Treaty of Lisbon

Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community
Type	Amends existing treaties
Signed	13 December 2007
Location	Lisbon, Portugal
Sealed	18 December 2007[1]
Effective	1 December 2009
Signatories	EU Member States
Depository	Government of Italy
Languages	23 EU languages
Treaty of Lisbon at Wikisource
v t e

European Union

This article is part of the series: Politics and government of the European Union

European Parliament President Martin Schulz Largest groups; Joseph Daul: EPP María Badía (Interim): S&D 7th session MEPs (736) 2009-14 term Bureau Vice Presidents Quaestor Conference Legislative procedure

European Council President Herman Van Rompuy Parties List of meetings

Council of the EU Presidency Denmark Configurations General Foreign Economic Euro Legislative procedure Voting Secretariat Secretary-General Uwe Corsepius COREPER

European Commission Barroso Comm. President José M. Barroso Vice Presidents Catherine Ashton Viviane Reding Joaquín Almunia Siim Kallas Neelie Kroes Antonio Tajani Maroš Šefčovič Commissioners Civil Service Secretary-General Catherine Day

Court of Justice Court of Justice General Court Civil Service Tribunal Members Rulings

Other institutions Central Bank President ESCB Euro EMU Eurozone Court of Auditors Budget OLAF Investment Bank CoR EESC Ombudsman Other bodies Agencies National parliaments

Policies and issues Budget Four Freedoms Economic area Single market Area of FS&J Schengen Policies Agricultural Energy Fisheries Regional Citizenship Identity Pro-Europeanism Euroscepticism Integration Supranationalism Federalism U.S.E. Multi-speed Opt-outs Enhanced co-op Withdrawal

Foreign relations High Representative Catherine Ashton Ext. Action Service Foreign Policy Defence Policy Enlargement

Elections 1979, 1984, 1989 1994, 1999, 2004 2009 (last election) 2014 (next election) Political parties Constituencies Referendums

Law Acquis Primacy Subsidiarity Treaties Fundamental Rights Membership v t e

The Treaty of Lisbon or Lisbon Treaty (initially known as the Reform Treaty) is an international agreement that amends the two treaties which form the constitutional basis of the European Union (EU). The Lisbon Treaty was signed by the EU member states on 13 December 2007, and entered into force on 1 December 2009. It amends the Maastricht Treaty (also known as the Treaty on European Union) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC; also known as the Treaty of Rome). In this process, the Rome Treaty was renamed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

Prominent changes included the move from unanimity to qualified majority voting in several policy areas in the Council of Ministers, a change in calculating such a majority to a new double majority, a more powerful European Parliament forming a bicameral legislature alongside the Council of ministers under the ordinary legislative procedure, a consolidated legal personality for the EU and the creation of a long-term President of the European Council and a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The Treaty also made the Union's bill of rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, legally binding.

The stated aim of the treaty was "to complete the process started by the Treaty of Amsterdam [1997] and by the Treaty of Nice [2001] with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union and to improving the coherence of its action."^[2] Opponents of the Treaty of Lisbon, such as former Danish Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Jens-Peter Bonde, argued that it would centralize the EU,^[3] and weaken democracy by 'moving power away' from national electorates.^[4] Supporters argue that it brings in more checks and balances into the EU system, with stronger powers for the European Parliament and a new role for national parliaments.

Negotiations to modify EU institutions began in 2001, resulting first in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, which would have repealed the pre-existing European treaties and replaced them with a "constitution". Although ratified by a majority of Member States, this was abandoned after being rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. After a "period of reflection", Member States agreed instead to maintain the pre-existing treaties, but to amend them, salvaging a number of the reforms that had been envisaged in the constitution. An amending "reform" treaty was drawn up and signed in Lisbon in 2007. It was originally intended to have been ratified by all member states by the end of 2008. This timetable failed, primarily due to the initial rejection of the Treaty in 2008 by the Irish electorate, a decision which was reversed in a second referendum in 2009 after Ireland secured a number of concessions related to the treaty.

History[link]

Background[link]

The need to review the EU's constitutional framework, particularly in light of the accession of ten new Member States in 2004, was highlighted in a declaration annexed to the Treaty of Nice in 2001. The agreements at Nice had paved the way for further enlargement of the Union by reforming voting procedures. The Laeken declaration of December 2001 committed the EU to improving democracy, transparency and efficiency, and set out the process by which a constitution aiming to achieve these goals could be created. The European Convention was established, presided over by former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, and was given the task of consulting as widely as possible across Europe with the aim of producing a first draft of the Constitution. The final text of the proposed Constitution was agreed upon at the summit meeting on 18–19 June 2004 under the presidency of Ireland.

The Constitution, having been agreed by heads of government from the 25 Member States, was signed at a ceremony in Rome on 29 October 2004. Before it could enter into force, however, it had to be ratified by each member state. Ratification took different forms in each country, depending on the traditions, constitutional arrangements, and political processes of each country. In 2005, referendums held in the Netherlands and France rejected the European Constitution. While the majority of the Member States already had ratified the European Constitution (mostly through parliamentary ratification, although Spain and Luxembourg held referendums), due to the requirement of unanimity to amend the treaties of the EU, it became clear that it could not enter into force. This led to a "period of reflection" and the political end of the proposed European Constitution.

