EU constitution and the Lisbon Treaty

guinnessdrinker

Can anyone describe in simple terms the main differences either good or bad between the failed EU constitution and the Lisbon Treaty?

Maybe it's just me but I have not heard much comparison between the two over the last while. I heard Charlie McCreevy on the radio during the week saying that the Lisbon Treaty was the EU's plan B after the EU constitution was rejected by France and Holland but what were the changes?. He also said there was no plan C if Lisbon is rejected by Ireland.

turgon

According to Wikipedia:

Most of the institutional innovations that were agreed upon in the European Constitution, are kept in the Treaty of Lisbon. The most prominent difference is arguably that the Treaty of Lisbon amends the existing treaties rather than merging them into a single document with the status of a constitution. Other differences include:

* The planned 'Union Minister for Foreign Affairs' has been renamed 'High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy'.

* EU symbols like the flag, the motto and the anthem, are not made legally binding in the Treaty of Lisbon. All of them are however already in use; e.g. the flag was adopted in the 1980s. Sixteen EU-countries have declared their allegiance to these symbols in the new treaty, although the annexed declaration is not legally binding.

* In line with eliminating all 'state-like' terminology and symbols, new names for various types of EU legislation have been dropped, in particular the proposal to rename EU regulations and EU directives as EU 'laws'.

* Three EU Member States have negotiated additional opt-outs from certain areas of policy, particularly the UK.

* Due to Poland's pressure during the June Council in 2007, the new voting system will not enter into force before 2014.

* Combating climate-change is explicitly stated as an objective of EU institutions in the Treaty of Lisbon.

* The EU Constitution would have included the phrase "free and undistorted competition" which has not been in this form in the existing EC Treaty. Due to pressure of France, this phrase was not included in the Lisbon Treaty, rather the text relating to free and undistorted competition in Article 3 of the EC Treaty is kept and moved to Protocol 6 ("On the Internal Market and Competition"). There has been some debate over whether this will have an impact on EU Competition policy in future. Whilst French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared "We have obtained a major reorientation of the union's objectives". EU commissioner Neelie Kroes has refuted such claims, stating "putting it in a Protocol on the internal market clarifies that one cannot exist without the other. They have moved the furniture round, but the house is still there. The Protocol is of equivalent status to the Treaty."

snubbleste

So is the Lisbon Treaty mostly the same as the EU Constitution as voted down by the French and Dutch electorates? It's not something that's being mentioned at all in the debates.


Can someone put the differences between the two in simpler terms?

johnnyq

Essentially it's 96% the same.

The differences:
1) "EU constitution" goes to "Lisbon Treaty" to stop other countries except Ireland voting on it

2) Flag and National Anthem dropped from the text

3) EU foreign minister renamed to "commissioner" but will still do the same thing.


It's all a smokescreen to force in what the voters of France and Holland rejected already.

Scofflaw

From the government White Paper:

27. The mandate given to the IGC was, therefore, to draw up a Treaty, called the “Reform Treaty”, which would consist of amendments to the current Treaties with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the enlarged Union, as well as the coherence of its external action. The idea of replacing the existing European Union Treaties with a single Constitutional Treaty was abandoned. This was done in a direct response to what were seen as legitimate concerns among many of Europe’s citizens.

28. Instead, the new Reform Treaty would preserve the balance of the practical improvements to the Union’s decision making and structures which had been agreed by the Heads of State or Government under the 2004 Irish Presidency. At the same time, it would drop those elements which had had a constitutional character. For example, the title “Union Minister for Foreign Affairs” would be changed to “High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy”. In this context, it was also agreed not to proceed with the formal adoption in the Treaty of the Union’s symbols – the EU flag, the anthem and Europe day.

29. Other modifications introduced as a result of the period of reflection and of further consultation with the Member States related to: the respective competences of the EU and the Member States and their delimitation; the specific nature of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP); the enhanced role for national parliaments; the treatment of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; and a revised mechanism, in the area of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police co-operation, enabling Member States to go forward with a proposed measure while allowing others not to participate. An Irish Government proposal to include a reference to combating climate change under the Union’s environmental policy was also agreed.

So actually quite a few changes, some specifically intended to deal with Dutch issues:

Clearly novel was the defensive approach of the Dutch delegation towards a number of specific issues, which allegedly served to do justice to the concerns voiced by the electorate upon rejection of the Constitutional Treaty draft in June 2005. To that aim, the Dutch negotiating position focused specifically on the incorporation of a number of concrete checks and balances, safeguards and emergency breaks into the treaty text. Two key points included the Dutch demand for clarification of the existing division of competencies between member states and the Union, and the incorporation into the treaty text of a reference to the accession criteria for candidate member states. It was successfully made clear to the EU negotiating partners that conceding these particular demands would be instrumental for the Dutch delegation in bringing the treaty back home. The vulnerability of the Dutch position in terms of legitimacy was thereby effectively turned into a strength in the negotiations.

So, the answer is that the Treaty was specifically changed to reflect Dutch and French concerns. Those concerns centered on some quite specific issues, which were dealt with, but they didn't require dropping the institutional changes, which the Irish government fought to keep.

cordially,
Scofflaw