sign in sign up
<<
Home , Davignon report, Maastricht, Maastricht Treaty, Single European Act, Treaty of Amsterdam, Treaty of Paris (1951)

on the move

Treaty of : what has changed in Europe

Europ.!an COmm ll>lOn This booklet is published in all the official EU languages of the Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spani sh and Swedish.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet It can be accessed through the Europa server (http!/europa.eu.int).

Manuscript completed in June 1999

Cover © Nutan

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the , 1999

ISBN 92·828·7400·1

© European Communities, 1999 Reproduction is authorised.

Printed in

Pili TE D ON WHITE CHlORIN H RH PAPER : what has changed in Europe Contents

The European Union and its citizens 9 Citizens' rights 9 Responding to citizens' concerns 10 Employment and social affairs 11 Security, freed om and justice 12 The environment, health and consumers' rights 13 People's values and aspirations 14 Citizens' political influence 16

The identity of the Union on the international stage 17 The common foreign and security policy 17 Decisio n-making procedures 18 Structures 19 Defe nce 19 The common commercial policy 20

The EU institutions 21 The 21 National parliaments 22 The Council 23 The 24 The Court of Justice 24 The Court of Auditors 25 The Economic and Social Committee 25 The Committee of the Regions 26 Decision-making procedures 26 'Committee procedures' 27 Closer cooperation 27

What next? 28 Signing of the Treaty ofAmsterdam, 2 October 7997.

On 1 May 1999 the Treaty of Amster­ efficiency and democracy, and the dam came into force and the ­ EU's place in international affairs. pean Union has emerged somewhat altered. It now has new responsibil­ The Treaty had created ities, its citizens have a greater say in European , introducing a its affairs, and its institutions are set of rights and obligations for citi ­ more democratic. In the past, Euro­ zens of the Member States. But it did pean integration had mainly centred not offer much real substance. Public on economic goals, but now the reaction when the Treaty came to be emphasis has shifted to the EU's poli­ ratified, especially in countries where tical responsibilities at home and on a referendum had to be held, clearly the wider international stage. showed that people would not go along with any further moves towards The origins of the new Treaty go back closer unless to June 1994, when EU leaders sum­ more account was taken of their moned together a special Reflection concerns, hopes and criticisms. Group to consider future reforms. Eventually, after an intergovernmen­ Maastricht had also taken the earlier tal conference lasting over a year, the reforms of 1986 a step further, improv­ Treaty of Amsterdam was finalised on ing the way the Community institu­ the night of 17 to 18 June 1997 and tions worked and strengthening the signed on 2 October later that year. European Parliament's powers, both Why a new Treaty, so soon after two in law making and as a watchdog. other major reforms of the EU's But it still did not go far enough, powers and institutions in 1986 especially now that the EU faced two () and 1992 new challenges: the introduction of ()? The fact is that a the euro, with close economic policy number of issues had still been left coordination; and the prospect of unresolved-issues such as citizens' enlargement to embrace almost the rights and influence, institutional entire continent. \

___' 1_reaty of Amst erdam : wh at ha .. (h ang ed I II Eu rope

Lastly, the was over and the world no longer divided into two Maastricht in brief opposing camps. Europe had to rethink its approach to international The Maastricht Treaty amended affairs in a rapidly changing world. the original treaties setting up the The Maastricht Treaty had set about European Communities, dating defining new structures and proce­ back to the 1950s. It brought to­ dures, but there was still room for fur­ gether in a single text (the Treaty ther reform in foreign policy and on European Union) all the exis­ defence. ting Treaty provisions, plus two major new sections covering foreign policy coordination and cooperation in the fields of justice and home affairs. These are the three 'pillars' on which the Union is built, each with its own rules and procedures, but all coming under a single 'roof. The Treaty of Amster­ dam retained the same overall architecture.

Treaty on European Union Common provisions and final provisions

Common foreign Justice European and and Communities security policy home affairs

(European Community, European Coal and Steel Community, European Atomic Energy Community)

The three 'pillars' of the European Union Like Maastricht, the Treaty of Amster­ vants - generally met once a week dam amends the EU's founding trea­ throughout the conference. ties (as revised by Maastricht). Once the initial preparations were complet­ • The foreign ministers themselves ed, the Member States had to follow met as a rule once a month. the formal amendment procedure required by Community law. • The government leaders (Heads of State or Government) met on several As the timetable shows, the negotia­ occasions to settle key sticking points. tions were long and complex. Around the table were representatives of the The negotiations were much more 15 Member States and the European open to public scrutiny than at the Commission, with obseNers from Par­ time of Maastricht Lobby groups, liament often also present. The nego­ trade unions, and non-governmental tiations went ahead on three levels. organisations followed their progress, submitted proposals and ideas, and • Foreign ministers' personal repre­ even held public demonstrations . sentatives - ministers or top civil ser­

- '\

1rea t)' of Amsterda m what IJilS c·l ange d in Eu rope / ./ Reflecting the 'three-pillar' structure, Amsterdam: this description of the Treaty of Amsterdam is divided into three main timetable sections:

• the European Union and its citi­ • June 1994: zens; the in Corfu calls together a Reflection • the identity of the Union on the Group comprising 15 representatives of the Member international stage; States' foreign ministers, one Commission representative, and two observers from Parliament. • the EU institutions.

