The European Journal

European Citizens' Initiative, a waste of time and money

The Lisbon Treaty has given to the Commission the responsibility to get around national governments and carry out direct dialogue with citizens. There is a new provision which provides for the citizens' right of initiative allowing for the first time participatory democracy. Hence, the Commission might be called to present an “appropriate proposal” in areas falling within the EU’s competence, “on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.” However, such petition must be signed by one million nationals “from a significant number of member States.”

The Treaty foresees that the procedures and conditions required for the so called citizens' initiative would be decided in a Regulation adopted by the European Parliament and the Council. The Lisbon Treaty will enter into force on 1 December, but the “caretaker Commission” could not wait and, on 11 November, adopted a Green Paper on the European Citizens' Initiative. The Commission has launched a public consultation on this matter and all interested parties should submit their comments by 31 January 2010. Then, the European Commission will present its proposal for a regulation.

The Commission has identified several legal, administrative and practical issues with the implementation of the so called "new institutional instrument.” One could wonder whether such initiative will work in practice.

The Treaty solely indicates that the signatories of a citizens' initiative must come from "a significant number of Member States" consequently "the minimum number of Member States from which such citizens must come" will be determined in a regulation. Hence, this is one of the matters that sill needs to be settled. The Commission wants to ensure that there is balance between ensuring sufficient representativity of a “Union interest” and making the initiative sufficiently accessible. It is suggesting a threshold of one third of Member States (9 Member States.) However, this might represent an obstacle to such initiatives.

Moreover, it is necessary to set a minimum number of signatures which are required to support an initiative in each of the Member States involved. The Commission has pointed out that one million citizens represents 0.2% of the EU population (500 million) hence it has suggested to set the threshold at 0.2% of the total population of each Member State where signatures are collected as the minimum number of citizens required for that State.

The Commission is also considering setting a minimum age for supporting a citizens' initiative. In the Member States which provide for these initiatives citizens must be eligible to vote in order to participate. The Commission noted that the voting age in Austria is 16 whereas in all the other Member States is 18. The Commission is likely to propose as minimum age required to support a European citizens' initiative the citizens voting age for the European elections in their Member State of residence.

The Treaty makes no reference to what form a citizens' initiative should take, but the Commission will set some requirements in this matter. The Commission is not keen to propose for the citizens’ initiative to take the form of a draft legal act but it would require for an initiative to clearly state the subject-matter and objectives of the proposal. Nevertheless, it does not exclude the possibility for citizens to present a draft legal act.

The Commission will include in its upcoming proposal requirements for the collection, verification and authentication of signatures for a European citizens' initiative. The national authorities of the Member States will be responsible for checking the validity of signatures and “certifying the results of the collection exercise within their country.” The Commission is planning to set out common requirements at EU level. However, all Member States have their own procedures for the verification of electors and several Member States have also their own verification and authentication procedures for national citizens' initiatives which vary from one Member State to another. Unsurprisingly, the Commission is not inclined to allow Member States to regulate such procedures as, in this way, an initiative would be subject to different procedural rules in different Member States. Although the Commission might not propose full harmonization it is likely to propose minimum requirements for verification and authentication of signatures. Nevertheless, this would entail further administrative and regulatory burdens for Member States.

According to the Commission “Any approach chosen would also need to allow EU citizens that reside outside their country of origin to support citizens' initiatives.”

The Commission still has to consider several other issues such as where and how signatures can be collected, specific requirements for online collection of signatures, whether a citizen's signature for an initiative should be checked in the Member State of nationality or in the Member State of residence and how to protect personal data.

There is no time limit for the collection of signatures foreseen in the Treaty. The Commission has suggested one year period. But it sill has to decide when the time limit starts running. The Commission is planning to propose a mandatory system of registration of proposed initiatives. According to the Commission “Such registration could be done by the organisers of an initiative on a specific website provided by the Commission for this purpose.” The initiative organizers would be provided with a registration date and the time limit would start running from it.

