Through the EU Labyrinth: February 2008

Friday, 22 February 2008

The Lisbon Treaty: the European Foundation Analysis, Part V

Wednesday, 20 February 2008

When UK citizens become EU citizens

James McConalogue. When UK citizens become EU citizens @ CentreRight. 29/01/2008.

Are we bovvered tho?

James McConalogue. Are we bovvered tho? @ CentreRight. 29/01/2008.

The withering of British law

James McConalogue. The withering of British law @ CentreRight. 29/01/2008.

Lisbon Treaty creates powers for European Police Force to undertake investigations in the UK

James McConalogue. Lisbon Treaty creates powers for European Police Force to undertake investigations in the UK @ CentreRight. 29/01/2008.

Under Lisbon, new EU security committee to coordinate national police practices

James McConalogue. Under Lisbon, new EU security committee to coordinate national police practices @ CentreRight. 29/01/2008.

Tuesday, 19 February 2008

EU not united on Kosovo’s declaration of independence

Kosovo announced its independence from Serbia on 17 February. The EU is not unified on the recognition of Kosovo. Whereas the UK, France, Germany and Italy are willing to recognise Kosovo as an independent state, Spain, Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia do not support Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence. They fear that Kosovo’s independence could boost separatist movements in their countries.

The General and External Relations Council on 18 February agreed on a common EU reaction of Kosovo’s proclamation of independence. Nevertheless it was very difficult to achieve a consensus since not all Member States share the same views on Kosovo’s declaration of independence. Obviously, Spain wanted a low profile EU declaration and was cautious on the wording of the General and External Relations Council Conclusions.

According to the General and External Relations Council Conclusions on Kosovo, the EU foreign ministers took note that the Kosovo declaration of independence “commits Kosovo to the principles of democracy and equality of all its citizens, the protection of the Serb and other minorities, the protection of the cultural and religious heritage and international supervision.” Moreover, the Council has stressed “that Member States will decide, in accordance with national practice and international law, on their relations with Kosovo.” Hence, the Council's conclusions avoid the states from taking a position on the recognition of Kosovo. The EU has not yet got legal personality therefore it is not allowed yet to recognise an entity seeking statehood. Hence, the capacity for state recognition is a national competence.

The EU foreign ministers have noted the EU’s commitment to the stability of the Western Balkan Region. Moreover, they have confirmed the EU’s willingness to grant Kosovo financial and administrative support mainly through the EU mission to Kosovo. Furthermore, the Council has reiterated “the EU's adherence to the principles of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, inter alia the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity and all UN Security Council resolutions” and it has stressed that “Kosovo constitutes a sui generis case which does not call into question these principles and resolutions.” The Slovenian Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel has said that “The European Union has once again successfully passed the test showing its unity and adopted a common position on recent developments in Kosovo.”

However, while the EU might have agreed on a declaration taking note of the 17 February events in Kosovo, there is little unity on whether to recognise Kosovo’s independence. Although the majority of the Member States are willing to recognise Kosovo as an independent state there is no common EU recognition of Kosovo. There are six Member States which will not recognize Kosovo at least in the near future. The Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratin said “Spain is not going to recognise this unilateral declaration of independence ... because it does not consider that this respects international law.” Kosovo independence provides perhaps just one more example that there is no such thing as an EU common foreign and security policy.

Thursday, 14 February 2008

UK surrenders decisions over global energy policy to EU common energy policy

The new Article 176A in the Lisbon Treaty relates to the European Union’s massive push toward a harmonised common energy policy. Such a move is anti-competitive in the global marketplace of energy resources and does nothing to serve in the interests of further liberalisation of the energy market. The UK needs a truly global energy policy, not one determined and sanctioned by the EU.

