DOCSLIB.ORG

The Treaty of Lisbon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Treaty of Lisbon Th e Treaty of Lisbon: A Second Look at the Institutional Innovations September 2010 Joint Study EUROPEAN POLICY CENTRE RAPPORTEURS: CEPS Piotr Maciej Kaczyński and Peadar ó Broin. EGMONT – THE ROYAL INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Franklin Dehousse, Philippe de Schoutheete, Tinne Heremans, Jacques Keller, Guy Milton (in association) and Nick Witney (in association). EUROPEAN POLICY CENTRE Janis Emmanouilidis, Antonio Missiroli, and Corina Stratulat. –––––––––– Articles in this publication represent the views of the authors and not necessarily those of the institutions to which they belong. All rights of copy, reproduction and translation in any form or by any means for all countries are strictly reserved to CEPS, Egmont and EPC. © Copyright 2010 Th e Treaty of Lisbon: A Second Look at the Institutional Innovations Joint CEPS, EGMONT and EPC Study September 2010 INTRODUCTION . 3 THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL . 5 THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT . 29 THE COMMISSION . 45 THE PRESIDENCY TRIANGLE . 63 DELEGATED AND IMPLEMENTING ACTS UNDER THE LISBON TREATY: WHAT FUTURE FOR COMITOLOGY? . 85 NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS & SUBSIDIARITY CHECK: A NEW ACTOR IN TOWN . 107 THE CITIZENS’ INITIATIVE: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES . 121 EXTERNAL ACTION: A WORK IN PROGRESS . 139 DEFENCE: PERMANENT STRUCTURED COOPERATION . 163 SIMPLIFIED TREATY REVISION POSSIBILITIES WITHIN THE LISBON TREATY . 177 CONCLUSION . 187 LIST OF ANNEXES . 195 1 INTRODUCTION Th ree years ago, three Brussels based think tanks thought it useful to join eff orts in analysing potential implications of the Lisbon Treaty in the fi eld of institutions. At the time that Treaty had not been ratifi ed and the question of whether it would ever come into force was an open one. Th e result of their eff orts was published in November 2007 as a joint study under the title Th e Treaty of Lisbon: Implementing the Institutional Innovations[1]. It attracted the attention of policy makers, national and European administrations and the academic community. Now that the Treaty has come into force and that the institutional innovations are gradually being implemented, the same three think tanks have thought it useful to revisit and develop their joint analysis. It is obviously too early to pass fi nal judg- ment on the implications of the Lisbon Treaty on the institutional framework of the Union. Past experience shows that it takes a period of fi ve to ten years to be able to exercise that sort of judgment. But some trends are already apparent. One aspect common to all European treaties is that, as a general rule, they are not implemented in the exact context, and with the precise objectives, in which they were conceived. Th is is due in part to the length of the ratifi cation process, particularly signifi cant in the case of the Lisbon Treaty. It is also due to changing circumstances. Two major challenges, which were not so obvious when the Treaty texts were ini- tially drafted, determine the context in which they are being implemented. Climate and energy is accepted as the major issue of the new century and the European Union strives to infl uence global solutions, not always successfully as was shown by the Copenhagen conference. Th e banking and fi nancial crisis, initiated in the United States, has economic and monetary consequences which are gradually unfolding, and they infl uence the balance of economic power in the world. Both challenges are a source of considerable external pressure as the European Union, like other world actors, tries to adapt to the co-management of globalisation. It is with those considerations in mind, that ten issues have been identifi ed and are dealt with in the following chapters. As in any collective eff ort, the three institu- tions involved share the general conclusions to which they have come, but do not necessarily feel bound by the specifi c formulations in each chapter. [1] Joint Study The Treaty of Lisbon: Implementing the Institutional Innovations (Brussels, CEPS, EGMONT and EPC, Novem- ber 2007), retrievable at: http://www.egmontinstitute.be/SD/Joint_Study_complet.pdf, hereafter referred to as “First Lisbon Study”. 