The Commission acknowledged that for launching a European citizens' initiative it would be necessary funding and support from organizations. The Commission still has to decide the degree of information that it will require from the organizers of an initiative as regards the organisations that support the initiative and how the initiatives will be funded. The Commission has said that “(…) without prejudice to other forms of cooperation and support for civil society organizations, it is not foreseen that any specific public funding would be provided for citizens' initiatives.” The Commission might not directly provide funding for citizens' initiatives but it has been spending millions of pounds of taxpayer’s money in trans-national participatory democracy projects aiming to connect citizens with decision makers. The Commission has claimed that the EU citizens would have a stronger voice as they will be able to call on the Commission to present new policy initiatives. Margot Wallström has said "The Lisbon Treaty will provide a means for people to express themselves and to have a direct influence on EU policy-making." However, only organised citizens' groups can attain the expertise needed if they want to influence the EU in a specialized field. Most of NGOs, citizens organizations who lobby the EU institutions are funded by the Commission and they cannot be critical of the EU project, therefore this is a disguised rather than an example of democracy. Moreover, citizens would be allowed to call for new policies but not to show their dissatisfaction and call for the withdrawal of burdensome regulations which affect their daily lives. The European Citizens' Initiative will be the gateway for Eurofanatic organisations, funded by the EU, to request the Commission to initiate legislative proposals. In other words, they would give to the Commission an “excuse” to put forward more regulations.

The Lisbon treaty does not provide a time limit for the Commission to deal with a citizens' initiative. The Commission is suggesting a time-frame of 6 months from the date of formal submission of an initiative to the Commission. The Commission might then adopt a communication setting out its conclusions in relation to the action which the initiative envisages and might consider policy proposals. The Commission may also not respond to such invitations. The Commission recalls that any proposal on which it is invited to act must be within the framework of its powers. In order to avoid the situation of initiatives being rejected on grounds of inadmissibility, the Commission is likely to confer to organizers legal advice before the launching of an initiative. It remains to be seen what procedures and conditions required for the European Citizen Initiative would be included in the Commission’s final proposal. But, such initiatives would be a waste of time and money.

The European Court of Auditors for the 15th year in a row has not signed the EU accounts

On 10 November the European Court of Auditors published its report on the implementation of the 2008 EU Budget. The Court has issued an unqualified opinion on the reliability of the 2008 EU accounts. According to the Court “the 2008 annual accounts of the European Communities present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the European Communities (…)” However, the President of the European Court of Auditors, Vítor Caldeira, has said “This does not mean that the accounts are perfect or the systems that produce them never fail” and stressed that “there are weaknesses in the accounting systems of a number of the DGs of the Commission which put the quality of financial information at risk.”

As regards the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the accounts the Court concluded that although the level of irregularity is still too high in some areas it has generally decreased.

The Court gave unqualified opinions on revenue and on commitments and concluded that there was an improvement in the management of the budget. Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for Administrative Affairs, Audit and Anti-Fraud, said that it was “the best report ever.” It was about time! However, once again, the court has refused to sign off on how the money from the EU's 2008 budget had been spent. According to the Court several spending areas in the budget continue to be materially affected by errors such as cohesion policy, research, energy and transport, external aid and enlargement as well as part of the agricultural programme.

The Court, for the first time, has not given an adverse opinion but a qualified one for the policy group “Agriculture and natural resources.” The court concluded that payments for this policy group are legal and regular, except for Rural Development. The estimated level of error for Rural Development expenditure continues to exceed 2%. Consequently, according to the ECA the supervisory and control systems related to Agriculture and natural resources are only partially effective.

The Court also gave a qualified opinion for the policy group “Economic and financial affairs.” According to the ECA payments for this policy area, were “in all material respects, legal and regular”, except for expenditure concerning the Sixth Framework Programme for research and technological development (FP6). The supervisory and control systems for this policy group were, therefore, considered to be partially effective in preventing and correcting errors.

The Court gave clean opinions for spending on “Education and citizenship” and for “Administrative and other expenditure.” However, the Court continues to give adverse opinions on the legality and regularity aspects for the policy groups “Cohesion”, “Research, energy and transport”, as well as “External aid, development and enlargement.” The Court continues to find that payments in these policy groups do not comply with the rules and continue to be materially affected by errors.