• June 1995: first meeting of the group.

• December 1995: report submitted to the European Council in .

• January 1996: decision to convene an intergovernmental conference.

• February to March 1996: Commission and Parliament deliver their opinions.

• March 1996 EU Heads of State or Government open the conference in Turin.

• June 1997: closing session of the conference with EU leaders in Amsterdam.

• October 1997: signature of the Treaty of Amsterdam.

• November 1997: Parliament resolution on the Treaty.

• 1998-99: ratification by the 15 Member States.

• May 1999: the Treaty enters into force . The European Union and its citizens

Citizens'rights The new Treaty concentrates on three main areas. The first European treaties gave citi­ zens a range of individual rights • The EU's obligation to obseNe fun­ based essentially on freedom of damental rights, in particular those movement between the Member enshrined in the European Conven­ States. The Trea ty of Maastricht tion for the Protection of Human added the right to vote and stand as Rights and Fundamental Freedom s a candidate in European and local adopted by the i~ elections. The Treaty of Amsterdam, 1950. Any Member State guilty of on the other hand, focuses on funda­ serious and systematic infringements mental rights - rights underlying the will be liable to penalties, going as Member States' constitutions ­ far as having its right to vote in the which affect everyone. The result is a Council suspended. Equally, respect fairly extensive system of individual for fundamental rights is a precondi­ righ ts. tion for applicant countries to join the EU .

To combat discrimination based on sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. \

__,_Tr c .a ty 01 Arn s Crd41 rn . Whill ha s cha nged I n Elrru pe

• The EU's right to act against any Responding to citizens' kind of discrimination based on sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or concerns beliefs, disability, age or sexual orien­ tation. The Treaty of Amsterdam does not confine itself to dealing with citizens' • The EU's obligation to promote rights in the abstract. It also responds equa l opportunities for men and to people's practical concerns where women in all its policies, above and their rights are under threat and cor­ beyond the existing treaty rules on rective action is needed. The new EU equality in the sphere of social affairs rules can be grouped under four head­ and employment. In employment, the ings: new Treaty opens the door to 'positive discrimination' if one of the sexes is • employment and social affairs; clearly disadvantaged . • security, freedom and justice;

In addition, the Treaty recognises the • the environment, health and right to privacy where personal data consumers' rights; held by the institutions are con­ people's values and aspirations. cerned . This is a right that is beco­ ming increasingly important with advances in information technology.

The result is a rich and open structure that will allow and encourage the fur­ ther extension and protection of citi­ zens' rights. It represents an initial response to the wish voiced by some Member States and many individuals for the EU to have its own system of fundamental rights, complementing the rules already established by the European Court of Justice. Two out­ standing questions remain. Should the EU formally sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights! Should it frame its own list of funda­ mental rights! Employment and social affairs More generally, the European Union will have wider scope for action in the Employment is one of the pnme areas social field than under Maastricht. of concern in society today. Many First of all the new Treaty does away people - including many young with the anomaly of the United King­ people and women - are currently dom's opt-out. Social policy now out of work or face the prospect of covers all the Member States. unemployment. It is a problem affect­ Secondly, the EU can support and ing every country in Europe, so action supplement national efforts in the by the EU is essential. And the broad field of fu nda menta I socia I governments considered the problem rights, as defined by the European so urgent that - together with the Parliament in 1989. Lastly, the Treaty stability pact on public finance and gives the EU powers to tackle poverty growth that accompanied the launch and social exclusion and improves of the euro - they decided to imple­ some of the existing arrangements, ment this part of the Treaty ahead of especially on equal opportunities be­ schedule without even waiting for it tween men and women. to be ratified. In concrete terms, there were three main innovations, as follows.

• The EU has to formulate a Euro ­ pean strategy, while the Member States draw up national employment programmes, which the Council assesses each year against the back ­ ground of the joint European strategy.

• The EU now has the right to take To Improve the certain measures to encourage employment situation, cooperation between the Member a European strategy States and to supplement their supplemented by action. national programmes. • An employment committee has been set up to coordinate national employment and labour market policies.