3 THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL 5 The European Council 1. BEFORE LISBON Th e European Council was created at the Paris summit of 1974 in order to ensure progress and overall consistency in European aff airs. A regular but informal “fi reside chat” (kamingespräch, said Willy Brandt) of Heads of State or Government should give new dynamism and political impulse to European integration. Jean Monnet called it the beginning of a European authority. Tindemans hoped that it would give the continuing political momentum needed for the construction of Europe. High expectations have certainly been fulfi lled. By the end of the century it was being called “the arbiter of systemic change”, “the principal agenda setter and the core of the EU’s executive”[1], or “the primary source of history making decisions”[2]. Th e gradually increasing power of the Heads of State or Government can be mapped through the history of treaty changes. Th ey had only marginal infl uence on the drafting of the Single European Act (1985). Th ey played a more signifi cant role in the Maastricht negotiation (1992), but completing essential work done beforehand by Foreign (CFSP) and Finance Ministers (Monetary Union). Th ey took centre stage in the Amsterdam negotiation (1997) and have never left it since. Both the Nice Treaty and the six-year saga that leads from the end of the Convention to the ratifi cation of the Lisbon Treaty were determined and fi nally resolved by action at European Council level. Th ere is no doubt that the European Council has been a positive instrument of change. It has moved the fl edgling European Community of the sixties to the larger, more diverse, but certainly more integrated European Union of today. An instrument deliberately created by some (and feared by others) as purely inter- governmental, has led to, or at least condoned, more supranational authority, for instance in Parliament or on the euro. But it is also clear that the European Council has gained power and political space at the expense of the original Community institutions. Quite obviously the Commis- sion is no longer today the main initiator of the integration process, as it was in the early years of the Community. Th e Council of Ministers is no longer the ultimate decision taker on most important issues. Th ose roles have been in practice taken over by the European Council. Gradually over two decades, real power, political guidance and impetus, moved to an entity outside the institutional framework. When that happens the institutional structure is inevitably weakened. [1] LUDLOW, P., The Laeken Council (European Council Commentary) (Brussels, EuroComment, 2002), pp. 5-15. [2] PETERSON, J. and BOMBERG, E., Decision-Making in the European Union (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 1999), p. 33. 7 The Treaty of Lisbon — A Second Look at the Institutional Innovations Over the years the main achievement of the European Council has been the abil- ity to fi nd solutions where normal Council procedures were failing: on the British budgetary problem in the eighties for instance. It has also usefully operated as a collective head on major policy issues, such as enlargement or the euro. But per- ceived weaknesses came in parallel with the achievements. Two weaknesses, that became very obvious in the nineties, were overload and procedural improvisation: • Too many issues landed on the table of the European Council which should have been settled elsewhere within the institutional system of the Union. Too many problems were postponed for discussion in an indefi nite future because of obvious or suspected disagreement. Written conclusions were clogged with irrelevant material. In view of their national obligations, Heads of State or Government simply do not have the time to settle a wide variety of European issues. Th ey operate optimally when dealing with one central issue, but at most meetings they found a dozen on their agenda. • Because the European Council was not initially conceived as an institution it operated in a world apart. Successive meetings were held in an improb- able variety of Renaissance fortresses and palaces, nineteenth century hotels, modern conference buildings and trade centres, housing an ever-increasing number of delegates and journalists. Successive presidencies had their own objectives, their own ways of preparing meetings through personal contacts, a lightning tour of capitals and telephone calls. Conclusions were drafted in the night and distributed at dawn. Responsibility for the implementation of decisions remained diff use and uncertain. Th is combination resulted in chaos. Tony Blair, leaving the Nice European Coun- cil in 2000 famously stated: “We cannot go on working like this”. Th e Secretary General of the Council, Javier Solana, was tasked with the drafting of a report on the functioning of the European Council. His report was uncompromising: the European Council has been sidetracked from its original purpose, he stated, and presidency is used for furthering national preoccupations and inappropriate exercises in self-congratulation. Th is stark analysis resulted in a number of procedural changes adopted at Seville [1] in June 2002. European Council meetings were generally held in Brussels. [1] This results from Declaration 22 annexed to the Final Act of the Nice Treaty: “When the Union comprises 18 members, all European Council meetings will be held in Brussels”. 8 The European Council COREPER and the General Aff airs Council undertook the preparation of draft conclusions prior to the meeting itself. Some eff ort was made to limit the size of delegations, the number of points on the agenda and the length of conclusions. It was certainly a change for the better. 2. FROM CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY TO LISBON RATIFICATION Th e Convention, which met in 2002 and 2003 to prepare treaty changes, led to an unprecedented exercise in collective refl ection on institutional matters.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Is Europe Back on Track? Impetus from the German EU Presidency