New impetus[link]

50th anniversary in the summer of 2007, Berlin. (Merkel and Barroso)

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Berlin Declaration

In 2007, Germany took over the rotating EU Presidency and declared the period of reflection over. By March, the 50th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome, the Berlin Declaration was adopted by all Member States. This declaration outlined the intention of all Member States to agree on a new treaty in time for the 2009 Parliamentary elections, that is to have a ratified treaty before mid-2009.^[5]

Already before the Berlin Declaration, the Amato Group (officially the Action Committee for European Democracy, ACED) – a group of European politicians, backed by the Barroso Commission with two representatives in the group – worked unofficially on rewriting the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (EU Constitution). On 4 June 2007, the group released their text in French – cut from 63,000 words in 448 articles in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe to 12,800 in 70 articles.^[6] In the Berlin Declaration, the EU leaders unofficially set a new timeline for the new treaty:

• 21–23 June 2007: European Council meeting in Brussels, mandate for Intergovernmental Conference (IGC)
• 23 July 2007: IGC in Lisbon, text of Reform Treaty
• 7–8 September 2007: Foreign Ministers’ meeting
• 18–19 October 2007: European Council in Lisbon, final agreement on Reform Treaty
• 13 December 2007: Signing in Lisbon
• 1 January 2009: Intended date of entry into force

Drafting[link]

June European Council[link]

On 21 June 2007, the European Council of heads of states or governments met in Brussels to agree upon the foundation of a new treaty to replace the rejected Constitution. The meeting took place under the German Presidency of the EU, with Chancellor Angela Merkel leading the negotiations as President-in-Office of the European Council. After dealing with other issues, such as deciding on the accession of Cyprus and Malta to the Eurozone, negotiations on the Treaty took over and lasted until the morning of 23 June 2007. The hardest part of the negotiations was reported to be Poland's insistence on square root voting in the Council of Ministers.^[7]

Agreement was reached on a 16-page mandate for an Intergovernmental Conference, that proposed removing much of the constitutional terminology and many of the symbols from the old European Constitution text. In addition, it was agreed to recommend to the IGC that the provisions of the old European Constitution should be amended in certain key aspects (such as voting or foreign policy). Due to pressure from the United Kingdom and Poland, it was also decided to add a protocol to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (clarifying that it did not extend the rights of the courts to overturn domestic law in Britain or Poland). Among the specific changes were greater ability to opt out in certain areas of legislation and that the proposed new voting system that was part of the European Constitution would not be used before 2014 (see Provisions below).^[8]

In the June meeting, the name 'Reform Treaty' also emerged, finally clarifying that the Constitutional approach was abandoned. Technically it was agreed that the Reform Treaty would amend both the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) to include most provisions of the European Constitution, however not to combine them into one document. It was also agreed to rename the treaty establishing the European Community, which is the main functional agreement including most of the substantive provisions of European primary law, to "Treaty on the Functioning of the Union". In addition it was agreed, that unlike the European Constitution where a charter was part of the document, there would only be a reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to make that text legally binding.^[8] After the council, Poland indicated they wished to re-open some areas. During June, Poland's Prime Minister had controversially stated that Poland would have a substantially larger population were it not for World War II.^[9] Another issue was that Dutch prime minister Jan-Peter Balkenende succeeded in obtaining a greater role for national parliaments in the EU decision-making process, as he declared this to be non-negotiable for Dutch agreement.^[10]

Intergovernmental Conference[link]

Wikinews has related news: Work begins on "Lisbon Treaty"

Portugal had pressed and supported Germany to reach an agreement on a mandate for an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) under their presidency. After the June negotiations and final settlement on a 16-page framework for the new Reform Treaty, the Intergovernmental conference on actually drafting the new treaty commenced on 23 July 2007. The IGC opened following a short ceremony. The Portuguese presidency presented a 145 page document (with an extra 132 pages of 12 protocols and 51 declarations) entitled the Draft Treaty amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community and made it available on the Council of Ministers website as a starting point for the drafting process.^[11]

In addition to government representatives and legal scholars from each member state, the European Parliament sent three representatives. These were conservative Elmar Brok, social democratic Enrique Baron Crespo and liberal Andrew Duff.^[12]

Before the opening of the IGC, the Polish government expressed a desire to renegotiate the June agreement, notably over the voting system, but relented under political pressure by most other Member States, due to a desire not to be seen as the sole trouble maker over the negotiations.^[13]

October European Council[link]

The October European Council, led by Portugal's Prime Minister and then President-in-Office of the European Council, José Sócrates, consisted of legal experts from all Member States scrutinising the final drafts of the Treaty. During the council, it became clear that the Reform Treaty would be called Treaty of Lisbon because its signing would take place in Lisbon, Portugal being the holder of presidency of the Council of the European Union at the time.

At the European Council meeting on 18 October and 19 October 2007 in Lisbon, a few last-minute concessions were made to ensure the signing of the treaty.^[14] That included giving Poland a slightly stronger wording for the revived Ioannina Compromise, plus a nomination for an additional Advocate General at the European Court of Justice. The creation of the permanent "Polish" Advocate General was formally permitted by an increase of the number of Advocates General from 8 to 11.^[15]

Signing[link]

The plenipotentiaries standing outside the 15th century Jerónimos Monastery, which was the venue, having signed the treaty

Wikinews has related news: European leaders sign Lisbon Treaty

At the meeting of the European Council in October 2007, Portugal insisted that the Treaty (then called the 'Reform Treaty') be signed in Lisbon, the Portuguese capital. This request was granted, and the Treaty was thus to be called the Treaty of Lisbon, in line with the tradition of European Union treaties. The Portuguese presidency was appointed to the job of organising the programme for a signing ceremony.^[16]

The signing of the Treaty of Lisbon took place in Lisbon, Portugal on 13 December 2007. The Government of Portugal, by virtue of holding Presidency of the Council of the European Union at the time, arranged a ceremony inside the 15th century Jerónimos Monastery, the same place Portugal's treaty of accession to the European Union (EU) was signed in 1985.^[17] Representatives from the 27 EU member states were present, and signed the Treaty as plenipotentiaries, marking the end of treaty negotiations. In addition, for the first time an EU treaty was also signed by the presidents of the three main EU institutions.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom did not take part in the main ceremony, and instead signed the treaty separately a number of hours after the other delegates. A requirement to appear before a committee of British MPs was cited as the reason for his absence.^[18]

Approval by the European Parliament[link]

The European Parliament approved the Treaty by 525 votes in favour and 115 against on 20 February 2008 on the basis of an analysis of the treaty's implications by the Parliament's rapporteurs Richard Corbett and Inigo Mendez de Vigo. They had previously been the Parliament's rapporteurs on the constitutional treaty.