This approach has made it possible to reconcile two conflicting prin­ ciples providing a specific EU com­ mitment on employment - an innovation that was a bone of contention throughout the intergo­ vernmental conference - while recog­ nising that employment is still primarily a matter for the Member States themselves. \

__I Tr ecl ty 01 r,m slerdJ m- '.'l .iI h a ~ ch tl ngcd i" Eu rope

/

Security, freedom and justice • differences in the law on immigra­ tion and the ; Freedom of movement, one of the European Community's main goals • poor cooperation between the crim­ from the very outset, is now la rgely a inal courts and between police forces reality. But although citizens already in the different Member States. enjoyed the right to move freely in the EU, the forma lities still sometimes The EU had already begun tackling posed problems The Schengen agree­ these issues following Maastricht. But ments (covering all the Member it could only do so through intergov­ States except and the United ernmental cooperation on Justice and Kingdom) have made that right more home affairs, and the results were very modest. Democratic control was tangible than ever, scrapping practi­ limited, the scope for action ham­ cally all internal controls. On strung by the need for unanimous the other hand, public opinion is grow­ decisions, and Judicial control at ing increasingly concerned about European level non-existent. And internal security, especially in view of although some successes were achie­ the spread of serious international ved - setting up , for ins­ crime. With the number of victims tance, to create a nucleus for police constantly on the increase, effective cooperation - a fresh impetus was cooperation between the countries of needed .The Treaty of Amsterdam has Europe is all the more vital. brought in three innovations, open ­ ing up the prospect of completing an Not all the problems in this area have ambitious programme. been resolved yet. The main difficul­ ties are: • First, it sets out to create an area of freedom, security and justice inside • differences between Member the Community, spelling out a five­ States in civil law and procedure, year programme for the European in­ resulting in obstacles to free move­ stitutions to adopt the necessary ment; measures. This will involve putting

Working together to combat international crime and illegal traffick­ Ing more effectively. ~ the finishing touches to full freedom of movement and setting common Qual ified majority voting in the Council rules for immigration and asylum, based on re spect for fundamental A qualified majority in the Council req ui res 62 votes ou t of 87 rights, with the ultimate aim of al­ fo r decisions where there has to be a proposal fro m the Euro­ lowing immigrants to move freely pea n Comm ission. In the other cases, it requi res 62 votes in inside the EU. It will also require favou r from at least 10 Member States. Ge rma ny, , · wider cooperation on civil law and an d t he United Kingd om each have 10 votes, Spa in 8, Be l­ procedures (take, for instance, the gium, , the Neth erl ands and 5 each, problems posed by so many 'trans­ and 4, Denma rk, Ire land and Finl and 3, and Luxem­ national' divorces), as well as admin­ bourg 2. istrative and customs cooperation. During this initial five-year phase, the Council will take decisions by unani ­ mity But qualified majority voting should then gradually come in, with decisions being taken jointly by the Council and Parliament, so that even­ tually Parliament, the Commission and the Court of Justice will all playa full part. The environment, health and • Second, the Member States will be consumers' rights able to set binding rules for intergov­ ernmental cooperati on on crime and policing. The principle of unanimity These are three policy areas that have has been relaxed to allow implemen­ a direct daily impact on people's lives ting decisions, at least, to be taken by and are a major focus of public a qualified majority. The Treaty also concern. After all, to be able to live a allows what is termed 'closer coopera­ healthy life in a healthy environment tion' - countries can agree rules is a common enough human aspira­ which, at least initially, will only apply tion . It IS hardly surprising then if any to those who sign up. Lastly, the threat to people's health, their envi­ Treaty gives Member States the ronment, or the quality of the prod­ option of allowing the European ucts they consume provokes a Court of Justice to rule on disputes in powerful reaction . this area, and the vast majority of them have already agreed to this. With the free movement of goods inside the single European market, • Lastly, the Treaty allows the Schen­ the EU's openness to the world mar­ gen agreements and all the arrange­ ments stemming from them (known ket, and the rapid pace of technologi­ as 'the ') to be incor­ cal change, it is ever more vital for the porated into the EU's legal order. Community to act in concert. The , Ireland and the United Treaty of Am sterdam has responded Kingdom have, however, been al­ with a series of improvements, giving lowed to put off implementing these the EU considerably wider powers to arrangements until a later date. act. \

.../

Europeans demand a better environment. • On the environmental front, the legislating in specific circumstances key innovation is the obligation on in order to ensure a high level of the EU to take account of environ­ health protection, On a proposal from mental protection requirements in the Commission, Parliament and the defining and implementing all its Council will be able to adopt rules on policies .The Treaty also makes sustain­ able development - the new watch­ organs and substances of human word of environmental policy - one origin, Including blood; of the EU's primary goals, Thanks to veterinary and plant health prob­ the new Treaty (even though it was lems affecting public health, not yet ratified at the time), the EU was able from the start of 1998 to take a firm stance on cleaning up the In other cases, the EU will be able to terrestrial environment at the Kyoto support action by the Member States, World . But it will not be able to harmonise national legislation, which will con ­ • For consumers, the Treaty gives the tinue to vary considerably from one EU powers to promote their right to country to another, especially as information and education and, regards health care , above all , their right to organise in order to secure better protection, This People's values and aspirations is recognition of the key role played by consumer organisations, Besides the issues discussed above, people also have other concerns to do • Finally, in the wake of the BSE cri­ with their values, their ideas, and sis and the scandal surrounding their view of the world or what it AIDS -contaminated blood, the Treaty should be, boosts the EU's powers in the area of health, The principles are clearly defi­ Of course, the Treaty could not simply ned, giving the EU responsibility for come up with hard and fast rules, Nevertheless, the negotiators showed their readiness to respond by touch­ ing on a wide range of issues reflect­ ing people's values and aspirations - and even dealing with some practi­ cal aspects - in a series of accompa­ nying protocols or declarations. These do not necessarily amount to binding obligations, but they do represent political commitments. Among those that deserve particular mention are: At the heart of abolition of the death penalty; the Treaty ofAmster­ dam. fights, recognition of the role of voluntary aspirations and services; citizens' powers. the needs of the disabled;