The EU’s Cohesion Policy, which represents almost a third of the budget, continues to be the area most affected by errors. The report reads “Instead of the estimated 16,3 billion euro, the payments amounted to 24,0 billion euros.” According to the Court “at least 11 % of the total amount reimbursed should not have been reimbursed.” Mr Caldeira stressed that “A major part of the estimated error rate relates to eligibility errors (for example, projects did not meet the specific funding conditions) and to serious failures to respect procurement rules.” Hence, for this policy group, supervisory and control systems are not effective in preventing and correcting the reimbursement of overstated or ineligible costs.

Vítor Caldeira said “Overall, error rates appear to be decreasing due to improvements in the management of the budget, but legal frameworks continue to be complex and problems remain in some control systems.” In the majority of the cases the errors are due to misapplication or misunderstanding of the too complex rules of EU expenditure schemes. Mr Caldeira called, therefore, for simplification of the control systems.

The EU diplomatic service is taking shape

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will be in charge of the European external action service with delegations in different countries, and will ensure that the Union has a stronger voice on the international arena. Therefore, the Union will not only have a “foreign affairs minister” but also a European external action service, meaning a diplomatic service with delegations in several countries.

 

The European External Action Service will be composed by a combination of national diplomatic services of the Member States and officials from the Council General Secretariat and of the Commission. The organisation and functioning of the Service will be established by a Council decision on a proposal from the High Representative, after consulting the European Parliament and obtaining the consent of the Commission. Hence, it will be decided by QMV.

 

Questions regarding institutional arrangements, competences (Commission/Council secretariat) and financing were not answered by the Lisbon Treaty. The provision concerning the European external action service is highly imprecise.

 

The Lisbon Treaty has not entered into force yet but that has not prevented member states for starting negotiations over the European External Action Service. In fact, the Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper) has been discussing the subject for quite sometime. On 30 October, the European Council endorsed the Presidency's report on guidelines for the European External Action Service. But, ultimately, it is up to the future EU foreign affairs minister to present the final proposal on the EEAS which according to the EU leaders should be made “as soon as possible after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty with a view to its adoption by the Council at the latest by the end of April 2010.” The EEAS is likely to be up and running by 2012.

 

According to the Swedish EU Presidency’s report the EEAS “should be a service of a sui generis nature separate from the Commission and the Council Secretariat.” The EEAS would have its own budget line in the EU budget. The EU's new foreign minister would be in charge of the budget and will appoint his own staff independently of other EU institutions.

 

The European Parliament does not have much say over the creation of the EEAS as it is only consulted. Nevertheless, a few days before the European Council, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for the EEAS to be part of the Commission administrative structure and be funded from the Commission budget. The European Parliament urged the Commission, “in its preparatory work on the EEAS, to put its full weight as an institution behind the objective of preserving and further developing the Community model in the Union's external relations.” The MEPs do not want the EEAS to be a purely intergovernmental structure neither a totally independent body as they want it to be subject to parliamentary control. Ashley Fox MEP has said “(…) To have a diplomatic corps answering to MEPs rather than national governments would be detrimental to Britain's interests."

 

The MEPs recalled “that all aspects of the funding arrangements for the EEAS must remain under the supervision of the budgetary authority in accordance with the Treaties.” The European Parliament would have its say on the budget to be proposed by the High Representative.

 

The Lisbon treaty has left a lot of room for interpretation as regards the EEAS field of application. The European Council endorsed the 'single desk' policy meaning the EEAS will be composed of thematic and geographical desks which will carry out the tasks presently undertaken by DG External Relations and the Council Secretariat. According to the report the EEAS would be responsible for all the strategic decisions related to a particular desk but the Commission will continue to be in charge of the management of funding and the implementation of these decisions.

 

The Commission has exclusive competence over trade negotiations and membership negotiations therefore trade and enlargement will not be integrated into the EEAS as well as development. The relevant commissioners and their directorates-general will remain responsible of enlargement, trade and development policy. However, the high representative will have a say as vice-president of the Commission.

