EU Reform Treaty Moving Forward

Since I last raised negotiations over the EU Reform Treaty, the Europeans have kept themselves quite busy. Early in October, lawyers agreed to a text. Then on October 18-19, the EU Council of Ministers hammered out a few last minute changes to the deal (e.g., moving the updated Charter of Human Rights into a side document) and setting the stage for the treaty’s formal signature December 13, 2007 (all the relevant texts are compiled here, including for all you language buffs out there 22 different language versions that certainly will give VCLT Article 33 continued relevance).

But don’t expect the Reform Treaty to go forward without a fight. I’d expect some of those who opposed the older, failed EU Constitution to mobilize against the new treaty, especially given comments today by former French president Valéry Giscard d’Estaing. Confirming my earlier suspicions, M. Giscard d’Estaing wrote that the Reform Treaty is not only a “Constitution,” but one very similar in content to the failed EU Constitution (for which he had led the negotiations):

[T]he proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary. The Brussels institutions have also cleverly reclaimed the process from the – to them – unwelcome intrusion of parliamentarians and politicians in the work of the original drafting Convention. The institutions have re-imposed their language and their procedures – taking us even further away from ordinary citizens. . . . [T]he complexity of the new text, and the apparent surrender of all sweeping ambitions, should be enough to smooth over all difficulties. But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention: a stable Presidency; a streamlined Commission; a Parliament with genuine legislative rights; a Foreign Minister, even if he has been given another inadequate title; decisions taken by a double majority of governments and citizens; and the most advanced charter of fundamental rights in the world. When men and women with sweeping ambitions for Europe decide to make use of this treaty, they will be able to rekindle from the ashes of today the flame of a United Europe.

A wholly different type of fight is brewing given the decision by the Portugese government to have the signing ceremony on December 13 in Lisbon (the hope being to replace the EU Reform Treaty moniker with the “Lisbon Treaty”). The problem is that the EU Council (whose membership would sign the Lisbon Treaty) is due to meet in Brussels the same day, and the Belgians aren’t willing to move the meeting date or have it held in Lisbon. Hence, we’re likely to see the leaders of the 27 Member States and their extensive entourages burning a lot of fossil fuel to sign the treaty and have their meeting all in the same day. The environmentalists will have a field day with this, but I also think it’s a reminder that, as much as technology has changed the world, there’s still some value in the ceremony and formality of concluding treaty commitments via signature. Certainly, the technology is there to have electronic treaty signatures or virtual signing ceremonies, but states have not embraced these new methods. Instead, they retain their obvious affinity for in-person meetings at which they record their commitments to bind themselves under the pacta sunt servanda principle. Thus, Kyoto Protocol concerns aside, I’d expect to see a pretty impressive ceremony coordinated on December 13 for the Lisbon/EU Reform Treaty’s signature.