the role of the churches and non ­ denominational organisations;

the special problems of island regions;

the social function of sport;

freedom of the press and freedom of expression in the other media;

public service radio and televi sion broadcasting;

the ro le of public credit institutions and certain form s of savings insti ­ tutions (in , Austria and , for instance);

animal protection and welfare. __I_Trt' Jty or Am st erd.lm" wh€i t ha ') Ul afl ged in rurope ./ Citizens' political giving national parliaments much wider scope for influencing the influence course of events, as we shall see later. In addition, the Treaty: The citizen is the main driving force of political action in any democratic • confirms and clarifies the principle society. Both by virtue of their constI­ of , under which decisions tutions and under the Treaty itself, have to be taken as closely as pos­ the Member States must be democra­ sible to the citizen ; cies. Likewise the European Union must, as its responsibilities increase, • recognises people's right to have make itself more firmly democratic access to documents from the Euro­ pean institutions (the rules will be This is the reason behind the gradual, decided by Parliament and the Coun­ and quite substantial extension of the European Parliament's powers cil, on a proposal from the Commis­ since the Single European Act in sion) . This is a key element towards 1986 and behind the growing meeting people's legitimate expecta­ emphasis on the national parlia­ tion that the institutions should oper­ ments' role in European affairs. At the ate in an open and transparent same time, an effort was made to manner. The European Court of Jus­ broaden citizens' electoral rights, tice had already recognised the need above all for those living in other to guarantee such access, and it was Member States.The options for obtai n­ therefore only reasonable that the ing legal remedy were also extended Treaty should take this into account; beyond the national and European courts, with the appointment of a • guarantees stronger action to com ­ European . bat fraud against the EU budget anti-fraud office The Treaty of Amsterdam continues (OLAF) should ensure that less tax­ along the same path, in particular payers' money is wasted . The identity of the Union on the international stage

From the earliest days, the advocates The common foreign and of European integration dreamt of a European foreign policy. But security policy although the original Treaties gave the Community a fairly wide remit on Faced with the prospect of a fresh foreign trade and development aid, wave of new members, which only they were completely silent on diplo­ highlights even more clearly the need macy and defence. for a common foreign and security policy, the Amsterdam negotiators Attempts to fill these gaps in 1954 wa nted to extend the arra ngements and 1961 ended in failure. In 1970 agreed since Maastricht, while the first '' led to the Member States launching a form of foreign -policy consultation ('Euro­ pean Political Cooperation'). although it was not formally en­ shrined in the Treaties until 1986, under the Single Act With the inter­ national situation transformed by the end of the cold war, the Maastricht Treaty introduced a single set of rules for a common foreign and security policy (CFSP), including, in time, a common defence policy.

'The tragedy of Kosovo dramatically highlights the increasingly important part the European Union has to play in guaranteeing security and democracy in areas vital to our future ' (Romano Prodl, President of the Europea n CommissIOn, addressing Pa rllamen! on 13 April 1999). \