The EC treaty has not previously established an EU competency on energy. However, the EU has been shaping the energy sector through its competencies with regards to the internal market, competition policy and the environment. The Union has been using its powers in other areas as the internal market and the environment to regulate energy policy issues. The 2007 Spring European Council adopted the EU Energy Action Plan for the period 2007-2009 which comprehends several priority actions concerning energy efficiency, use of renewable energies, completion of the EU’s internal market for gas and electricity. The European Council has also stressed “the need to enhance security of supply for the EU as well as for each Member State.” It has called for the “development of a common approach to external energy policy.” All of this has rested upon the presumption that the Lisbon Treaty – or the provisions which should have come into force under the original EU Constitution – would enable Member States to enact those laws.

The Lisbon Treaty introduces a new legal basis, allowing the Union to establish measures relating to energy policy. The insertion in the Lisbon Treaty specifically on energy is a huge step forward towards the common energy policy. Energy is one of the Union’s supposed “shared competences” with the Member States. The Member States will only be allowed to adopt legislation if the Union has not exercised its competence already. In brief, national governments would only be able to legislate on policy areas on which the EU has decided not to.

The Union gains the competency to direct the objectives of energy policy. Article 176 A (1) expressly states that energy policy should be carried out on the spurious grounds of a “spirit of solidarity” between Member States. The Union policy on energy aims to “ensure the functioning of the energy market, ensure security of energy supply, promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy and to promote the interconnection of energy networks.” The Lisbon Treaty allows the Union to direct the objectives for energy policy.

It is clear that Lisbon will mean that the UK would be required to supply energy to (or share energy with) another Member State in the case of a crisis. Under Article 176A (2) measures on energy shall be adopted through the “ordinary legislative procedure” (co-decision) with the Council acting by a QMV, after consultation of the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Energy is an issue of vital national interest and the UK will not be allow to veto damaging EU laws in this area. The Union will harmonise the functioning of the energy market. The Energy policy also includes guaranteeing “security of energy supply.” The reference to solidarity is strengthened by an amendment to Article 100 stating that “… the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may decide, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products, notably in the area of energy." The Council will act by QMV. This was a concession to Poland which wanted guarantees that it would receive help from other Member States if their energy supplies were cut off. It is not clear what the spirit of solidarity will entail for the UK, but the UK would be required to supply energy to another Member State in the case of a crisis.

Moreover, the EU will decide how energy is produced and will promote the interconnection of energy networks. Article 176 A (2) states that such measures “should not affect the right of a member state to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply, without prejudice to Article 175 (2) (c )”. This article states that decisions “significantly affecting a member state’s choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply” are to be adopted by unanimity. This is unacceptable for the UK to accept these conditions – Parliament may be refused the right to act on any decision to implement either nuclear energy solutions and even worse, dispute the sovereignty of the UK’s vast coal reserves. Even if the UK were allowed to maintain its position (which would be against the terms of this provision), it will be heavily regulated by the European Union before it could ever go ahead. Such provisions in the Treaty must be blocked, as an energy policy must be properly legislated for at Westminster.

Under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, the basic control of national energy policy is actively being transferred from Member States to the EU. The Lisbon Treaty will have a huge impact on the ability for Britain to determine its own competitive energy policy. This will prevent it of being able to guarantee flexibility to US contracts and interests in the UK, as it will for any other Member State. This will lead to huge instability in (rather than guaranteeing) the security of supply and also insecurities in the foreign policies of both the EU and the US in terms of their cooperation and agreements with oil-rich Middle Eastern countries.

In the interests of the United Kingdom, the Government must not accept those provisions on energy, their practical implications nor the right to legislate over those matters. The Government is already in urgent need – as one analyst of UK coal policy has said – of supporting privately owned industry whose retention is in the nation’s security and economic interest, supporting the implementation of less draconian environmental planning rules for sites of any proposed new mines (deep or opencast), embracing the rhetoric and policy of clean coal technology, and supporting new clean coal stations. It also has intentions, as it has made clear, to develop a new basis for nuclear power stations. All of this, then, appears to be greatly jeopardised by the fact that the Government has signed the Lisbon Treaty – built on a completely flawed anti-market European energy model which will deliver nothing but unaffordable price hikes for the voters of this country. They will not be thankful, especially knowing that the Government had been warned of this disaster before signing the Treaty.