Ratification[link]

Order in which countries ratified the Treaty (become green).

All EU member states had to ratify the Treaty before it could enter into law. A national ratification was completed and registered when the instruments of ratification were lodged with the government of Italy. The month following the deposition of the last national ratification saw the Treaty enter into force across the EU.

Under the original timetable set by the German Presidency of the Council of the European Union in the first half of 2007, the Treaty was scheduled to be fully ratified by the end of 2008, thus entering into force on 1 January 2009. This plan failed however, primarily due to the initial rejection of the Treaty in 2008 by the Irish electorate in a referendum, a decision which was reversed in a second referendum in 2009. Ireland, as required by its constitution, was the only member state to hold referendums on the Treaty. The Czech instrument of ratification was the last to be deposited in Rome on 13 November 2009.^[19] Therefore, the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force on 1 December 2009.^[20][21]

Impact[link]

The exact impact of the treaty on the functioning of the EU left many questions open (uncertainties which have led to calls for another new treaty in response to the economic crisis in the late 2000s^[22]). When its impact is assessed, the biggest winners from Lisbon have been Parliament, with its increase in power, and the European Council. The first months under Lisbon have arguably seen a shift in power and leadership from the Commission, the traditional motor of integration, to the European Council with its new full time and longer-term President.^[23] The split between the Commission and European Council Presidents involved overlap, potential rivalry and unwieldy compromises, such as both Presidents attending international summits, in theory each with their own responsibilities, but inevitably with a considerable grey area. There is some expectation that the posts may be merged, as allowed under Lisbon, in 2014 when their two mandates expire.^[24]

Parliament has used its greater powers over legislation, but also for example over the appointment of the Commission to gain further privileges from President Barroso^[25] and it used its budgetary powers as a veto over how the External Action Service should be set up.^[26] It also applied its new power over international agreements to rapidly block the SWIFT data sharing deal with the US^[27] and threatened to do so over a free trade agreement with South Korea.^[28]

Like the Commission, the Council of ministers has, relatively, lost power due to Lisbon. Its dynamic has also changed as member states have lost their veto in a number of areas. Consequently, they have had to come up with stronger arguments faster in order to win a vote.^[23] The Presidency of the Council, which continues to rotate among Member States every 6 months, has lost influence: the Prime minister of the country in question no longer chairs the European Council, its foreign minister no longer represents the EU externally (that is now done by the High Representative).

Functioning[link]

As an amending treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon is not intended to be read as an autonomous text. It consists of a number of amendments to the Treaty on European Union ("Maastricht Treaty") and the Treaty establishing the European Community ("Treaty of Rome"), the latter renamed 'Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union' in the process. As amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, the Treaty on European Union provides a reference to the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, making that document legally binding. The Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental rights thus have equal legal value and combined constitute the European Union's legal basis.

A typical amendment in Treaty of Lisbon text is:

The Commission has published a consolidated text (in each community language) which shows the previous Treaties as revised by the Treaty of Lisbon.

Fundamental Rights Charter[link]

The rights charter bans, among other things, capital punishment and eugenics

The fifty-five articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union enshrine certain political, social, and economic rights for both European Union citizens and residents, into EU law. It was drafted by the European Convention and solemnly proclaimed on 7 December 2000 by the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. However its then legal status was uncertain and it did not have full legal effect^[29] until the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009.

In the rejected Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe the charter was integrated as a part of the treaty itself. In the Lisbon Treaty, however, the charter is incorporated by reference and given legal status without forming part of the treaties. The EU must act and legislate consistently with the Charter and the EU's courts will strike down EU legislation which contravenes it. The Charter only applies to EU member states as regards their implemention of EU law and does not extend the competences of the EU beyond its competences as defined in the treaties.

Amendments[link]

Central Bank[link]

The European Central Bank gained the official status of being an EU institution, and the European Council was given the right to appoint presidents of the European Central Bank through a qualified majority vote. On a related topic, the euro became the official currency of the Union (though not affecting opt-outs or the process of Eurozone enlargement).

Judiciary[link]

The Court of First Instance was with the Treaty of Lisbon renamed the General Court. The Civil Service Tribunal and the European Court of Justice (formerly named the Court of Justice of the European Communities, and formally called only Court of Justice after the Treaty of Lisbon), along with the General Court, were established as sub-courts of a new EU institution named the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The jurisdiction of the courts continued to be excluded from matters of foreign policy, though new jurisdiction to review foreign policy sanction measures, as well as certain 'Area of Freedom, Security and Justice' (AFSJ) matters not concerning policing and criminal cooperation, were added.^[30][31]

Council of Ministers[link]

Voting weights in both the
Council of Ministers and the European Council

member state	Nice		Lisbon
	votes	%	pop. in millions	%
Germany	29	8.4%	82	16.5%
France	29	8.4%	64	12.9%
United Kingdom	29	8.4%	62	12.4%
Italy	29	8.4%	60	12.0%
Spain	27	7.8%	46	9.0%
Poland	27	7.8%	38	7.6%
Romania	14	4.1%	21	4.3%
Netherlands	13	3.8%	17	3.3%
Greece	12	3.5%	11	2.2%
Portugal	12	3.5%	11	2.1%
Belgium	12	3.5%	11	2.1%
Czech Republic	12	3.5%	10	2.1%
Hungary	12	3.5%	10	2.0%
Sweden	10	2.9%	9.2	1.9%
Austria	10	2.9%	8.3	1.7%
Bulgaria	10	2.9%	7.6	1.5%
Denmark	7	2.0%	5.5	1.1%
Slovakia	7	2.0%	5.4	1.1%
Finland	7	2.0%	5.3	1.1%
Ireland	7	2.0%	4.5	0.9%
Lithuania	7	2.0%	3.3	0.7%
Latvia	4	1.2%	2.2	0.5%
Slovenia	4	1.2%	2.0	0.4%
Estonia	4	1.2%	1.3	0.3%
Cyprus	4	1.2%	0.87	0.2%
Luxembourg	4	1.2%	0.49	0.1%
Malta	3	0.9%	0.41	0.1%
total	345	100%	498	100%
required majority	255	74%	324	65%