    Is Europe back on track? Impetus from the German EU Presidency CEPS Working Document No. 273/July 2007 Sebastian Kurpas & Henning Riecke Abstract Rarely has an EU Presidency been met with such high expectations as Germany’s in the first half of 2007. With hindsight, it might be said that these expectations have largely been fulfilled. The agreement on a detailed mandate for the upcoming Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) under the Portuguese Presidency now offers a way forward for a Union that has been ‘in crisis’ since the French and Dutch no-votes. This report offers an overview of the German Presidency’s aims in the various policy areas and makes an assessment of the achievements of its six-month term. A summary of the content and structural background of German EU policy is given, explaining developments since unification, Germany’s motivations for European integration, public opinion on European integration and the stances taken by the key political players in Germany. Insight into the organisational structures of the Presidency appears in the annex. While acknowledging the difficulty of gauging the exact impact of the German presidency in relation to other factors, the report draws mostly positive conclusions on internal policies, where agreement on many concrete measures from the presidency’s work programme could be achieved, notably on the single market, justice and home affairs, climate protection and energy policy. With the ‘Berlin Declaration’ Germany achieved a show of unity for the future of the Union that was an auspicious start for the talks on treaty reform. While it is clear that the agreement reached was not only on Germany’s merit, the presidency played a prominent and constructive role throughout the negotiations.
    [Show full text]
  • BEYOND the WALL Twenty Years of Europeanisation As Seen from the Former Yugoslavia
    BEYOND THE WALL Twenty years of Europeanisation as seen from the former Yugoslavia Conference organized by Notre Europe and Kulturni Front Belgrade, 13-16 December 2009 Programme Strasbourg, 2009 © Martin Kollár OPENING CULTURAL EVENING Venue: European Centre for Culture and Debate GRAD, Braće Krsmanović 4 Sunday, 13 December 6.30pm: Opening of the photo exhibition “The European Parliament – Future archive” by Martin Kollár, Slovak photographer 8.30pm: Film: Snijeg (Snow) followed by discussion with lead actress Zana Marjanović Moderator: Milan Rakita Strasbourg, 2007 © Martin Kollár CONFERENCE Venue: Palace Serbia, Mihajlo Pupin Boulevard Monday, 14 December 9.30am: Welcome of guests: Joachim Bitterlich (Vice-President, Notre Europe) Aziliz Gouez (Researcher, Notre Europe); Dejan Ubović (Director, Kulturni Front) 10.00am: Introduction Božidar Đelić (Serbian Deputy Prime Minister for European Integration) 10.30am: Keynote speeches Ivan Vujačić (former Serbian Ambassador to the United States of America) Jacques Rupnik (Professor, Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Internationales, Paris) 11.30am: State and states of the former Yugoslavia: a political overview Pierre Mirel (Director, DG Enlargement, European Commission) 12.00pm – 1.30pm: LUNCH BREAK SESSION 1: “MY SAFE EUROPEAN HOME” 1.30pm – 4pm: From Marxism to Marks & Spencer’s: promises of prosperity in a re-formed Europe Introduction and chair: Chris Hann (Director, Max Planck Institute, Halle/Saale) Tristes socialismes – et plus tristes encore post-socialismes ? [Lecture in English]
    [Show full text]
  • 50 YEARS of EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT HISTORY and Subjugated
