|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Midlands
Posts: 1,525
|
M3, there is no doubt in my mind that the LT is designed to reinforce the "state-building" activities of the EU. Those provisions that exist for democratic national intervention by any member state are weak and there are no scrutiny mechanisms in place, as per usual.
Re the QMV: from 2014 qualified majority voting in the Council will require a 'double majority' with 55% of the States representing 65% of the population. The Council can either be involved in co-decision with the EP (which IIRC means the usual audience participation type voting) or consultation, which in practice means they'll presumably ignore any EP negativity. There is an option whereby a minority of member states can ask for a re-consideration of a legislative proposal before its adoption. IMHO, it's unlikely that they will take that option often and if they do, they'll either get ignored, out-voted, or out-manoeuvred.
The UK has negotiated further opt-outs regarding the entire area covered by the Justice & Home Affairs section of the treaty since the original constitution. It can choose to opt-out of any new proposal in this area. It can also opt-in. 
The EU still expects national law and order and the safeguarding of national security to be performed by the individual member states, and the geographical demarcation of the existing external borders of the UK still belongs to the UK, within international law. We'd better not try to invade Poland...
Citizenship of the EU is in addition to national citizenship, not a replacement for it.
Member states can set their own limits on non-EU immigration; there are supposed to be no internal border controls. Legal migration is covered by unanimous voting in the Council but only consultation of the EP.
This doesn't entail a loss of veto as the UK government negotiated an opt-out regarding immigration, asylum and civil law when they gave up our veto at the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999. The UK is giving up a veto re policing and criminal law in return for another opt-out.
I would be worried about Article 67a:
Quote:
When necessary to achieve the objectives set out in Article 61, as regards preventing and combating terrorism and related activities, the European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall define a framework for administrative measures with regard to capital movements and payments, such as the freezing of funds, financial assets or economic gains belonging to, or owned or held by, natural or legal persons, groups or non-state entities.
The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt measures in order to implement the framework referred to in the first paragraph.
The acts referred to in this Article shall include necessary provisions on legal safeguards.
|
Definition of terrorist? When your entire life history is on the NIR, wait for the knock on the door...
In Article 68 it's clear that the Commission will share its monopoly on making proposals concerning policing and criminal law with a quarter of the Member States (meaning at least seven Member States, out of the current membership of 27), compared to the current position, where the Commission or any individual Member State may make proposals in this area.
Regarding the existence of the UK as a nation state and the role of the HoC/HoL:
Quote:
Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the intended action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.
The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. National Parliaments shall ensure compliance with that principle in accordance with the procedure set out in that Protocol.
|
That actually increases the role of national parliaments, compared to the original Constitution.
Amazingly, other than the option for a million citizens of a large number of member states to request a proposal to be put forward (roving bands of eurosceptics demanding secession, perhaps?), there is also the option to get suspended from the EU for not upholding its values:
Quote:
Article 7
1. On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members, after obtaining the assent consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of principles mentioned in Article 6(1) the values referred to in Article 2 and address appropriate recommendations to that State. Before making such a determination, the Council shall hear the Member State in question and may address appropriate recommendations to that State, acting in accordance with the same procedure, may call on independent persons to submit within a reasonable time limit a report on the situation in the Member State in question.
The Council shall regularly verify that the grounds on which such a determination was made continue to apply.
2. The Council, meeting in the composition of the Heads of State or Government and The European Council, acting by unanimity on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the Commission and after obtaining the assent consent of the European Parliament, may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of principles mentioned in Article 6(1) the values referred to in Article 2, after inviting the government of the Member State in question to submit its observations.
3. Where such a determination has been made, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of this Treaty the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council. In doing so, the Council shall take into account the possible consequences of such a suspension on the rights and obligations of natural and legal persons.
The obligations of the Member State in question under this Treaty the Treaties shall in any case continue to be binding on that State.
4. The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide subsequently to vary or revoke measures taken under paragraph 2 in response to changes in the situation which led to their being imposed.
|
Article 8c lays out the role of national parliaments; Westminster will still exist and not just to take over the role of the European Parliament in rubber-stamping certain EU legislation. Interestingly enough, if you read the entire treaty, it becomes clear that the EP is being stripped of some of its existing controls over the EU. Presumably all those failed budget audits have had an effect after all.  Let's face it, if more than 600 MPs thought they were going to lose their jobs, the LT would have been rejected by now.
Most important, Article 35:
Quote:
Article 35
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.
That agreement shall negotiated in accordance with Article 188n of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; it shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the Council or European Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 205 (3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 34.
|
|