The treaty has expanded the use of qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Council of Ministers by having it replace unanimity as the standard voting procedure in almost every policy area outside taxation and foreign policy. Moreover, taking effect in 2014, the definition of a qualified majority will change: A qualified majority will be reached when at least 55% of all member states, who comprise at least 65% of EU citizens, vote in favour of a proposal. When the Council of Ministers is acting neither on a proposal of the Commission nor on one of the High Representative, QMV will require 72% of the member states while the population requirement remains the same. However, the "blocking minority" that corresponds to these figures must comprise at least 4 countries. Hence, the voting powers of the member states are based on their population, and are no longer dependent on a negotiable system of voting points.

The current rules for QMV, set in the Treaty of Nice, which still apply until 2014, require a majority of countries (50% / 67%),^{[clarification needed]} voting weights (74%), and population (62%). This rule remains in place until 2014. Between 2014 and 2017 a transitional phase will take place where the new QMV rules apply, but where the old Nice treaty voting weights can be applied when a member state formally requests it. Moreover, from 2014 a new version of the 1994 "Ioannina Compromise" will take effect, which allows small minorities of EU states to call for re-examination of EU decisions.^[32]

The treaty instructs that Council deliberations on legislation (that include debate and voting) in the will be held in public (televised), as was already the case in the European Parliament..

The Presidency of the Council of Ministers, rotates among member states every six months, with a "Trio" formed by three consecutive Presidencies in order to provide more continuity to their conduct. However, the Foreign Affairs Council (one configuration of the Council of ministers), is no longer chaired by the representative of the member state holding the Presidency, but rather by the person holding the newly created post of High Representative.

Additionally the Euro Group sub-unit of ECOFIN Eurozone countries was formalized.

European Council[link]

The European Council officially gains the status of an EU institution, thus being separated from the Council of ministers. It continues to be composed of the heads of state or government of the Union's member states along with the (nonvoting) President of the European Commission and its own President.

The President of the European Council is appointed for a two and a half year term in a qualified majority vote of the European Council. A President can be reappointed once, and be removed by the same voting procedure. Unlike the post of President of the European Commission, the appointment of the President of the European Council does not have to reflect the composition of the European Parliament.^[33] The President's work involves coordinating the work of the European Council, hosting its meetings and reporting its activities to the European Parliament after each meeting. This makes him the lynchpin of negotiations to find agreement at European Council meetings, which has become a more onerouus task with successive enlargement of the EU to 27 Member States. He also chairs informal summits of the 17 Member States which use the euro as their currency. Additionally, the President provides external representation to the Union on foreign policy and security matters when such representation is required at the level of heads of state or government (bilateral summits and G8/G20).

Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Council is charged with setting the strategic priorities of the Union, and in practice with handling crises. It has a key role in appointments, including the Commission, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the members of the Board of the European Central Bank; the suspension of membership rights; changing the voting systems in the treaties bridging clauses. Under the emergency break procedure, a state may refer contentious legislation from the Council of ministers to the European Council if it is outvoted in the Council of ministers, notwithstanding that it may still be outvoted in the European Council.^[33][34][35]

Parliament[link]

MEPs under the Lisbon Treaty

member state	2007	2009	Lisbon
Germany	99	99	96
France	78	72	74
Italy	78	72	73
United Kingdom	78	72	73
Spain	54	50	54
Poland	54	50	51
Romania	35	33	33
Netherlands	27	25	26
Belgium	24	22	22
Czech Republic	24	22	22
Greece	24	22	22
Hungary	24	22	22
Portugal	24	22	22
Sweden	19	18	20
Austria	18	17	19
Bulgaria	18	17	18
Finland	14	13	13
Denmark	14	13	13
Slovakia	14	13	13
Ireland	13	12	12
Lithuania	13	12	12
Latvia	9	8	9
Slovenia	7	7	8
Cyprus	6	6	6
Estonia	6	6	6
Luxembourg	6	6	6
Malta	5	5	6
total	785	736	751

The legislative power of the European Parliament increases, as the codecision procedure with the Council of the EU is extended to almost all areas of policy. This procedure is slightly modified and renamed ordinary legislative procedure.

Codecision will be used in new policy areas, increasing the power of the Parliament.

In the few remaining areas, called "special legislative procedures", Parliament now has either the right of consent to a Council of the EU measure, or vice-versa, except in the few cases where the old Consultation procedure still applies, wherein the Council of the EU will only need to consult the European Parliament before voting on the Commission proposal. Council is then not bound by the Parliament's position but only by the obligation to consult it. Parliament would need to be consulted again if the Council of ministers deviated too far from the initial proposal.

The Commission will have to submit each proposed budget of the European Union directly to Parliament, which must approve the budget in its entirety.

The Treaty changes the way in which MEP seats are apportioned among member states. Rather than setting out a precise number (as it was the case in every previous treaty), the Treaty of Lisbon gives the power to the Council of the EU, acting unanimously on the initiative of the Parliament and with its consent, to adopt a decision fixing the number of MEPs for each member state. Moreover the treaty provides for the number of MEPs to be degressively proportional to the number of citizens of each member state. A draft decision fixing the apportionment of MEPs was annexed to the treaty itself and had Lisbon been in force at the time of 2009 European Parliament elections the apportionment would have been:^[36] In the meantime, Croatia's seats, when it joins, will be supernumery.