 

The EU foreign affairs minister will also conduct the European Security and Defence Policy, the crisis management structures and the EU Military Committee consequently these structures will be incorporated into the EEAS. The EEAS would, therefore, manage EU security and defence projects, crisis management, civil and military operations. The service will also incorporated the Situation Centre (SitCen), responsible for providing risk analyses. Hence, it would deal with the sharing of the intelligence analysis.

Under the Lisbon Treaty, the present Commission Delegations will be transformed into "Union delegations." The structure of the EEAS will be, therefore, secured by around 130 delegations of the European Union under the authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The EU delegations will take over the role and functions currently undertaken by the rotating Presidency in terms of local coordination and representation of the Union. The Swedish EU Presidency’s report stressed that the “EU delegations should play a supporting role as regards diplomatic and consular protection of Union citizens in third countries.”

The European Parliament has suggested that the Commission delegations in third countries and the Council liaison offices and offices of the EU Special Representatives should be merged to form “"Union embassies", headed by EEAS staff, who would be answerable to the VP/HR.” Furthermore, according to the MEPs, the EU delegations in third countries “could in many cases take over consular services and deal with Schengen visa issues.” According to Europolitcs a diplomat has said that whereas member states will not abolish their embassies, “the intention is, nevertheless, that they will make staff savings because embassies will only focus on national tasks.”

 

The EEAS will include officials from the Commission and Council secretariat as well as national diplomats from the EU's member states. It could involve over than 6,000 staff. The Member States are calling for at least a third of EEAS staff to be member states’ diplomats.

 

The MEPs also suggested the creation of a “European diplomatic college” to provide “training based on fully harmonised curricula” to Union officials and officials of the Member States. The European Council has not endorsed such idea but stressed that EEAS staff should be provided with “adequate common training.” As Ashley Fox has said “(…) a dedicated diplomatic college to train an army of EU diplomats is a total unnecessary waste of taxpayers' money.”

 

The High Representative, as a member of the Commission, will have to go through the European Parliament’s hearings. The European Parliament recommend "that political agreement be reached with Parliament on all issues at an early stage in order to avoid valuable time being wasted on political controversies about the form to be taken by the EEAS after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.” It is important to mention that the European Parliament may reject a commissioner nominated by the Member States by threatening to reject the college as a whole.

 

The Member States would no longer represent themselves but the Union on the international stage. What will happen to the UK diplomatic representation? Who will defend the interests of the Commonwealth, when the powers of the Foreign Secretaries would be transfer to the High representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy?

David Miliband, or Tony Blair, that is the question

The Lisbon Treaty also creates the post of High representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The Union will be represented by the High Representative, meaning EU foreign minister, for matters relating to the common foreign and security policy, together with the President of the European Council, on issues other than CFSP, the external representation of the Union, will be ensured by the Commission. The delineation of tasks still has to be clarified.

The Lisbon Treaty transforms the Union into an international actor in its own right. It seems the Heads of State and Government will not represent anymore their country in the international stage as they will be represented by the Union.

The foreign affairs minister will be both the Council’s representative for the common foreign and security policy and one of the Commission’s vice-presidents. The post merges the positions of High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the European Commissioner for External Relations. Being a vice president of the Commission he/she will be responsible within the Commission for responsibilities given to it in external relations and for coordinating other aspects of the Union's external action. The CFSP is an intergovernmental matter in this way a Commission member will be too involved in the Council’s work. He will serve supranational and intergovernmental matters. Moreover, under the Lisbon Treaty, decisions relating to the common security and defence policy, including initiating a military mission, will be adopted by the Council acting unanimously however the Member States will have to share their right of initiative with the High Representative, this means that the Commission might be involved on such decisions.

Obviously, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will have too much power; he will prepare, decide on and execute matters related to foreign and security affairs. He/she will have the right of initiative in foreign and security policy matters as he will share with each Member State the power to submit proposals regarding the CFSP. He/she will represent the EU in matters relating to common foreign and security policy. He/she will express the “Union” position in international organizations and international conferences. He/she can speak on behalf of the Union in the United Nations Security Council.

