06 August 2008
After Lisbon, a coalition of the willing
Thoughts this summer are turning to how to continue with the Lisbon treaty or, alternatively, how to continue without it. A reader of this blog suggests that the proposal for a coalition of the willing, as described by Christoph Leitl here, is worth considering.
He starts from the assumption that the Lisbon treaty will go not further. He is probably right, but actually it does not matter. Both the Lisbon treaty and its predecessor, Nice, contain provisions whereby groups of member states can pursue joint initiatives within the framework of the EU institutions without requiring the involvement of all 27. Lisbon would make this prospect slightly more likely, because the minimum nine member states required would be able to adopt QMV among themselves even if the Council works by unanimity.
But what will really make the difference is the realisation – because each member state has its own interests and outlook – that making all future progress in the EU conditional on unanimity will rule out any future progress. The current obstacle is political, not institutional, whichever treaty we are thinking about.
As an example, the European Commission floated a proposal for some common rules on divorce settlements. Something like 20 per cent of all divorces within the EU involve married partners from different member states. At present, because different countries can have very different rules on how to divide up assets in the event of a divorce – England favours the wife much more than Sweden does, for example – the choice of member state in which the divorce should take place can become a significant legal decision in its own right. The Commission suggested a set of rules by which the choice of jurisdiction should be made.
Such legislation would require unanimous agreement, which was not forthcoming for the Commission proposal. Some member states, reacting to the setback, have asked the Commission to investigate the idea of a core group instead. (Read about it here.) Those countries that wish to stay out may do so, but those countries that wish to go ahead may do so too. There is no harm done to either group by this division, so there is no reason for anyone to object.
It is ironic, perhaps, that the next step in the direction of European unity is based on a new method for breaking things apart. But I prefer to think that this is another way in which European cooperation can solve cross-border problems in the interests of the citizen.
He starts from the assumption that the Lisbon treaty will go not further. He is probably right, but actually it does not matter. Both the Lisbon treaty and its predecessor, Nice, contain provisions whereby groups of member states can pursue joint initiatives within the framework of the EU institutions without requiring the involvement of all 27. Lisbon would make this prospect slightly more likely, because the minimum nine member states required would be able to adopt QMV among themselves even if the Council works by unanimity.
But what will really make the difference is the realisation – because each member state has its own interests and outlook – that making all future progress in the EU conditional on unanimity will rule out any future progress. The current obstacle is political, not institutional, whichever treaty we are thinking about.
As an example, the European Commission floated a proposal for some common rules on divorce settlements. Something like 20 per cent of all divorces within the EU involve married partners from different member states. At present, because different countries can have very different rules on how to divide up assets in the event of a divorce – England favours the wife much more than Sweden does, for example – the choice of member state in which the divorce should take place can become a significant legal decision in its own right. The Commission suggested a set of rules by which the choice of jurisdiction should be made.
Such legislation would require unanimous agreement, which was not forthcoming for the Commission proposal. Some member states, reacting to the setback, have asked the Commission to investigate the idea of a core group instead. (Read about it here.) Those countries that wish to stay out may do so, but those countries that wish to go ahead may do so too. There is no harm done to either group by this division, so there is no reason for anyone to object.
It is ironic, perhaps, that the next step in the direction of European unity is based on a new method for breaking things apart. But I prefer to think that this is another way in which European cooperation can solve cross-border problems in the interests of the citizen.
Posted by Richard Laming at 13:09
At the moment Europe seems to be at a hold and therefore, interim-solutions are one possibility in overcoming the current situation. The EU needs some perspectives for the future, no matter whether the Irish will hold a second referendum concerning the Lisbon Treaty or not. Even when there will be a second referendum it will take place only in one year time, so that in the meantime the EU needs to stay cabable of acting. It is no wonder that some member states start to consider new options, in partnerships and coalitions, being known as coalition of the willing, called Europe à la carte.
Europeans have to show once more their tolerance and accept other nations’ hesitance as those have to understand some want more of Europe. Most of the European countries are in favour of the Lisbon Treaty as it provides a lot of benefits for the European Parliament and the European citizens. In fact, both of them are strenghtened in their role of a real democracy. For the first time in the short history of the European Union, the citizens will get the right to directly express their opinions concerning the future of their Europe. We cannot wait for the Irish decision, but move forward and continue by muddling through the Nice Treaty that is not really appropriate for a Union of 27.
Post a Comment
Back to the top