    European Parliament – 50th birthday QA-70-07-089-EN-C series 1958–2008 Th ere is hardly a political system in the modern world that does not have a parliamentary assembly in its institutional ‘toolkit’. Even autocratic or totalitarian BUILDING PARLIAMENT: systems have found a way of creating the illusion of popular expression, albeit tamed 50 YEARS OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT HISTORY and subjugated. Th e parliamentary institution is not in itself a suffi cient condition for granting a democratic licence. Yet the existence of a parliament is a necessary condition of what 1958–2008 we have defi ned since the English, American and French Revolutions as ‘democracy’. Since the start of European integration, the history of the European Parliament has fallen between these two extremes. Europe was not initially created with democracy in mind. Yet Europe today is realistic only if it espouses the canons of democracy. In other words, political realism in our era means building a new utopia, that of a supranational or post-national democracy, while for two centuries the DNA of democracy has been its realisation within the nation-state. Yves Mény President of the European University Institute, Florence BUILDING PARLIAMENT: BUILDING 50 YEARS OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT HISTORY PARLIAMENT EUROPEAN OF YEARS 50 ISBN 978-92-823-2368-7 European Parliament – 50th birthday series Price in Luxembourg (excluding VAT): EUR 25 BUILDING PARLIAMENT: 50 YEARS OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT HISTORY 1958–2008 This work was produced by the European University Institute, Florence, under the direction of Yves Mény, for the European Parliament. Contributors: Introduction, Jean-Marie Palayret; Part One, Luciano Bardi, Nabli Beligh, Cristina Sio Lopez and Olivier Costa (coordinator); Part Two, Pierre Roca, Ann Rasmussen and Paolo Ponzano (coordinator); Part Three, Florence Benoît-Rohmer; Conclusions, Yves Mény.
    [Show full text]
  • 12074 CER Annual Report 2015 LOW RES PDF.Indd
    Annual Report 2015 CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN REFORM 12074 CER annual report cover for Web Solid blue and White 2015 GB.indd 2 08/02/2016 15:19 THE CER IN DECEMBER 2015 About the CER FROM LEFT TO RIGHT, TOP TO BOTTOM: Daniel Crewes, The Centre for European Reform is a think-tank devoted to making the European Union work Ian Bond, better and strengthening its role in the world. The CER is pro-European but not uncritical. Christian Odendahl, We regard European integration as largely benefi cial but recognise that in many respects Rem Korteweg, the Union does not work well. We also think that the EU should take on more responsibilities Simon Tilford, globally, on issues ranging from climate change to security. The CER aims to promote an open, Agata Gostyńska- outward-looking and eff ective European Union. Jakubowska, Sophia Besch, Through our meetings, seminars and conferences, we bring together people from the worlds Anna Yorke, of politics and business, as well as other opinion-formers. Most of our events are by invitation Kate Mullineux, only and off -the-record, to ensure a high level of debate. Jordan Orsler, Camino Mortera- The conclusions of our research and seminars are refl ected in our publications, as well as Martinez , in the private papers and briefi ngs that senior offi cials, ministers and commissioners ask us John Springford, to provide. Charles Grant, Sophie Horsford. The CER is an independent, private, not-for-profi t organisation. We are not affi liated to any government, political party or European institution. Our work is funded mainly by donations from the private sector.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. the Constitution for Europe and the Lisbon Treaty
    Bogdan Koszel Adam Mickiewicz University Poznań FRENCH-GERMAN COOPERATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION IN 2007-20131 1. The Constitution for Europe and the Lisbon Treaty The Bundestag election campaign in the second half of 2005 overlapped with a serious crisis in the European Union that resulted from the failure to implement Germany’s coveted project of the Constitution for Europe. The Treaty, pushed by the SPD-Greens coalition government, and especially by Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and Foreign Affairs Minister Joschka Fischer, was signed on 29 October 2004 at the Roman Capitoline Hill and needed to be ratified by the European Parliament and parliaments of EU Member States. After its ratification by the German Bundestag and Bundesrat (12 and 27 May 2005), the finale of the referendum campaign in France was monitored by Germany with great concern as the number of opponents of the European constitution was on the rise in France. The pessimistic scenario came true, and on 29 May 2005 the French (54.87%) rejected the Constitutional Treaty which led to a political upheaval in the European Union. The explicit, though expected, French vote of no confidence for this project disappointed Brussels and puzzled Berlin. After the French referendum, the position of President Jacques Chirac notably weakened in French politics. His political instinct clearly failed him, as his decision on holding the referendum and the assumed victory of supporters of the European Constitution was intended to strengthen his position on the French political arena, which did not happen2. The direct consequence of the unsuccessful referendum was the dismissal of the government of Jean Pierre Raffarin and the appointment of the cabinet of Dominique de Villepin (31 May 2005).