The new High Representative will chair the Foreign Affairs Council, submit the necessary proposals, and implement decisions adopted by the European Council and the Council. The rotating Presidency in external relations will end, therefore, the role of Head of State or Government and Foreign Minister of the country holding the Council Presidency will be significantly diminished. It remains to be seen how the agenda of the General Affairs and External relations Council, chaired by the High Representative for foreign policy will be coordinated with other council formations chaired by the ministers of the country which holds the six month Presidency. Moreover, it remains to be seen how the powers of the members of the future troika, the commission president, the high representative for foreign policy and the European council president will be balanced. Therefore there are important issues of accountability at stake.

The boundaries between the EU president and the EU foreign affairs minister are not clear yet. Nevertheless, it seems that the EU foreign affairs minister would be more powerful than the EU president and taking into account that the president of the European Commission is from the EPP it is not surprising that the Socialists are seeking to nominate the EU foreign minister blowing, in this way, Tony Blair’s bid. The High representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will be appointed by the European Council, acting by a qualified majority and with the agreement of the President of the Commission.

David Miliband is now the name in everybody’s lips. He said that he is not running for the job but…Other possible candidates are Massimo d'Alema, Italy's former prime minister and foreign minister and Adrian Severin, a centre-left Romanian MEP.

What a Conservative government would do toward Europe?

David Cameron yesterday promised:

• to amend the European Communities Act 1972 to prohibit, by law, the transfer of power to the EU without a referendum;
• to introduce a Sovereignty Bill;
• Under the so called passerelle clause, introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, futher national vetoes would be abolished, a Conservative Government would "change the law so that any use of a so-called ratchet clause would require full approval by Parliament;"
• to negotiate a "full opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights", a return of powers in criminal justice and the return of Britain's opt-out from social and employment legislation.

And the post of EU President goes…

Presently, the European Council is chair by Head of State or Government of the Member State which holds the Presidency of the Council (six months rotating presidency). Under the Lisbon Treaty the EU will have a President which will replace the six monthly Presidency of the European Council. The President of the European Council will be a permanent figure with more influence and symbolism. This represents more transfer of political power to the EU. A long-term president of the European Council will provide the Union with a single face which gives the idea of United States of Europe.

The President will chair and lead the European Council work in order to ensure continuity in EU initiatives. However, it is not clear yet what would be his/her exact tasks and responsibilities. The Lisbon Treaty is very vague particularly in stating that the European Council president would also represent the EU externally for matters relating to the common foreign and security policy without prejudice to the remit of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. This of course creates a problem of the delineation of tasks for each representative.

The Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force but the EU ambassadors have started discussions on how to implement the Lisbon treaty including the exact role of the new post of President of the European Council way before the Czech ratification. It has been said that the EU President job description will depend on the person who would fulfil the post. According to Barroso "The job of the president is to deliver the results of a European Council," therefore should be "Someone who will fight to reach agreement in the European Council."

Unsurprisingly, in an undemocratic and unaccountable EU, the member states’ citizens will have no say as the president of the European Council will be an unelected position. The EU president will be appointed by the European Council by qualified majority voting, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. Although the formal negotiations for the new top positions have not started yet there was one name in everybody’s mouth - Tony Blair. As Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has said “It would be outrageous if the British people voted out a Labour Government only to find Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson setting themselves up in power in Brussels."

Several Member states, particularly the Benelux countries, are not willing to back Blair as the UK is not part of the eurozone or Schengen area. Nicolas Sarkozy who was the first to support him as the future president of the European Council now seems to be changing his mind. He has recently said "Personally I believe in a Europe that is politically strong and embodied by a person. But the fact that Great Britain is not in the euro remains a problem."

Although there were no formal discussions on the new top positions at the EU summit, the EU leaders, as Nicolas Sarkozy said, discussed them in the corridors. Now, that Czech Republic ratified the treaty, the horse trading for the EU new positions has officially started and will have to take into account the nationality, geography, the size of the country as well as political affiliation. The Swedish Presidency will convene an extraordinary summit in mid November to appoint the permanent President of the European Council and the High Representative for Foreign and Security policy.

