EU resumes treaty wrangling as political issues remain
The UK opt-out on the charter of fundamental righs throws up key political questions (Photo: European Commission)
HONOR MAHONY AND MARK BEUNDERMAN
29.08.2007 @ 17:36 CET
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - As the deadline for political agreement on the new European treaty draws closer, EU officials believe that while the treaty outline is relatively tight, up to seven remaining issues are political rather than purely technical.
The initial sweep of the treaty by legal experts is due to be completed by next Thursday (6 September) the day before foreign ministers meet for the first political discussion since EU leaders agreed the treaty outline in June.
The main task for the experts is to translate the EU leaders' mandate – including a messy array of opt-outs, out-ins, declarations and protocols – into an unambiguous a whole as possible.
The European Parliament and the Commission are also involved, with commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso meeting the three parliament representatives on the treaty on Tuesday evening (28 August).
They are keeping a wary eye on the secretariat of the EU council - the member states' decision-making body - which drew up the reform treaty. Both the parliament and the commission want to make sure it has not slipped in any legalese that might undermine their positions in the EU hierarchy.
Portugal, as EU presidency, has set a strict timetable. It wants political agreement by mid October and the treaty signed-off by the end of the year. It has made it clear it wants the talks to be a technical as possible – something it reiterated in its letter inviting the European Parliament's three representatives to the foreign ministers' talks next Friday.
But not every question will be at a purely technical level. Centre-right German MEP and parliament representative Elmar Brok believes there are between "five and seven issues" that could become political.
Political issues
These include Britain's opt outs from the Charter of Fundamental Rights as well as from legislation in the criminal justice area.
On the charter, some fear that London's exemption may affect the EU legal system as a whole through decisions by the European Court of Justice.
It could "legally contaminate the whole system," says UK liberal MEP Andrew Duff and co-representative at the talks.
Mr Duff also points to concerns about London's criminal law and justice opt-out, under which it can still decide to participate in individual justice-related laws. "The problem is that the UK can opt in at the start of negotiations [on a proposal], seek to reduce the force and value [of the proposal] and then still opt out at the end."
Meanwhile the new provisions on the bloc's common foreign and security policy is causing the commission concern that its powers in trade and development may be encroached upon.
There is also the contentious issue of the new voting system. Poland wants to see included in the treaty text a mechanism whereby it can block an EU decision if its vital interests are at stake. But most member states only want to have the mechanism mentioned in a separate declaration which has less legal status.
Citizenship is another topic that MEPs believe need to be discussed. It was mentioned high up in the original constitution but has since been regulated to a lesser place in the new text.
"This has no legal importance", admits Mr Brok but stresses that it is of symbolic importance.
According to Mr Duff, "it's kind of odd that we are trying to appeal to citizens and we are not speaking about citizenship [when the text starts]."
Post-treaty trouble
Critical though MEPs are of the way the treaty now looks – they say it remains as unreadable as previous EU treaties, they welcome some of the June additions on language, energy supply, solidarity and combating climate change.
But even if the timetable goes to plan, this is not likely to be an end to problems.
According to Mr Brok, one of big political discussions after the text is agree will be to do with the EU's planned diplomatic service.
A "balance of power" question, it raises all sorts of political hot potatoes but who should control it, where it should be situated, who is part of it and what its scope should be.