The number of MEPs will be limited to 750, in addition to the President of the Parliament. Additionally, the Treaty of Lisbon will reduce the maximum number of MEPs from a member state from 99 to 96 (affects Germany) and increases the minimal number from 5 to 6 (affects Malta).

National parliaments[link]

The Treaty of Lisbon expanded the role of Member States' parliaments in the legislative processes of the EU by giving them a prior scrutiny of legislative proposals before the Council and the Parliament can take a position. The Treaty of Lisbon provides for national parliaments "to contribute to the good functioning of the Union" through receiving draft EU legislation, seeing to it that the principle of subsidiarity is respected, taking part in the evaluation mechanisms for the implementation of the Union policies in the area of freedom, security and justice, being involved in the political monitoring of Europol and the evaluation of Eurojust's activities, being notified of applications for EU accession, taking part in the inter-parliamentary cooperation between national parliaments and with the European Parliament.

The Treaty of Lisbon allows national parliaments eight weeks to study legislative proposals made by the European Commission and decide whether to send a reasoned opinion stating why the national parliament considers it to be incompatible with the principle of subsidiarity. National parliaments may vote to have the measure reviewed. If one third (or one quarter, where the proposed EU measure concerns freedom, justice and security) of national parliaments are in favour of a review, the Commission would have to review the measure and if it decides to maintain it, must give a reasoned opinion to the Union legislator as to why it considers the measure to be compatible with subsidiarity.

Commission[link]

The Commission of the European Communities will officially be renamed European Commission.^[11]

The Treaty of Lisbon stated that the size of the Commission will reduce from one per member state to one for two thirds of member states from 2014, with an equal rotation over time. This would have ended the arrangement which has existed since 1957 of having at least one Commissioner for each Member State at all times. However, the Treaty also provided^[37] that the European Council could unanimously decide to alter this number. Following the first Irish referendum on Lisbon, the European Council decided in December 2008 to revert to one Commissioner per member state with effect from the date of entry into force of the Treaty.^[38]

The person holding the new post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy automatically becomes also a Vice-President of the Commission.

Foreign relations and security[link]

High Representative[link]

In an effort to ensure greater coordination and consistency in EU foreign policy, the Treaty of Lisbon created a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, de facto merging the post of High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy. The new High Representative will be Vice-President of the Commission, the administrator of the European Defence Agency but not the Secretary-General of the Council of Ministers, which will become a separate post. He or she will have a right to propose defence or security missions. In the proposed constitution this post was called the Union Minister of Foreign Affairs.^[8][39]

The High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy is in charge of an External Action Service also created by the Treaty of Lisbon. This is essentially a common Foreign Office or Diplomatic Corps for the Union.

Mutual solidarity[link]

Under the Treaty of Lisbon, Member States should assist if a member state is subject to a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster^[40] (but any joint military action is subject to the provisions of Article 31 of the consolidated Treaty of European Union, which recognises various national concerns). In addition, several provisions of the treaties have been amended to include solidarity in matters of energy supply and changes to the energy policy within the EU.

Defence prospects[link]

The treaty foresees that the European Security and Defence Policy will lead to a common defence agreement for the EU when the European Council resolves unanimously to do so, and provided that all member states give their approval through their usual constitutional procedures.^[41] Additionally, the area of defence has become available to enhanced co-operation, potentially allowing for a defence integration that excludes member states with policies of neutrality. Countries with significant military capabilities are envisioned to form a Permanent Structured Cooperation in Defence.

Legal consolidation[link]

Prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Union comprised a system of three legal pillars, of which only the European Communities pillar had its own legal personality. The Treaty of Lisbon abolished this pillar system, and as a consolidated entity, the European Union succeeded the legal personality of the European Communities. Therefore, the EU is now able to sign international treaties in its own name. The European Union gained for example membership of the World Trade Organization immediately after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, since the European Communities was already a member of that organisation.^[11]

Defined policy areas[link]

In the Lisbon Treaty the distribution of competences in various policy areas between Member States and the Union is explicitly stated in the following three categories:

Enlargement and secession[link]

A proposal to enshrine the Copenhagen Criteria for further enlargement in the treaty was not fully accepted as there were fears it will lead to Court of Justice judges having the last word on who could join the EU, rather than political leaders.^[39]

The treaty introduces an exit clause for members wanting to withdraw from the Union. This formalises the procedure by stating that a member state must inform the European Council before it can terminate its membership. There has been one instance where a territory has ceased to be part of the Community (Greenland in 1985).

A new provision in the Treaty of Lisbon is that the status of French, Dutch and Danish overseas territories can be changed more easily, by no longer requiring a full treaty revision. Instead, the European Council may, on the initiative of the member state concerned, change the status of an overseas country or territory (OCT) to an outermost region (OMR) or vice versa.^[42] This provision was included on a proposal by the Netherlands, which is investigating the future of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba in the European Union as part of an institutional reform process that is currently taking place in the Netherlands Antilles.^{[citation needed]}

Revision procedures[link]

The Lisbon Treaty creates two different ways for further amendments of the European Union treaties: an ordinary revision procedure which is broadly similar to the present process in that it involves convening an intergovernmental conference, and a simplified revision procedure whereby Part three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which deals with Union policies and internal actions, could be amended by a unanimous decision of the European Council subject to ratification by all member states in the usual manner.

The Treaty also provides for the Passerelle Clause which allows the European Council to unanimously decide to move from unanimous voting to qualified majority voting, and move from a special legislative procedure to the ordinary legislative procedure.