    [Show full text]
  • Schengen Reloaded by Raoul Ueberecken Schengen Reloaded by Raoul Ueberecken
    November 2019 Schengen reloaded By Raoul Ueberecken Schengen reloaded By Raoul Ueberecken The Schengen borderless area remains one of the EU’s most popular achievements. Though EU politicians may suggest otherwise, it does not need a complete overhaul; but it would benefit from being updated. Schengen works because its benefits and burdens are shared; because there is a high degree of mutual trust among its members; and because the original Schengen regime has been subsumed in the much broader EU area of freedom, security and justice, which is based on the same principles. In recent years, the area of freedom, security and justice has come under strain; the benefits and burdens have sometimes seemed to be unequally shared, and mutual trust has been eroding. Implementation is a genuine challenge for member-states: they do not all have the same administrative capacity or resources. But if member-states cannot trust each other to carry out their obligations, Schengen will not be able to function. The EU needs a peer review system to evaluate compliance with obligations, ensuring that all member- states are tested against the same benchmarks, regularly and objectively. Where there are shortcomings, the EU should provide financial, technical and legal support to those member-states that need it. The EU can also help to improve co-operation between law enforcement agencies in member-states. EU bodies like Europol enable national agencies to work together more effectively than they could in the past; but rules on cross-border police co-operation need to be modernised. The interoperability of law-enforcement and migration databases was a priority for the outgoing Commission, but is still a long way from being achieved.
    [Show full text]
  • Options for the German EU Presidency ANDREAS MAURER
    Per27sta3 10.4.2007 8:34 Stránka 100 (Black plát) 100 ▲ 116 Managing Expectations and Hidden Demands: Options for the German EU Presidency ANDREAS MAURER Abstract: The “pause for thought” decreed by the heads of state and the government (after the voters in France and the Netherlands rejected the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe) has been extended for at least another year. The European Council meeting held on the 15th and 16th of June 2006 did little more than sketch out the way forward for the period 2006–2008. By the end of 2008, decisions should be made about how to continue the reform process. Before anyone can agree on how to move forward, all 27 European Union member states would have to state clearly what goals they are pursuing in the process of institutional reform (a process which all sides agree is necessary) and what steps they believe are required for achieving these goals. In this context, clear statements on the importance of the Treaty and its fate are needed. It is unlikely that Consensus on these issues be achieved among all 27 member states. Regardless, in order to allow a constructive discussion to take place, the 27 member states would have to agree on a shared criteria for assessing the reform proposals, that are on the table and on the options for resolving the “constitutional crisis.” Key words: EU presidency, EU institutional reform, EU constitutional treaty, German EU policy The pause for thought on the future of the EU was officially prolonged at the European Council meeting on the 15th and 16th of June 2006.1 According to the Conclusions of the European Council, in the first semester 2007, the German EU-Presidency will present a report on the discussions with regard to the Constitutional Treaty and will explore possible future developments.
