council President, in place of a six-monthly rotation among heads of government. The Union will have five senior leaders (the European Council President, the leader of the state holding the Council of Ministers rotating Presidency, the Commission President, the European Parliament President and the High Representative); we examine the relationships between these posts.
In the Council of Ministers, we examine the use of qualified majority voting (QMV) rather than unanimity in more than 40 new areas of decision-making. We analyse the new system for calculating a majority and the consequences for the UK's voting weight. Where QMV is used, if the UK wishes to block legislation it will have to gain the support of three other Member States to form a "blocking minority"; we analyse the impact on the UK's share of a blocking minority. Finally, we consider the provision requiring the Council of Ministers to meet in public when it legislates.
We examine the reduction in the size of the College of Commissioners. Each Member State will not have a Commissioner of its nationality for five years out of every 15; we weigh up the concern that a Member State without a Commissioner will be disadvantaged. We also consider the possibility that European Parliamentary parties will go into European Parliament elections with proposed candidates for Commission President.
Finally in this Chapter we assess the Treaty's overall effects on the balance of influence between the EU institutions.
The Lisbon Treaty gives the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding status (Chapter 5). We look at whether any of the Charter's rights will create "new" rights in the UK and at the Charter's current role in ensuring fundamental rights protection in the EU. We consider whether the UK's existing labour and social legislation will be affected (a Government "red line"). Having assessed the likelihood of any change in current practice, and having examined the role of the UK Protocol in clarifying how the Charter is to be applied in the UK, we consider the effect of the change in legal status of the Charter, and whether the Title IV "solidarity" rights—including the "right to strike"—create enforceable rights which could be relied upon directly before British courts.
We analyse in detail the changes introduced to the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (FSJ—Chapter 6), the most important of which is the merging of First Pillar FSJ aspects (asylum, immigration, border controls and civil justice) and Third Pillar FSJ matters (police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters) in a new Treaty Title on FSJ. We examine the proposed changes to the legislative procedure, including the extension of QMV decision-making, the jurisdiction of the ECJ and the substantive provisions on competence in this area. In particular, we look at the amendments to the UK's existing opt-in Protocols and the new Protocol on Transitional Provisions and consider whether the UK's ability to protect its common law system and its police and judicial processes—another Government "red line"—will be affected.
The Treaty introduces several innovations in the area of external affairs and defence (Chapter 7). It creates an EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, supported by a European External Action Service. In the area of defence, the Treaty establishes a framework—called Permanent Structured Cooperation—within which Member States can cooperate to improve their military capabilities. There are also specific provisions reflecting the solidarity between the Member States in the face of threats to their security. We examine how far the Treaty changes the fundamental principles of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and in particular the impact on the independence of UK foreign and defence policy—a third "red line"—and on the role of NATO.
Under social affairs (Chapter 8) we consider the impact of the Treaty in the areas of employment, social policy, education, vocational training, youth (including children's rights), sport, culture, public health and consumer protection. We consider the new EU competence in sport and the new emphasis in the Treaty on children's rights. We examine the effectiveness of the "emergency brake" as regards social security measures for migrant workers and their dependants, the last of the Government's "red lines".
In the area of finance (Chapter 9), we examine the impact of the Treaty on the EU Budget, the contributions to the CFSP Start-Up Fund, the meetings of Finance Ministers from Eurozone states (the Eurogroup) and trade policy. In the area of the internal market (also Chapter 9), we look at the areas of competition, intellectual property, energy markets, services of general interest and tourism. The commitment to "undistorted competition" is no longer in the Treaties but is included in a Protocol; we consider whether this is a significant change. And we look at the impact of the new Title concerning Energy, and the extension of QMV in this area.
As regards environment, agriculture, fisheries and animal welfare (Chapter 10), we assess the impact of the move to make the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers equal partners in the legislative process with respect to fisheries, agriculture and all aspects of the EU budget, including agricultural spending. At present, the European Parliament plays a more limited role in policy-making in these areas. We consider whether this change is likely to assist or impede further reform of the common agricultural and fisheries policies.
We analyse the new functions which the Treaty gives to national parliaments (Chapter 11). We consider in particular the "yellow card" procedure whereby national parliaments can require reconsideration of EU legislation if it breaches "subsidiarity", i.e. does things which need not be done at EU level.
This report does not compare the Lisbon Treaty with the now abandoned Constitutional Treaty which, though ratified by some Member States, was rejected by French and Dutch voters in referenda in 2005. It does not comment on the process by which the Lisbon Treaty was produced. It is not a commentary on the European Union (Amendment) Bill; and it does not address the question whether there should be a UK referendum on this Treaty.
Finally, we have heard different views on whether or not the Treaty is beneficial to the UK. This report does not offer an overall assessment, or a view on whether the UK should or should not ratify the Treaty. That is now a matter for Parliament.
|