Ordinary revision procedure

1. Proposals to amend the treaties are submitted by a Member State, the European Parliament or the European Commission to the Council of Ministers who, in turn, submit them to the European Council and notify member states. There are no limits on what kind of amendments can be proposed.
2. The European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, votes to consider the proposals on the basis of a simple majority, and then either:
   • The President of the European Council convenes a convention containing representatives of national parliaments, governments, the European Parliament and the European Commission, to further consider the proposals. In due course, the convention submits its final recommendation to the European Council.
   • Or the European Council decides, with the consent of the European Parliament, not to convene a convention, and set the terms of reference for the inter-governmental conference itself.
3. The President of the European Council convenes an inter-governmental conference consisting of representatives of each member-state's government. The conference drafts and finalises a treaty based on the convention's recommendation or on the European Council's terms of reference.
4. EU leaders sign the treaty.
5. All member states must then ratify the treaty "in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements", if it is to come into force.

Simplified revision procedure

1. Proposals to amend Part three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union are submitted by a Member State, the European Parliament or the European Commission to the Council of Ministers who, in turn, submit them to the European Council and notify member states. Proposed amendments cannot increase the competences of the Union.
2. The European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, votes to adopt a decision amending Part three on the basis of the proposals by unanimity.
3. All member states must approve the decision "in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements", if it is to come into force.

The Passerelle Clause

The treaty also allows for the changing of voting procedures without amending the EU treaties. Under this clause the European Council can, after receiving the consent of the European Parliament, vote unanimously to:

• allow the Council of Ministers to act on the basis of qualified majority in areas where they previously had to act on the basis of unanimity. (This is not available for decisions with defence or military implications.)

• allow for legislation to be adopted on the basis of the ordinary legislative procedure where it previously was to be adopted on the basis of a special legislative procedure.

A decision of the European Council to use either of these provisions can only come into effect if, six months after all national parliaments had been given notice of the decision, none object to it.

Opt-outs[link]

Fundamental Rights Charter[link]

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union interpreted by the European Court of Justice is to apply fully to the EU institutions and to the field of EU law, which must be consistent with its provisions. A protocols clarifies that this does not extend the scope of courts to strike down domestic legislation in the United Kingdom, Poland, and the Czech Republic although it would still bind the EU institutions and apply to the field of EU law:

Article 1

1. The Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or any court or tribunal of Poland or of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of Poland or of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms.
2. In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to Poland or the United Kingdom except in so far as Poland or the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law.

Article 2

To the extent that a provision of the Charter refers to national laws and practices, it shall only apply to Poland or the United Kingdom to the extent that the rights or principles that it contains are recognised in the law or practices of Poland or of the United Kingdom.

—Reform Treaty - Protocol (No 7)^[43]

Though the Civic Platform party in Poland had signalled during the 2007 parliamentary elections that it would not seek to opt-out from the Charter,^[44] Prime Minister Tusk has since stated that Poland will not sign up to the Charter. Tusk declared that the deals negotiated by the previous Polish government will be honoured,^[45] though suggested that Poland may eventually sign up to the Charter at a later date.^[46]

In order to ensure ratification of the treaty by the Czech Republic, the European Council agreed that the opt-out from the Charter would also extend to the Czech Republic. The protocol will be amended to include the Czech Republic in the next treaty of accession. This was in response to demands of Václav Klaus, the Czech President, who feared that the Charter could enable claims by German post World War II expellees despite assurances to the contrary given to the Czech Republic and Slovakia, where the degrees remain applicable.^[47]

QMV in police and judicial affairs[link]

The United Kingdom and Ireland have opted out from the change from unanimous decisions to qualified majority voting (QMV) in the sector of police and judicial affairs; this decision will be reviewed in Ireland three years after the treaty enters into force. Both states will be able to opt in to these voting issues on a case-by-case basis.

Provisions in the Treaty framework draft from the June 2007 summit stated that the division of power between Member States and the Union is a two-way process, implying that powers can be taken back from the union.^[39]

Future revisions of the Lisbon version of the EU Treaties[link]

The causes of revision[link]

In the wake of the 2008-2011 European sovereign debt crisis, think-tanks such as the World Pensions Council have argued that a profound revision of the Lisbon Treaty would be unavoidable if Germany were to succeed in imposing its economic views, as stringent orthodoxy across the budgetary, fiscal and regulatory fronts would necessarily go beyond the treaty in its current form, thus further reducing the individual prerogatives of national governments.^[48][49] At the Dec 9 2011 European Council crisis meeting in Brussels, Britain's refusal to be part of the Franco-German fiscal compact to save the eurozone constituted a de facto refusal (PM Cameron vetoed the project) to engage in any radical revision of the Lisbon Treaty at the expense of UK economic sovereignty.^[50]

Three legal sources[link]

The current text of the EU Treaties, consolidated by the Lisbon Treaty, is expected to be amended by 2013 by at least three legal sources:

• Amendment of the number of seats for certain Member States in the European Parliament, as described above.
• Amendment of Article 136 of the TFEU to allow Euro area Member States to create the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) to provide loans to countries with difficulty financing their debt, and the corresponding Treaty among Euro area Members establishing it.
• Accession treaty of Croatia to the EU
• Treaty, among Euro area Member States and others, on fiscal discipline and economic governance of the eurozone, and eventually leading to a European Fiscal Union, in order to exit the 2008-2011 European sovereign debt crisis, probably among the all EU countries excluding the United Kingdom.