Gordon Brown has tried without success to gather support for Tony Blair candidature, saying that his “credentials are well proven" and that he would become "an excellent President.” At a meeting of European socialist party leaders which took place before the summit no consensus was reached to back Tony Blair. The Socialists have decided to seek the post of high representative for foreign affairs. In fact, it seems that the EU leaders have reached an informal consensus that the EU president post should go to a politician from the centre-right whereas the post of EU Foreign Minister will be nominated by the left.

Sarkozy and Merkel have agreed to support the same candidate for the EU president post. It would not be a surprise if their candidate would be the one. Presently, the “stronger potential candidates” are Jean-Claude Juncker, Wolfgang Schüssel, Jan Peter Balkenende and Herman Van Rompuy who, according to Euractiv, “has the strong support of France and Germany.”

The “caretaker” Commission

The European Commission’s mandate has ended on 31 October, under the existing rules the new Commission would have to be composed of fewer Commissioners than the number of Member States. But the Protocol attached to the Nice Treaty does not specify the number. Under the Lisbon Treaty the Commission will be composed of one commissioner per Member State. However, from 2014, the commissioner’s number would be equivalent of two thirds of the number of Member States. The European Council acting unanimously might amend the number of commissioners.

 

It is important to mention that the EC Treaty does not include provisions for extending the European Commission’s mandate - there is no legal basis to extend the Commission’s mandate. According to Europolitics, Johannes Laitenberger, European Commission’s spokesman, said that the Commission’s mandate will be extended as of 1 November “based on the principle of institutional continuity.” It has been said that the Commission will work in a “caretaker capacity” until the new team is appointed. According to Johannes Laitenberger it would be for the “caretaker Commission” “(…) to judge whether it is necessary for a legislative proposal to be made during this period.” According to the European Voice senior officials said “that the general agreement is that the Commission would act as a low-profile caretaker administration and would avoid taking any important decisions.” Obviously, there are doubts over the legality of the decisions that the Commission might take during the “caretaker period.” The Commission has no longer decision-making powers as its mandate has expired. Solely, José Manuel Barroso has been reappointed.

 

It is unclear for how long the Commission mandate will be extended for. However, it is now certain that the new Commission will be appointed under the Lisbon Treaty. The EU Presidency will hold an extraordinary summit on 13 or 19 November to appoint the new EU President and Foreign Affairs minister. The negotiations over the allocation of the Commission’s portfolios are directly related to the appointment of the EU new posts. José Manuel Barroso cannot announce his new team until the appointment of High Representative for Foreign and Security policy who will also be a Commission vice president. Mr Barroso said “if we move forward as quickly as possible on the appointment of the permanent president and the high representative, I will then proceed with the appointment of the new Commission as soon as I have received the full list of candidates.”

 

According to Jerzy Buzek, president of the European Parliament “We need a new and strong European Commission in place as soon as possible,” consequently the European Parliament is ready to start up hearings of the nominated commissioners from 25 November and a vote in plenary on the entire Commission is likely to take place at the session from 14 to 17 December. In this way the candidates would have no time at all to prepare for the hearings. It is important to recall that the European Parliament may reject a commissioner nominated by the Member States by threatening to reject the college as a whole. Another possible scenario is the hearings taking place in December and the European Parliament vote in January.

 

It is important to recall that under the existing Treaties, the Council and the European Commission president select the persons to propose for appointment as members of the Commission on the basis of the Member State’s proposals whereas under the Lisbon Treaty, Member States would be solely entitled to make suggestions. Such provision will limit even more the influence of the Member States whilst it would have been much easier and more democratic for each Member State to appoint one Commissioner.

 

The uncertainty over the size of the new Commission has not prevented Barroso to announce sometime ago the creation of new portfolios for his new team, including a commissioner for climate change, for security and internal affairs, justice and fundamental rights and innovation. According to the EuropeanVoice, José Manuel Barroso said “Most governments, if not all governments in Europe, have a minister for justice and a minister for interior or security and internal affairs, so that's one of the reasons I decided to have instead of one commissioner in charge of all these matters to separate [them] in the new Commission.”