Lisbon Treaty: “Spirit of Solidarity” used to define common energy policy

Under the Lisbon Treaty, Article 100 (part of the section on economic policy) is given a new title, Difficulties in the Supply of Certain Products (Energy). It provides an unacceptably vague new statement on energy. The first paragraph removes the reference to a vote by qualified majority and adds a reference to energy, as follows: “Without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in the Treaties, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may decide, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products, notably in the area of energy".

The additional sentence adds “notably in the area of energy".

Its demands are such that the basis for a common energy policy may now be decided on the spurious grounds of “a spirit of solidarity”. It is inconceivable that such abstractions will be used to define the basis for a common energy policy.

Lisbon Treaty: UK Parliament must submit to EU if and when EU acts first

The Lisbon Treaty has formalised the idea that Member States competences will be limited once the Union has acted. In particular, one Article – Article 2C (TFEU) – concerns areas of shared competence between the Union and the Member States. The present areas of shared competence are not explicit in the current Treaties. Under Article 2C, the areas of shared competence will be the following: internal market, social policy, economic, social and territorial cohesion, agriculture and fisheries, environment, consumer protection, transport, trans-European networks, energy, area of freedom, security and justice, common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined the Treaty, research, technological development and space and development cooperation and humanitarian aid. Energy and space policies are new Union competences. A vast range of activity, which should be under the remit of the UK Government, will be handed over to EU control.

It is of substantial concern that the Member States will only be allowed to adopt legislation if the Union has not exercised its competence. National governments would only be able to do what the EU has decided not to. It is not a “shared competence” with the Member States but an assertion of the primacy of Union activities over those of the Member States. In this sense, it is possible to argue that these policies are the Union’s exclusive competences (and not shared competences). The Member States are not allowed to legislate in these areas if the Union decides to act. If there are severe doubts, the European Court of Justice will decide. Obviously, the ECJ will have a major role in the interpreting and deciding on the competence boundaries and it will do so in name of the uniform application and effectiveness of EU law.

If the EU exercises competence in a shared area, the Member States will simply be left unable to act. The list of areas that fall under the “exclusive competence” and the supposed “shared competence” include a substantial number of policies that will massively affect the everyday lives of the citizens within the Member States. It is unacceptable that such a provision be imposed upon UK citizens since it surrenders their sovereign right to be governed by the UK Parliament on those matters.

Wednesday, 6 February 2008

The Lisbon Treaty: the European Foundation Analysis, Part IV

Lisbon Treaty’s Rights-based Europe Will Not Work

Following a report in The Guardian today on the Chairman of the European Foundation, “Tory eurosceptic Bill Cash (Stone) questioned how the treaty can be ‘advancing our democracy’ by allowing European court of justice rulings to replace UK acts of parliament,” the European Foundation can only further endorse his arguments against a rights-based Europe. The British Government must protect basic British freedoms and British democracy before it ratifies a Treaty which surrenders them all for a rights-based Europe. This will not work in the long-term.

The assertion by Jack Straw on the Lisbon Treaty that "It's right that we collectively take further steps to make the promotion of human rights integral to being part of Europe”, is misleading and workable only under socialist doctrine. The Labour Government’s defense of the human rights provisions are unworkable in today's global reality and the Treaty must be stopped.

It is not in the interests of the British people or their Government to further commit themselves to a massive extension of supposed “rights” which will further diminish the power of the Westminster Parliament under the Treaty's empowerment of the European Court of Justice and remove the creation of opportunities for UK citizens (workable businesses will simply not tolerate an excessively regulated and rights-based Europe). Futhermore, it throws into question whether UK citizens are now EU citizens, since Article 8 and 17 imply that our allegiance is now to the Union and not merely to subsidiary territory it once called a 'Nation'. If this Treaty does signify such massive changes, then the people must have their vote.