See also[link]

v t e Treaty of Lisbon topics Convention on the Future of Europe · European Constitution · Berlin Declaration · Amato Group · Signing · Ratification (Irish referendum I · Irish referendum II) European Union portal

• Signing of the Treaty of Lisbon
• Treaties of the European Union
• Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union on Wikisource

References[link]

External links[link]

Official websites

• Official website – Europa
  • Treaty of Lisbon (the amendments)
  • Consolidated treaties (the result of the amendments)

Media overviews

• Q&A: The Lisbon Treaty – BBC News
• The 'Treaty of Lisbon' – EurActiv
• The EU following the Lisbon Treaty – Eur-charts visualization

v t e Treaties of the European Union and related documents Legal basis Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1957) · Treaty on European Union (1992) · Euratom Treaty (1957) Main treaties Paris (1951) · Rome (1957) · Merger (1965) · Single European Act (1986) · Maastricht (1992) · Amsterdam (1997) · Nice (2001) · Lisbon (2007) Accession Treaties 1972 · 1979 · 1985 · 1994 · 2003 · 2005 · 2011 Minor treaties Netherlands Antilles Association Convention (1962) · First Budgetary Treaty (1970) · Second Budgetary Treaty (1975) · Greenland Treaty (1984) · European Stability Mechanism (2012) Minor amendments Protocol 36 (2011) · Article 136 (2011) Abandoned treaties Defence Community (1952) · Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (2004) Declarations Schuman Declaration (1950) · Solemn Declaration (1983) · Charter of Fundamental Rights (2000) · Berlin Declaration (2007) Other documents Schengen Agreement (1985) · European Fiscal Compact (2012) European Union Portal

Ashley Mote (born 25 January 1936 in London) was a non-inscrit Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for South East England.^[2][3] An outspoken critic of fraud in the European Institutions, he himself was convicted of benefit fraud in 2007 for which he served a nine-month prison sentence and was described by the trial judge as "a truly dishonest man". The scandal ignited a debate as to how an MEP could receive a prison sentence, yet keep his seat in the European Parliament; there are currently moves afoot to review the legislation.

Early career[link]

Married with two children, Mote was a management consultant who ran a marketing business in Farnham, Surrey, employing thirteen full-time staff, for eighteen years before it closed in 1989 as a result of the late 1980s recession.^[4]

He later became an author, publishing several titles on right wing politics and also on cricket. His books have included Vigilance - A Defence of British Liberty (2001) about the European Union, and OverCrowded Britain: Our Immigration Crisis. His books on cricket are The Glory Days of Cricket (1997) which won The Cricket Society's "Cricket Book of the Year" award in 1997^[5] and a 1998 re-issue of John Nyren's 1833 classic collection of articles on the Georgian game, The Cricketers of My Time. He was also the first president of the revived Hambledon Club which raises money for colts cricket.

European Parliament[link]

Mote was elected in June 2004 as a representative of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) for South East England. He had campaigned to clean up sleaze in Brussels.^[6]

He purports to expose and research fraud in the EU, although Mote himself has served time in prison after being found guilty of benefit fraud. He has recently published J'Accuse...!, an anti-EU pamphlet in which he claims migrants are eight times more likely to commit crime than "indigenous people". According to Mote, "Jamaican Yardies are selling crack cocaine in Hereford and Cambridgeshire, Chinese Snakeheads are operating in Lancashire and Norfolk, Albanians are running prostitution in Hampshire, Colombians control a cocaine network in Essex."^[7]

After having the whip withdrawn pending his fraud trial,^[1] he became an non-inscrit MEP. In 2005, he joined with Hans Peter Martin and Paul van Buitenen in the loose unofficial grouping Platform for Transparency which promoted accountability in the European Union. In 2006, he gave evidence to the House of Lords enquiry into the EU's financial management of public funds. In 2007, he transferred his allegiances to the new far-right group Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty, whose members included Jean-Marie Le Pen and Alessandra Mussolini;^[8] the group, branded as "fascists"^[9] ceased to exist on 14 November 2007.

On 9 May 2009, Mote announced he would not stand as a candidate at the 2009 European Parliament election.^[10]

Fraud conviction[link]

Proceedings begin[link]

In 2004, the Department for Work and Pensions brought criminal charges against Mote for allegedly claiming £32,000 in income support and £35,000 in housing benefit from Chichester District Council over a six-year period without declaring his monthly earnings of £4,000. Mote was committed for trial at Chichester Crown Court on 27 April 2004. He would face nine charges of false accounting and one charge of making a false representation. On 16 June, at a plea and directions hearing, he pleaded not guilty to the charges and a trial date was fixed for 15 November.^[11] The following month, the UK Independence Party withdrew the whip from Mote on 15 July 2004 after learning from an article in The Daily Telegraph that he faced trial; Mote had failed to inform his party of the impending charges.^[12]

Application for immunity[link]

On 4 October 2004 Mote sought to claim immunity from prosecution on the basis of his status as an MEP. His application was heard by Judge Aikens at Lewes Crown Court. He held that Chichester Crown Court was obliged to stay proceedings until the European Parliament had exercised its right to waive immunity. On 3 February 2005 the Attorney General applied to the Parliament whose Committee on Legal Affairs unanimously granted the waiver on 20 June and gave its approval to proceedings continuing in England.

On 5 April 2005 Mote appealed the Parliament's decision to the Court of First Instance (CFI). He gave no notice of his application to the Attorney General, nor to Judge Aikens at Lewes Crown Court, meaning that the British Government was unable to intervene in the case. Mote later applied on 15 December 2006 to the CFI for an interim order suspending the Parliament's decision pending the outcome of their decision. This was rejected on the basis that the condition of urgency was not satisfied.^[13]

Following the Parliament's waiver, the Attorney General applied to lift the stay imposed by Judge Aikens. The application was heard by Judge Gross on 17 October 2006 who granted the application, ruling that the desirability of proceeding with the trial outweighed any potential injustice to Mote that might result if the CFI were to annul the decision of the European Parliament to grant a waiver.^[13]

Trial[link]

The case returned to England and a further 16 counts of fraud were added to Mote's original indictment. He complained once again to the European Parliament on 4 May 2007 that this constituted a "contempt", but the Parliament remarked that he had no immunity to defend and took no action.^[14] A second application was made to the CFI for interim measures, but this was also rejected.^[13]