Trea ty of Amc, terdam: wha t h a~ , hanged \Ii rU lop e / /

making them more consistent with Decision-making procedures the Community's traditional external activities. A genuine common foreign policy requires effective procedures. The The Treaty of Amsterdam sets out the Treaty of Amsterdam took into guiding principles underlying the account some of the criticisms lev­ EU's foreign and security policy: elled at the Maastricht Treaty. Basi­ cally decisions are taken in two • first, to safeguard the common stages: values, fundamental interests, inde­ pendence, integrity and security of • the European Council (the Heads the Union; of State or Government plus the Presi ­ dent of the Commission) decides • second, to preserve peace and common strategies and guidelines by strengthen international security and consensus; cooperation, and to consolidate democracy, the rule of law and fun­ • the Council (made up of the damenta I rig hts. foreign ministers) decides joint actions and common positions. Deci­ In pursuing these goals it must act in sions putting into practice a common accordance with the principles set out strategy already agreed by the Euro­ in the United Nations Charter and in pean Council are taken by qualified the European peace and security majority. However, if a Member State accords. This implies commitments on has major reseNations, it can ask for the part of the Member States and, the decision to be referred back to the above ali, obligations of loyalty and Heads of State or Government. Other­ mutual solidarity. wise the Council normally takes deci­ sions unanimously, although it can To put these principles into practice, ignore 'constructive' abstentions if the Treaty of Amsterdam reinforces the countries abstaining do not the decision-making procedures and account for more than one third of structures, before going on to address the votes. the defence issues. The European Commission and Par­ liament also play their part in the decision-making process. The Com­ mission has to make sure that Com­ munity activities are consistent with the CFSP, while Parliament delivers opinions and has to approve the necessary budget appropriations Structures The Western To implement a common policy effec­ European Union tively there have to be the proper political and administrative struc­ The WEU has 28 member coun­ tures. The Treaty of Amsterdam gives tries and is a valuable forum for a human face to the common foreign dialogue and cooperation on secu­ and security policy in the shape of a rity and defence. It includes 10 EU High Representative (a 'Mr or Ms members who are also members of CFSP'), who will direct the action NATO. The five other EU countries decided by the Council, working in a have observer status; they are Den­ three-person team ('troika') with mark and the four EU Member representatives of the Council Presi­ States outside NATO (Ireland, Aus­ dency and the Commission . tria, and Sweden). The WEU also includes - as associate The High Representative - who is members or partners - the Euro­ also Secretary-General of the Council pean members of NATO who are - is assisted by a policy planning and not in the EU, plus the countries of early warning unit, responsible in par­ central and eastern Europe that ticular for centralising and analysing have concluded Europe Agree­ information from the Member States, ments with the EU. from the European Commission and from the WEU ().

Defence

Recent international crises have clearly shown up the need for foreign policy to be backed by military capa­ bility. This is especially true when it comes to humanitarian and peace­ keeping or peacemaking missions, Javier Solana, Secretary­ which are explicitly covered by the Ceneral of the Council foreign and security policy under the and the EU's first High Treaty of Amsterdam . Representative for the foreign and common security policy \

_--"I_T_leilty of A "Tt\ tCHlam .!Jhat hH ( h.Jng.cd In EUI"'pt:'

/ The issue, however, is extremely com­ The common commercial plex. One major problem is the differ­ ences between Member States in policy terms of their military stance. Four Member States are neutral (either tra­ From the very outset the European ditional ly or by virtue of their consti­ Union has had responsibility for for­ tutions) and so are not members of mulating a common policy on foreign any military alliance, whilst the other trade. Decisions are taken by the 11 belong to NATO. In addition, many Council by qualified majority, avoid ­ of the Member States have developed ing the need for unanimous agree­ bilateral or multilateral military ment. But the Treaty rules were drawn cooperation with one another. None­ up in the 1950s and have since been theless, the Treaty of Amsterdam overtaken by economic developments envisages the emergence, in time, of and the expansion of international a genuine common defence policy trade in new sectors. The result has been to blur the lines of responsibility To meet any immediate operational in some areas - notably intellectual military needs, the European Union property, services and investments. can already calion the WEU. That does not prevent the EU from Although the membership of the two playing an active part in the work of organisations is not entirely the same, the World Trade Organisation, but it the Treaty of Amsterdam explicitly does mean that it has to work along­ states that the WEU is an integral side the individual Member States. part of the development of the Union And since they have to agree unani­ and allows for its eventual full inte­ mously, this makes negotiations more gration into the European Union. complex and sometimes less effec­ tive. I n concrete terms, the Treaty lays down the ground rules on how the ThiS issue was discussed in Amster­ two organisations will cooperate from dam but a solution was put off for the now on. time being. The Treaty does, in fact, open the way for the Council to • The European Council can lay down decide unanimously that the com ­ guidelines for joint action involv­ mon commercial policy includes intel­ ing recourse to the WEU. lectual property and services. This would enable the EU to negotiate • EU Member States not belonging international agreements by quali­ to the WEU but taking part in any fied majority in these areas too. such joint action will then have a full say in any decisions taken under the WEU.

A number of protocols and WEU deci ­ sions spell out the detailed proce­ dures for EU-WEU cooperation. The EU institutions

Since the first direct elections to the the Commission's legitimacy and European Parliament in 1979, Euro­ effectiveness have been enhanced; pean integration has moved quite a long way, making it necessary to the Committee of the Regions and strengthen its democratic founda­ the Economic and Social Commit­ tions. Europe's wider responsibilities tee have been given a wider role; also meant that the EU needed to make its decision-making procedures • various other procedures have more effective. been improved;

The new Treaty has introduced the door has been opened to closer changes on both these fronts, build­ cooperation where a majority of ing on the achievements of the Single Member States are in favour. Act and the Maastricht Treaty:

the role of the European Parlia­ The European ment has been strengthened; Parliament national parliaments can exercise better control; The reforms affecting Parliament cover four areas: the areas where the Council decides by a qualified majority • Parliament has been granted the have been extended; power to set its own rules for its mem-