    [Show full text]
  • Review Course Lectures
    Review Course Lectures presented at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the International Anesthesia Research Society Honolulu, Hawaii March 20-23, 2010 IARS 2009 REVIEW COURSE LECTURES The material included in the publication has not undergone peer review or review by the Editorial Board of Anesthesia and Analgesia for this publication. Any of the material in this publication may have been transmitted by the author to IARS in various forms of electronic medium. IARS has used its best efforts to receive and format electronic submissions for this publication but has not reviewed each abstract for the purpose of textual error correction and is not liable in any way for any formatting, textual, or grammatical error or inaccuracy. ©2010 International Anesthesia Research Society 2 ©International Anesthesia Research Society. Unauthorized Use Prohibited. IARS 2009 REVIEW COURSE LECTURES Table of Contents Ultrasound Guided Regional Anesthesia in Infants, Neuroanesthesia for the Occasional Children and Adolescents Neuroanesthesiologist Santhanam Suresh, MD FAAP .................1 Adrian W. Gelb ............................36 Vice Chairman, Department of Pediatric Anesthesi- Professor & Vice Chair ology, Children’s Memorial Hospital Department of Anesthesia & Perioperative Care Prof. of Anesthesiology & Pediatrics, Northwestern University of California San Francisco University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL Perioperative Control Of Hypertension: When Does Neuromuscular Blockers and their Reversal in 2010 It Adversely Affect Perioperative Outcome? François Donati, PhD, MD.....................6 John W. Sear, MA, PhD, FFARCS, FANZCA .......39 Professor, Departement of Anesthesiology Nuffield Department of Anesthetics, Université de montréal University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital Montréal, Québec, Canada Oxford, United Kingdom Anaphylactic and Anaphylactoid Perioperative Approach to Patients with Reactions in the Surgical Patient Respiratory Disease: Is There a Role \Jerrold H.
    [Show full text]
  • New Council Secretary-General Takes Office
    COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION EN Brussels, 27 June 2011 11553/11 PRESSE 174 New Council Secretary-General takes office Uwe Corsepius took office on 26 June as Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union. Mr. Corsepius, aged 50, was European policy advisor to the German Chancellor from 2006 to February 2011 and since then has been economic and financial policy advisor to the Chancellor and G8 sherpa. He will take over from Pierre de Boissieu who has been Secretary-General since 1 December 2009 and was Deputy Secretary-General from October 1999 to 30 November 2009. The Council appointed Mr. Corsepius on 22 December 2009 for the period from 26 June 2011 to 30 June 2015 ( 17603/09 ). It took this decision in accordance with article 240(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. Attached : CV of Uwe Corsepius P R E S S Rue de la Loi 175 B – 1048 BRUSSELS Tel.: +32 (0) 2 281 6319 Fax: +32 (0)2 281 8026 [email protected] http://www.consilium.europa.eu/Newsroom 11553/11 1 EN Background The Council of the European Union is assisted by a General Secretariat, under the responsibility of a Secretary-General appointed by the Council. The General Secretariat is engaged in organising, coordinating and ensuring the coherence of the Council's work. It assists the Presidency of the Council in seeking solutions. The General Secretariat of the Council, under the authority of its Secretary-General, also assists the European Council and its President. The Secretary-General of the Council attends the meetings of the European Council and takes all the measures necessary for the organisation of proceedings.