A four-week trial commenced at Portsmouth Crown Court in July 2007; proceedings against Mote were led by government lawyers who had taken over the case from Chichester District Council in late 2005. The court heard that Mote had claimed housing and council tax benefits between 1991 and 1993 following the collapse of his business. He began to claim benefits again from 1996 but failed to declare income from various enterprises including a cleaning company and gambling on the currency markets.^[15]

In total, Mote spent just short of £73,000 between 20 February 1996 and 29 September 2002 to fund a "luxury lifestyle", regularly dining out and holidaying in France, The Caribbean and the United States. He was also accused of pocketing "substantial sums" through his interests in two firms.^[16] Joanna Greenberg QC, prosecuting, said that from 1996, Mote had filled out benefit claim forms stating that he was unemployed and had no financial assets, even though at the time he had business interests in an international marketing firm called Tanner Management and another company, JC Commercial Management.^[17]

Conviction[link]

On 17 August 2007 Mote was found guilty by a jury of 21 charges of deception by falsely claiming £65,506 in benefits, and acquitted of a further four charges. Judge Richard Price warned him to expect a custodial sentence, but allowed bail on condition that Mote surrendered his British and diplomatic passports, as well as providing £50,000 in sureties.^[18]

He was sentenced on 31 August to nine months imprisonment to be served in Ford open prison, West Sussex. During sentencing, Judge Price said that Mote, "a truly dishonest man",^[19] had executed a "carefully planned scheme of dishonesty" and had taken "a great deal of trouble to cover [his] tracks",^[20] adding that "[t]o say that this case has ruined you is an understatement, it is a tragedy." Mote's defence counsel described his client as a Walter Mitty character and admitted that the sentence was a "massive fall from grace".^[15] Mote applied for the third time to the CFI for relief against the impending imprisonment, highlighting the urgent nature of his request. This was also rejected by the CFI on 22 November 2007.

Reacting to the sentence, the leader of the UK Independence Party, Nigel Farage, said he was "disgusted and horrified" at the leniency of the sentence.^[15] If Mote had been jailed for more than one year, he would have lost his seat in the European Parliament, which could have been reassigned to another representative. Farage added that if "Mote had a shred of integrity left, he'd resign."^[15]

Mote was released from prison in November 2007 under the Government's tagging scheme.^[21]

Appeal[link]

Mote appealed the decision of Portsmouth Crown Court to the Court of Appeal on two main grounds. First, that he had applied to the European Court of Justice to have his immunity as an MEP upheld and that it was an abuse of process for the Crown Court not to have suspended the case pending its decision. Second, that the fact the jury had convicted him on 21 counts of fraud and acquitted him on 4 counts was inconsistent. Giving his judgment, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, stated that Portsmouth Crown Court had correctly decided that there was no need to wait for the CFI's decision, noting in any case that it was unlikely the CFI would differ in its final judgment from the decision of the European Parliament. On the second ground of appeal, the Court did, however, quash one of the counts of fraud - that of failing to notify.^[13]

The CFI handed down its decision on 15 October 2008. Mote had argued that the European Parliament had incorrectly interpreted Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities concerning the immunity from prosecution of MEPs, that the Parliament should not have expressed an opinion on the merits of his fraud prosecution and that the decision to waive his immunity was "unreasonable and disproportionate", inadequately reasoned and taken without full consideration of the facts and arguments he had put forward. These arguments were all rejected by the Court, which ordered him to pay the Parliament's legal costs.^[22]

Repayment of benefits[link]

The decision of Chichester District Council finding that benefits had been overpaid to Mote had been challenged by him before the Social Security Appeal Tribunal. The appeals were pending at the time Mote was committed for trial at the Crown Court, and were heard on 3 September 2004, although Mote was not present. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, and Mote appealed to the Social Security Commissioners who dismissed his action on 20 July 2006. The Court of Appeal agreed to hear a further appeal and Mote argued that the Social Security Appeal Tribunal should have adjourned the case pending the outcome of Mote's criminal proceedings. This was rejected by the Court which held that the continuation of the proceedings did not constitute a breach of Mote's human rights.^[23][24]

As a result of the decision, Mote was obliged to repay £67,000 of the falsely claimed benefits.^[25]

Catalyst for change in the law[link]

Sarah Ludford MEP called for the British Government to change the law in the wake of the Mote case, explaining that the European Parliament had been powerless to intervene in the case as Mote's eligibility as an MEP was solely a question of UK law. She expressed the sentiment that "MEPs are deeply unhappy at our inability to chuck out Mr Mote."^[26] The Commons Leader Harriet Harman shared these concerns and said that she was "in discussions regarding how we might explore options for reviewing the legislation", adding that "[t]he aim of this would be to ensure that, in future, the salaries of MPs and MEPs who are in prison would not be paid on the basis that they are not actually carrying out all their functions."^[27]

References[link]

Bibliography[link]

• Mote, Ashley, The Glory Days of Cricket: the Extraordinary Story of Broadhalfpenny Down, 1997, Robson Books Limited (winner of the Cricket Society's 1997 Cricket Book of the Year prize).
• Mote, Ashley, (ed.) John Nyren's Cricketers of my Time, the Original Version, 1998, Robson Books Limited (the full original text with introduction and explanatory footnotes by the editor).

External links[link]

Official website[link]

• Official Website

Requests for immunity[link]

• Report by Klaus-Heiner Lehne MEP recommending waiving Mote's immunity, 22 June 2005
• Resolution of the European Parliament waiving immunity, 5 July 2005
• Report by Francesco Speroni MEP on Mote's request for immunity, 28 June 2007
• Resolution of the European Parliament deciding not to defend Mote's immunity, 10 July 2007

Court decisions[link]

• Mote v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) and Chichester District Council (2), Court of Appeal decision, 14 December 2007
• Mote v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Court of Appeal decision, 27 December 2007
• Mote v European Parliament, Court of First Instance decision, 15 October 2008