Parliament in session \,

__ll_rt" 03 I Y vf ,\nJ ", tc, dt1m . \','h iH h03'ii chang t! d In Eur ope

bers, It can now lay down rules after National obtaining the Commission's opinion and the unanimous approval of the parliaments Council. This will help to reduce dis­ putes arising from the fact that the EU decisions are taken by the Council rules governing MEPs are still largely or by Parliament and the Council based on differing national rules, together, Since the late 1980s, nation­ al parliaments have pressed for the • It has been given a greater say in opportunity to state their views the appointment of the Commission, before their governments do so in the Previously, Parliament could only Council. They also want a better express an opinion on whoever the general overview of the workings of governments proposed as the new the EU, A declaration accompanying Commission President. Now it has to the Maastricht Treaty had already approve the nomination first. Subse­ touched on these issues and now a quently Parliament approves the protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam appointment of the Commission as a has set out some Important rules, as whole (a right it already enjoyed follows, under the Maastricht Treaty), ·The European Parliament and • Its legislative powers under the co­ national parliaments are urged to decision procedure have been simpli­ develop closer cooperation, fied and extended, as we shall see later. The Council cannot now adopt • All Commission preparatory docu­ an act under this procedure without ments (communications, Green the agreement of Parliament. Papers, White Papers, etc.) and pro ­ posals for legislation must be forward­ • Its powers of budgeta ry control ed to the national parliaments, They have been extended to include the then have a six-week time limit to CFSP, give their views before the Council proceeds to a vote, Ali in ali, Parliament's authority has been strengthened and this, in turn, • In certain fields (freedom, security strengthens the democratic founda­ and justice) the views expressed by tions of the Union, national parliaments will carry special weight.

Of course, none of this affects the speci fic ta sks aI ready rese rved fo r national parliaments under the exist­ ing Treaty rules - such as ratifying amendments to the Treaties, defining the EU's own resources or transposing European directives into national law, A Council meeting.

The Council It must also be remembered that the Secretary-General of the Council is The Treaty of Amsterdam did not now the EU's High Representative for significantly alter the rules governing the CFSP and that the policy plan­ the Council. However, it does make ning and early warning unit that decisions easier by dropping the una­ assists him operates within the nimity requirement in some areas and Council. allowing qualified majority voting instead (see earlier box) . This applies to certain decisions on freedom of establishment and on research and development The qualified majority rule also governs some new areas of responsibility assigned to the EU by the Treaty of Amsterdam and some of the new foreign policy procedures. In addition, some decisions have been delegated to the Permanent Repre ­ sentatives Committee, whose task is to prepare the ground for Council meetings. \ ----1 ! r e~ _t y of / \f <;\f' f d J m . whJt h a ~ chil ngcd io Europe / ./ The European ment of members by the Member States. Commission • He enJoys broad powers to allocate The European Commission's role, and or reassign Commissioners' port­ in particular its right of initiative, is folios. left untouched - although in the new area of freedom, security and justice (the 'third pillar' fields from • He sets the policy guidelines of the Maastricht that have now been Commission . brought fully under Community re­ sponsibility), it will not have the sole right of initiative until five years after The Court ofJustice the Treaty comes into force. The Treaty of Amsterdam changes On the other hand the Treaty does neither the role nor the membership affect the shape of the Commission of the European Court of Justice or as a body. The President's personal the Court of First Instance, which authority is boosted by the fact that his appointment now has to be assists it. However, the range of cases approved by Parliament. It also where the Court may be called on is strengthens his position consider­ now wider. ably. • It is responsible for ensuring that • The President of the Commission is the European institutions respect consulted on the choice and appoint­ fundamental rights.

Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission. The Court ofJustice in session.

• It has been given the power to rule The Economic and Social on questions concerning the area of freedom, security and Justice. How­ Committee ever, only national courts or tribunals of last instance can refer questions to The Comm ittee's advisory fu nction the Court of Justice in this area. within the EU institutional system has been slightly strengthened, since • As mentioned earlier, the Member it can now be consulted directly by States ca n, if they wish. recog nIse the Parliament rather than only by the Court's jurisdiction on matters relat­ Commission and the Council. ing to cooperation between criminal courts and police cooperation.

The Court ofAuditors

Responsible for ensuring that EU expenditure serves its objectives and obeys the rules governing the EU budget, the Court of Auditors now has the following somewhat wider powers.

• Like the other institutions, it can now bring actions before the Court of Justice to protect its prerogatives.

• Its audit powers now cover all re ­ cipients of Community funds. _7') Treat)' o f A msterd a m' w ha t ha s changed in Eu rope The Committee of the Decision-making Regions procedures

The Committee of the Regions has Community decision-making proce­ also been given a stronger role. It dures remain essentially the same as represents the point of view of ­ under Maastricht. However, there al and local authorities, who are have been considerable adjustments increasingly affected by Community to make them more democratic and activities. Three points should be effective, with two especially signifi­ noted as follows. cant changes.