Bill Cash MP calls for "full referendum" – and welcomes David Cameron reasserting primacy of Westminster legislation over European Communities Act

Bill Cash still insists that we must a full referendum on the European question because the British people have been denied one since 1975 and a referendum is needed in order to secure a vote to ensure that the democratic wishes of the electorate are the basis on which we are governed – as he said in his press statement of Monday 2nd November.

However, Bill Cash is extremely glad to hear that David Cameron has effectively endorsed his continuing campaign for many years to reassert in the national interest the primacy of Westminster legislation in principle over the European Communities Act 1972 and therefore the Lisbon Treaty, which consolidates all the Treaties.

The European Communities Act was a voluntary Act passed by Parliament and does not and must not be allowed to usurp the sovereignty and supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament on which the democratic wishes of the British electorate are founded. Where under existing European law, such as the Social Chapter, the overregulation of business and the City of London, the areas of immigration, fisheries and the Common Agricultural Policy and in other areas of European policy-making, the European system of Government undermines vital British national interests.

This new statement by David Cameron would open the door to effective renegotiation despite majority voting and unanimity where our vital national interests were concerned. This is a major step forward in an association of member states, for which Bill Cash has campaigned for the last decade and more.

It is hard to believe but the Lisbon treaty will be in force on 1 December

It is hard to believe but Vaclav Klaus has signed the Lisbon treaty. Following the result of the second Irish referendum, Brussels has increased pressure on Czech Republic to ratify the Treaty. Nicolas Sarkozy has described the Czech president’s refusal to sign the treaty as “unacceptable” and said “It’s time for him to make a choice and his decision will not be without repercussions.” Eventually, Mr Klaus said he would sign the ratification act if the Constitutional Court accepted the treaty and Brussels accepted his request for a Czech opt out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Mr Klaus was concerned that the Charter of Fundamental Rights could abolish the Benes decrees on the expropriation of German property and would allow descendants of the Germans expelled from the Sudetenland at the end of the Second World War from filing legal claims for the return of their property. Consequently, he requested assurances in this regard before signing the ratification act.

On 30 October 2009, the European Council has reiterated its “determination to see the Treaty enter into force by the end of 2009” and come up with another deceitful solution to push the treaty through. In order to pave the way for the Czech ratification in a way that would not involve re-starting the ratification process for the other Member States, the European Council followed the method used for the Irish guarantees.

In order to avoid similar request from Slovakia and opposition from Hungary, the European Council has not mentioned Vaclav Klaus’s demand for an assurance that the Benes decrees would not be abolished by the Lisbon Treaty. The Czech Republic got a promise that an opt-out Protocol from the Charter of Fundamental Rights will be attached to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union at the time of the next Accession Treaty. Protocol No 30 on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to Poland and to the UK would be amended “in order to refer to the Czech Republic in the same terms as they refer to Poland and to the United Kingdom.” Obviously, the protocol will not be amended immediately as in that way the EU leaders could not prevent the re-ratification of the treaty.

However, no one can say that the treaty is exactly the same as ratified by UK and other Member States. The Decision in respect of the “Irish guarantees” as well as the Czech Republic’s opt out comes after the Lisbon treaty has been implemented in the UK Parliament by enactment. Member States have not agreed to the Irish guarantees during the treaty negotiations. The UK and Poland have obtained their opt-out during the treaty negotiations but not Czech Republic. The Czech opt out from the Charter entails an amendment to the Treaty. There would be therefore a new relationship between the EU and Ireland/Czech Republic and between Ireland/Czech Republic and the other Member States requiring re-ratification and new implementing legislation in each Member State. But...the the Lisbon Treaty is unstoppable now!

In the meantime, the Irish Decision and, obviously, the promise of an opt out, are not legally binding on the European Court of Justice and the other EU institutions until they are incorporated into protocols and then become part of the Community legal order. The Lisbon Treaty negotiation and ratification process has been a charade.