    [Show full text]
  • EU Engagement with Other European Regional Organisations
    tering Human Rights among European Policies EU engagement with other European regional organisations Anna-Luise Chané, Agata Hauser, Jakub Jaraczewski, Władysław Jóźwicki, Zdzisław Kędzia, Michaela Anna Šimáková, Hanna Suchocka, Stuart Wallace 30 April 2016 Fostering Human Rights among European Policies Large-Scale FP7 Collaborative Project GA No. 320000 1 May 2013-30 April 2017 EU engagement with other European regional organisations Work Package No. 5 – Deliverable No. 2 Due date 30 April 2016 Submission date 30 April 2016 Dissemination level PU Lead Beneficiary Adam Mickiewicz University Authors Anna-Luise Chané, Agata Hauser, Jakub Jaraczewski, Władysław Jóźwicki, Zdzisław Kędzia, Michaela Anna Šimáková, Hanna Suchocka, Stuart Wallace http://www.fp7-frame.eu doi.org/20.500.11825/86 FRAME Deliverable No. 5.2 Acknowledgements The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under the Grant Agreement FRAME (project n° 320000). The research carried out at Adam Mickiewicz University was funded domestically from the AMU budget and funds for international co-financed projects for the years 2014-2017 issued by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, agreement no. 3156/7.PR/2014/2. The authors are grateful to Katharina Häusler, Karin Lukas and Monika Mayrhofer from Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Human Rights (Vienna) and Eva Maria Lassen from Danish Institute for Human Rights (Copenhagen) as well as other colleagues from both aforementioned institutions for their insightful comments on earlier versions of this report. All errors of course remain the authors’ own. The authors are equally thankful to the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, EU Member States and third states officials and other human rights scholars and practitioners who agreed to share their expertise with a view to this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report
    Can France and Germany steer Europe to success? Annual Report 2019 THE CER IN JULY 2019 About the CER FROM LEFT TO RIGHT, TOP TO BOTTOM: John Springford, The Centre for European Reform is an award-winning, independent Ian Bond, think-tank that seeks to achieve an open, outward-looking, Agata Gostyńska- Jakubowska, influential and prosperous European Union, with close ties to its Sam Lowe, neighbours and allies. The CER’s work in pursuit of those aims is Nick Winning, guided by the same principles that have served us well since our Peadar Ó hÚbáin, Kate Mullineux, foundation in 1998: sober, rigorous and realistic analysis, combined Bea Dunscombe, with constructive proposals for reform. Beth Oppenheim, Sophie Horsford, The CER’s reputation as a trusted source of intelligence and timely analysis Jordan Orsler, of European affairs is based on its two strongest assets: experienced and Charles Grant, respected experts, plus an unparalleled level of contacts with senior figures Camino Mortera- in governments across Europe and in the EU’s institutions. Since the UK’s Martinez and Luigi referendum on EU membership we have reinforced our networks in Scazzieri Europe by opening offices in Brussels in January 2017 and Berlin in October Absent from the 2018. The diverse perspectives and specialisations of our researchers, half photo: Sophia Besch, of whom are from EU-27 countries, enhance the quality and breadth of our Rosie Giorgi, Christian analysis of European politics, economics and foreign policy. Odendahl, Khrystyna Parandii and Emma Roberts The CER is pro-European but not uncritical. We regard European integration as largely beneficial but recognise that in many respects the Union under- performs, at home and beyond its borders.
    [Show full text]
  • Festival D'europa Booklet
    6-10 May 2011 Florence The Festival of Europe - Mission Florence as the place for interpreting and reflecting on the Europe of tomorrow. Florence as the home of the only European academic institution, the European University Institute, founded by the member states of the European Communities. Florence as a workshop for European Union communications to its citizens. Florence as a showcase for the activities of the European Union and its member States. The Festival of Europe, conceived and coordinated by the European University Institute, aims to highlight this “unusual” vocation of the Tuscan capital. The event will see the active participation of the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Italian Ministry for European Affairs - in collaboration with the Foreign Affairs Ministry and the major local institutions such as Tuscany Regional council, Florence provincial and city councils, the regional Board of Education, Florence University and the Chamber of Commerce and the Italian Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) Agency. The highlight of the event is the “Conference on the State UNDER DISTINGUISHED IDEATED AND PROMOTED BY SPONSORED BY of the Union”, where debates at the highest level are foreseen regarding PATRONAGE the progress made on the road to European integration since the Treaty of OF THE PRESIDENT Lisbon. OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC Jerzy Buzek, President of the European Parliament, José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, the Italian Minister for Foreign PROMOTED BY Affairs, Franco Frattini, the European Commissioner for Education, Culture, Multilingualism, Sport, Media and Youth Androulla Vassilou and other personalities will take part in the Conference, to be held in Palazzo Vecchio th th politicheeuropee.it on May 9 and 10 .
    [Show full text]