• The Committee has been given • The intro­ wider powers to run its own affairs (it duced in 1986 with the Single Act ­ was previously subject to control by where Parliament and the Council the Cou ncil). give Commission proposals two read­ ings - has almost disappeared • The number of areas where its opin­ (except in two instances to do with ions are required has increased. economic and monetary union), It has been replaced by the 'co-decision • Parliament is now formally entitled procedure'. to receive the Committee's opinions and can also consult the Committee • The scope of the co-decision proce­ on specific issues. du re - which was the biggest step taken by the Maastricht Treaty towards strengthening Parliament's role - has been extended, making it more effective and even more favour­ The new co-decision procedure able to Parliament.

The co-decision procedure now works as follows. Parliament and the Council can (a) If Parliament and the Council agree on a Commission pro­ now take decisions after only a posal, it is approved. single reading (previously there had to be two readings by both, (b) If they disagree, Parliament can either accept the Coun­ even if they were in agreement cil's common position, or reject or amend it by a majority from the outset). of its members. (c) If the Council cannot accept the amendments, it convenes Parliament can reject the Council's a conciliation meeting, after which Parliament a nd the 'common position' at the second Council approve the agreement reached . If they are still reading without having to go unable to agree, the proposal is not adopted. through the additional concilia­ tion procedure. If conciliation with Parliament after the second reading fails, the proposal is deemed not to have been adopted and the matter ends. JCommittee procedures' The Treaty of Amsterdam therefore sets out some general conditions and Besides the decision-making proce­ mechanisms designed to enable a dures laid down for the adoption of group of Member States to establish basic legislation, the Treaties also closer cooperation between them­ grant the Council and Commission selves for a limited period without the executive powers needed to undermining the fundamen tal prin­ implement and develop the common ciples of the Treaty (in particular free policies. In practice, it is the Commis­ movement and citizens' rights). If a sion that exercises these executive group of Member States can muster a powers. It has to follow a variety of qualified majority, they can now estab­ procedures and a complex consulta­ lish close r cooperation both in the tion system involving a host of com­ strictly Community sphere and in the mittees made up of national officials, field of cooperation on criminal and whose task is to assist it. police matters, subject to the rules and conditions laid down in the This system of 'committee proce­ Treaty. However, closer cooperation is dures' (first formally set down in not allowed in the area of the CFSP. 1987 ) was not altered by the Treaty Here, the only 'flexibility' mechanism of Amsterdam, even though the need permitted is 'constructive abstention'. for reform was clearly evident, both in order to make the workings of the in­ stitutions more transparent and so as to take account of Parliament's new powers since the Maastricht Treaty came into force in 1993 . At Amster­ dam, the European Council did no more than ask the Commission to propose changes to the existing pro­ cedures. A proposal along these lines was tabled in June 1998.

Closer cooperation

The question of differentiated or flexible integration is not new. Mem­ ber States have often been at odds over the pace of European integra­ tion, with some wishing to forge ahead while others have been less keen. Although solutions have always been found in the past (as with the Social Protocol or the single cur­ rency), the problem showed the need to establish an impartial legal frame­ work, rather than always relying on individual exceptions. 1 T,esI Y of Am ster dam. wh at has char1 ged In t UIOre / What next?

The Treaty of Amsterdam sought to In the short term, then, further tackle the issues that prompted the reforms will inevitably be needed as convening of the intergovernmental European integration moves forward. conference by amending the Treaty Some changes can be made without on European Union in a number of amending the Treaty, while others areas. These included citizenship in will require a new intergovernmental the broad sense, the common foreign conference. So the new Treaty has and security policy, and the way the sparked off debate on a range of institutions are organised and op­ issues. erate. Naturally enough, it did not tackle certain other questions that • Should there be a 'constitutional' already had their own specific time­ document confirming citizens' rights table and dynamic, such as the intro­ and obligations, as well as a commit­ duction of the euro or the prospect of ment by the European institutions to EU enlargement. Neve rthele ss, it left take account of their concerns over room for further change in several issues such as employment and the other areas, such as adapting the in­ environment7 stitutions for enlargement or certain aspects of foreign policy.