Last September, a group of Czech senators, mainly from ODS, lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court challenging the conformity of the Lisbon Treaty with the Czech Republic’s Constitution. The senators argued that the Treaty will infringe Czech sovereignty by creating a supranational European state. President Klaus could not sign the treaty ratification act until the verdict of the Czech Constitutional Court. Unsurprisingly, on 3 November, the Czech constitutional court ruled that the Lisbon treaty is compatible with the country's constitution rejecting the legal complaints. Unexpectedly, a few hours after the court’s ruling, Václav Klaus signed the Lisbon Treaty ratification act, he said “Once the Lisbon Treaty comes into force, the Czech Republic, contrary to the political opinion of the Constitutional Court, will cease to be a sovereign state.”

The Lisbon Treaty will enter into force “on the first day of the month following the deposit of the instrument of ratification by the last signatory State to take this step”, i.e, on 1 December.

In the meantime, inexplicably, David Cameron has ruled out a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. It is absolutely necessary that David Cameron reconsiders such decision and commits to hold a post-ratification referendum. As Bill Cash said “We need a full referendum on Lisbon as we were promised and as we voted in the House of Commons. No ifs or buts. This is about the Government of the United Kingdom operating in line with the democratic wishes of the electorate.”

The EU leaders held preliminary talks about the new EU top positions but there was no decision on the nomination of the EU President and the EU Foreign Minister. Now, that Czech Republic ratified the treaty, the horsetrade for the EU new positions has officially started. There would be an overall transfer of more political power to the EU through the creation of a permanent President of the European Council and the High Representative on Foreign and Security policy, meaning an EU foreign affairs minister. These posts would diminish the ability of Member States to conduct their own foreign policy.

Fredrik Reinfeldt, Swedish Prime Minister, has already announced that he would start “consultations on the names” for the two top positions. In fact, to accelerate the process, the Swedish Presidency will convene an extraordinary summit in mid November to appoint the permanent president of the European Council and the High Representative on Foreign and Security policy as well as to decide on the composition of the new Commission.

Bill Cash MP urges referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in any event

Bill Cash MP today insisted that a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was absolutely necessary:

“A referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was promised by the Labour Government. Whatever weasel words have been used to suggest otherwise, the Lisbon treaty combines all the Treaties and therefore is about all the Treaties since 1972 but has been pushed through with bullying of smaller states and the breaking of promises in a monumental cascade of deceit.

“As David Cameron has said, we need an association of member states. In order to achieve this, we cannot simply cherry-pick individual aspects of the treaty and call for renegotiation of those. We need a full referendum on Lisbon as we were promised and as we voted in the House of Commons. No ifs or buts. This is about the Government of the United Kingdom operating in line with the democratic wishes of the electorate.

“Future referendums will be ruled out with the arrangements in the treaty which allow amendment of treaties by internal self-amending text, and with a massive transfer of powers under the system of co-decision.

“The British people were lied to when they were told this was no more than tinkering with the existing European arrangements and just ironing out a few problems. We can see from the furore over Tony Blair’s apparently failed bid for President and David Miliband’s plan to take the glittering prize of a failed European foreign policy just how far and how deep the ambitions of the Euro-fanatics are against the background of failure of the European Union, politically and economically. They are hell-bent on enlargement with other countries which cannot be possibly be admitted.

“The common immigration policy, as I pointed out in the House of Commons, would do nothing to stop the millions of illegal immigrants already in Europe, not to mention those in the United Kingdom.

“The Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy are an unmitigated failure and have cost the taxpayer in efficiency and fraud whilst damaging the less well off in the third world. There is nothing to be said for this obsolete and failed system which needs to be radically reformed and we need to return democracy to this country as well as other Member States.

“As David Cameron and William Hague have repeatedly indicated, the EU is over-centralised and undemocratic and we need it to be radically reformed into a democratic association of member states. This can only be done with Britain taking a firm lead over this gerrymandered treaty, returning democratic power to the people.

“Accompanying this, we mist insist on the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament where necessary over the European Union and oblige our judiciary to give effect to Westminster enactments based on the wishes of our electorate. It is important to remember that Lord Randolph Churchill said ‘Trust the people’ and John Bright said we had the ‘Mother of all Parliaments’. We need radical reform, but so does the European Union. Winston Churchill said we should be ‘associated, not absorbed’ with the European Union. It is clear that we now need a relationship which is worthy of the twenty-first century.”