Telegraph - Print Version
Q&A: EU treaty
Last updated: 2:33 AM BST 17/10/2007
What is the European Reform Treaty?
The treaty started life as the European constitution, which was rejected in 2005 by voters in France and the Netherlands. It was revived earlier this year and presented to EU leaders in Brussels in July by the Portuguese presidency as a series of amendments to the existing Treaty on the European Union (Maastricht) and the Treaty Establishing the European Community (Rome).
What will it do?
Among its most controversial proposals are the creation of a European President, who will serve a two-and-a-half-year term, and the introduction of majority voting, which will allow votes to be carried on a 55 per cent majority as long as those votes represent 65 per cent of the European population. Members of the European parliament will also get greater powers but the treaty proposes cutting the size of the European Commission, with only two thirds of countries supplying a commissioner on a rota basis.
How does it differ from the original constitution?
Unlike the constitution, the treaty contains no references to European flags or anthems, which proved so unpopular with voters. The European motto - "United in Diversity" - is also left out of the treaty, but motto, flag and anthem will all remain in existence. Instead of a European foreign minister, as proposed in the original constitution, there will be a High Representative of the Union for foreign affairs and security policy. The treaty has also dropped any mention of European laws, referring instead to regulations.
Is it just the constitution under a new name?
The official line from the British Foreign Office is that the new treaty has "no constitutional characteristics".
But last week the Labour-led European Scrutiny Committee concluded that only two of the 440 provisions in the treaty differed from the original constitution - its name and the flag and anthem proposals. Opponents say that, like the constitution, the treaty removes too much sovereignty from member states.
What happens next?
Representatives from the 27 member states are due to meet in Lisbon this week to agree a final form of words, with the formal signing off expected to be completed at a summit of European leaders in Brussels in December. After that, each country must ratify the treaty, which would come into force in 2009. After the debacle over the constitution, most countries have chosen to leave ratification up to members of their parliaments, who are expected to back the deal. But Ireland plans to hold a referendum, the Danes want one too and so do quite a few Dutch, who voted against the original deal. The Dutch government is holding out against a vote, but at a cost to its electoral chances. The British Government has rejected calls for a referendum despite promising one on the constitution, probably with an eye on opinion polls suggesting a large majority is against it.
What can go wrong?
The problem for the treaty's backers is that all decisions have to be unanimous. The Poles are widely regarded as most likely to cause problems at this week's summit, threatening to block the treaty unless it includes an agreement - known as the Ionnina Compromise - to allow countries to defer unpalatable decisions that have been agreed by a narrow majority. With many Poles out of step with the rest of Europe on issues such as the death penalty and abortion, and Poland in the final stages of an election campaign, the Polish government negotiators may look to strike a hard bargain to impress their voters back home. Britain has threatened to block a deal unless its concerns over issues of sovereignty - known as red lines - are taken into account. But the most obscure objection comes from Bulgaria, which could wreck the treaty over an argument about the spelling of Euro. The Bulgarians insist it should be Evro.
What are Britain's "red lines"?
The Government has insisted it will not sign up to any deal that does not give Britain control over issues that it regards as fundamental to its sovereignty. Those areas include justice and home affairs, social security, tax, foreign policy and defence. Britain has also expressed concerns that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights - which sets out about 50 rights including freedom of speech and religion - could be used to alter British employment law and has insisted that it be excluded from the treaty.
Why should anyone be concerned?
British voters were promised a referendum on the introduction of a European constitution in the last Labour Party manifesto and whatever the treaty's supporters say, there is little doubt that it is simply the original document in a very thin disguise.
Critics of the original constitution and the new treaty argue that both would inevitably lead to a loss of national sovereignty, despite assurances to the contrary. That fear is not restricted to Britain: concerns have also been expressed in other member states.
Gordon Brown has offered assurances that Britain has negotiated opt-outs from a range of European policies - what he refers to as "the emergency brake".
But there is a body of evidence to suggest that the treaty is worded in such a way that Britain may find that it is unable to pull that brake when it needs to.
The most obvious area for concern is the erosion of the voting power of individual members. Under the proposed system of majority voting, critics claim Britain would lose its veto over 61 policy issues. The European Commission president, Jos? Barroso, has admitted that states will have to share sovereignty.
But there are also suggestions that exceptions secured during this week's negotiations could be negated by future legal challenges. Lawyers have argued that even if the Charter of Fundamental Rights is omitted from the treaty, it could still be used at the European Court of Justice to challenge British law on issues such as working practices.
A report by the Commons European scrutiny committee, which examined the treaty, warned that Britain might face a challenge to its opt-out from the European working time directive, restricting workers to a 48-hour week and removing the opportunity to earn more through overtime.
The scrutiny committee also wrote to David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, last week, questioning the effectiveness of the safeguards supposed to protect Britain from being over-ruled on its red line issues. In particular, it warned that the latest draft of the treaty threatened Britain's opt-out from EU policy on security and justice.
Those who have studied the expansionist tendencies of Europe's bureaucracy will worry that Britain may be putting its name to a treaty this week only to discover when it is too late that it has in effect signed up to a constitution that robs it of large areas of its sovereignty.
Story from Telegraph News:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566096/QandampA-EU-treaty.htmlInformation appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence.
If you require any further information on permitted use, or a licence to republish any part of the Site (or any Content), please email us at syndication@telegraph.co.uk, or contact us by telephone on +44 20 7538 2921, Facsimile: +44 207 931 2867.