The Treaty of Amsterdam: a glance at the '" .. :",.: :: ,... .., closing pages. • Should the European Union have Besides these already evident prob­ its own separate identity and legal lems, it is fair to ask whether the in­ personality in every area of activity, stitutional structures ought not to be including international relations? reviewed in greater depth in order to equip the EU better to meet the chal­ • Should there be a European lenges of the 21 st century. In particu­ Defence Community to safeguard lar, the Union will now have to cope peace and fundamental rights, at with expectations for pol itical inte­ least around the of the EU? gration at the same time as prospec­ Should the Western European Union tive enlargement promises a shift be integrated into the European towards a continental dimension. Union, as envisaged by the Treaty of Amsterdam? The debate is already under way. Meeting in on 3 and 4 June • In commercial policy, will the 1999, the European Council decided Council make use of the option of­ to begin preparations for a new inter­ fered by the Treaty to give the EU the governmental conference in the year right to negotiate international 2000 to tackle the reforms envisaged agreements on services and intellec­ in the 'institutional protocol'. tual property, taking decisions by a qualified majority? This conference has to be seen as the first stage in a far-reaching broader • On the institutional front, choices process that will lead to a clearer defi­ need to be made. A protocol annexed nition of the political undertaking for to the Treaty outlines the most urgent a broad-based European Union, as issues. Faced with the prospect of announced by the Cardiff European enlargement, this 'institutional proto­ Council in June 1998. The confer­ col' announces a review of the ence's top priorities will be to tackle composition of the European Com ­ the institutional issues explicitly left mission. The Commission currently open by the Treaty of Amsterdam, plus consists of 20 members, but their all the other changes in the working of number would become too large if the European institutions required by the rules remained as they are (at the prospect of enlargement. present they allow for at least one Commissioner per Member State and the possibility of a second for the most popu lous cou ntries). The proto­ col also envisages changes to the weighting of the Member States' votes in the Council (currently rang­ ing from 10 for the four biggest coun­ tries down to two for Luxembourg). Aware of the risks of deadlock in the many instances where the Council still has to decide unanimously, three Member States even came out in favour of extending the scope of qua­ lified majority voting before any new enlargement. \ Trt" dty of Amsterd a m: wha t has chang ed in Eur ope - ---,-­

'Europa' - Europe on the Internet

For more information, consult the EU's 'Europa' server on the I nternet at this address: http://europa.eu.intlabc/obj/amstlen/index.htm

Besides the text of the Treaty and various commentaries, you will find a 'Citizen's guide', answers to frequently asked questions, and a 'User guide' http://europa.eu.intiscadplus/leg/en/sSOOOO.htm as well as a glossary http://europa.eu.intlscadplus/leg/en/cig/g4000.htm

For the official text of the Treaty, you can also go to: http://ue.eu.intiAmsterdam/en/treaty/treaty.htm

For the original treaties (Treaty of - 1951, Treaties of Rome - 1957, Single Act - 1987, Treaty of Maastricht - 1992, etc.). see: http://europa.eu.intlabc/obj/treaties/en/entoc.htm

A 'consolidated' version of the European Treaties, including the changes made by the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam can be found at http://www.europa.eu.intleur-Iex/en/treaties/index.html European Commission

Treaty of Amsterdam: what has changed in Europe

Europe on the move series

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

1999 - 30 pp . - 16.2 x 22.9 cm

ISBN 92-828-7400-1

Coming Into force on 1 May 1999, the Treaty of Amsterdam amends the ear­ lier European treaties in order to strengthen citizens' rights, respond more effectively to their aspirations, develop a common foreign and security policy, and improve the working of the European institutions. True, the Treaty leaves some business still unfinished, but as a result it has also helped to stimulate debate on the future of the European Union. EUROPEAN COMMISSION EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT REPRESENTATIONS OFFICES

Representation in Ireland Office in Ireland 18 Dawson Street, Dublin 2 European Union House, Te\. (01) 662 5113 43 Molesworth Street, Dublin 2 Tel. (0 1) 605 7900 Representation in the Fa x (01) 605 79 99 Jean Monnet House, 8 Storey's Gate, E-mail: EPDublin@europarLeuint SWl P3AT Te\. (0171) 973 1992 United Kingdom Office www.cec.org.uk 2, Queen Anne's Gate, London SW 1H 9AA Te l. (0171) 227 43 00 Representation in Wales Fax (0171) 227 43 02 4 Cathedral Road, Cardiff CFl 9SG E-mail: EPLondon@europar\.eu .in t Te \. (01222) 371631 Office in Scotland Representation in Scotland 9 Alva Street, Edinburgh EH2 4PH 9 Alva Street, Edinburgh EH2 4PH Tel. (0131) 225 20 58 Tel. (0131) 225 2058 Fax (0131) 226 41 05

Representation in Northern Ireland Windsor House, 9/ 15 Bedford Street, BelFa st BT2 7EG Te\. (01232) 240708

Information services in the USA 2300 M Street, NW, Suite 707, Washington DC 20037 TeL (202) 862 9500 305 Ea st 47th Street, 3 Dag Hammarskjold Plaza , New York, NY 10017 Te\. (2 12) 371 3804

European Commission and Parliament representations and offices exist In all the countries of the European Union. The European Commission also has delegations in other parts of the world. EN

p.

V1

:r:." N w to 'P U"l cp0 rn ? n

Coming Into force on 1 May 1999, the Treaty of Amsterdam amends the ear lier european treaties in order to strengthen citizens' rights, respond more effectively to their aSpirations, develop a common foreign and sec urity POliCY, and improve the Walking of the European institutions. True, the Treaty leaves some business still unfin­ ished, but as a result It has also helped to stimulate debate on the future of the European Union .

IS BN 9 2 - 828-7400-1

• •: ' . OFFICE FOR OfFICIAL PUBLICATIONS • 0 • Of n lEEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 11 111 111 11 11 1111111 11 11111 •• •• ' L-2985 Luxem bourg 9 789282 874004 >