The Treaty of Amsterdam: signed in 1997

entered into force in 1999

• Aimed at establishment of an ‘area of freedom, security and justice’ (AFSJ)
• Shifted police and judicial cooperation in civil activities of JHA from 3. pillar
to 1. pillar: communitarization
• 3. pillar: police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters
• Incorporated Schengen cooperation into the EU
• Increased differentiation: The UK, Ireland and Denmark had some opt-outs
from the Schengen and AFSJ
• Introduction of mechanisms for ‘closer cooperation’: potential for further
differentiation among MSs regarding integration
• Lessened differentiation: repeal of the UK opt-out from social policy
• Enhanced competences for cons. and enviro. protection
• Intr of employment policy
• CFSP still intergover. but some reforms: a new post of High Representative,
more precisely defined concept of security, intro of ‘constructive abstention’
 The Treaty of Amsterdam:
Institutional reforms
• Supposed to prepare the EU institutionally for next enlargement: It
failed in this respect
• Rather it postponed the solution (reform) of key issues: size and
composition of the Commission, redistribution (reweighting) of votes in
the Council, and nature and extension of majority voting: Amsterdam
‘left-overs’
• It necessitates further treaty reform before enlargement: without such
reform policy-making would come to a halt; enlargement could
challenge the whole idea of union.
• However, unanimity replaced by QMV in 19 areas
• Reforms made regarding the EP: determined the size of members of the
EP (700) and enhanced legislative role of the EP (use of assent and co-
decision procedures extended)
 The Treaty of Nice: signed in 2001 entered into
force in 2003
• In 2000 an IGC was held to address key institutional issues: Amsterdam leftovers!
• Suboptimal solutions to the institutional problems emerged from prospect of
enlarg.
• Made enlarg possible, avoided decision-making and institutional paralysis
• QMV extended to almost 40 more Treaty provisions
• Reweighting votes in the Council but proportion of votes required for QMV
remained almost the same. And a new criterion: any decision would require to
have support of MSs representing 62%of the EU’s population. So, reaching a
decision did not become easier.
• A staged reduction in the size of the Commission: from 2005 each MS would have
one representative. When the EU had 27 MSs, the Commission would include
members less than the total number of MSs: rotation system.
• Size of the EP: 732
• Revised the procedure for suspension of membership rights
• Revised the procedure for closer cooperation as ‘enhanced cooperation’. Made it
easier to resort to: the possibility of the EU becoming less uniform increased.
• More ‘European’ EU in the sense of enlargement by introducing necessary
institutional reforms, but did little for the objective of ‘ever closer union’
The debate on the future of the EU
• The Nice Treaty and its insufficiencies regarding ever closer union, and
speeches made by Fischer and Chirac in favour of more integration led to a
debate on the future of the EU
• The debate resulted in Laeken declaration in Dec 2001 on the future of the EU
and a convention, instead of directly starting with an IGC, for reform of the
Treaties: to engage citizens more in the process.
• The origins of the Constitutional Treaty (CT) came from these developments
• European Convention started in Feb 2002 and comprised represenatives of MS
govns, members of nat parliaments, members of EP and Commission
representatives as well as governmental representatives and MPs from the
candidate countries.
• It was an active and partly open forum.
• Convention presented a draft text to the Eur Council in June 2003 which would
lead to the CT.
 Constitutional Treaty (CT)
signed in Oct 2004
• The Conv draft constituted a good basis for the IGC started in Sep 2003: 90%
of the CT had come from the draft.
• Designed to replace all of the existing treaties and become the single
constitutional document.
• Lengthy (482 pages), complex and impenetrable, done little to promote
transparency and accountability.
• Abolished the EC and the three-pillar structure, created single Union
structure
• Decision-making style: OLP: joint decision-making by the EP and the Council
and intro of ‘Double majority’ in the Council
• A new post as ‘Union Minister for For Affairs’
• The addition of the Charter Fundamental Rights, binding on the MSs
• French and Dutch people rejected the CT on the referanda held on 29th May
and 1st June 2005
 Underlying reasons of the ‘no’ votes
• The CT itself since it was lengthy and complicated to understand
and hard for supporters of integration to sell. The addressed
issues were poorly appreciated, so leaving room for other
concerns.
• French worries were national and social while Ducth worries were
generally associated with the CT itself
• General dissatisfaction with national governments
• Their failure to make convincing cases for more integration
• Basic alienation from the EU and some issues unconnected to the
CT like TR’s potential membership
• The CT could have entered into force only if it had been ratified by
all MSs, so it never entered into force, leaving the EU with
constitutional crisis.
 The Treaty of Lisbon (signed in Dec 2007 and
entered into force in Dec 2009)

• With the iniative of Merkel who regarded the CT necessary for

the EU as there was no realistic alternative
• Germany’s Council presidency during first half of 2007 followed
a tightly-controlled strategy to secure MSs consensus on an IGC
to transfer much of the CT into an amending treaty.
• Sarkozy supported Merkel in this respect.
• In spite of the UK’s and Poland’s concerns, MSs agreed to launch
a technical IGC in July 2007 after last-minute concessions.
• The Treaty of Lisbon was produced in October 2007 under the
Portugese Council presidency.
 The main elements of the Treaty of Lisbon

• It was an amending treaty: altered the TEU and TEC, renamed the TEC as
TFEU, and disappeared from the view. It did NOT replace the existing treaties.
• Abolished the EC and the three-pillar structure, created single Union
structure which inherited legal personality, intitutions and policies.
• Except CFSP, basic Community method as ‘Union method’ thereafter is used.
It made ‘co-decision’ the basic legislative procedure by extending its use, and
renamed it ‘OLP’.
• Since 2017 ‘Double majority’ instead of ‘qualified majority’ in the Council:
majority of the MSs (55%) whose populations represent 65% must vote
accordingly.
• Importance of MSs since the EU is based on powers conferred by its MSs
which were given right to leave.
• Incorporation of the remaining matters of JHA into the Union method, not
intergovernmental any more.
 The main elements of the Treaty of Lisbon
• It made the European Council strengthened and formalized as an
‘institution’. Intro. of a new post for 2.5 year period and so a new role in
external affairs: European Council President: Charles Michel since Dec
2019.
• High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy as
Vice-President of the Commission and Chair of the For. Affairs Council.
• New emphasis on values and rights. The Charter Of Fundamental Rights
was given legal status, subject to safeguards for nat. jurisdiction
• More democratic EU: Citizen’s initiative, nat. parliaments’ new rights
• As different from the CT, constitutional language, references and the
treaty-based mention of the Union’s symbols as flag and anthem were
dropped. Again as different from the CT, outputs of the legislative
procedure would not be called ‘laws’, and the post ‘Minister for For.
Affairs’ was abondoned.