Republica ceha. Guvernul pentru Curtea Constitutionala despre Tratatul de la Lisabona

Precum se stie, instanta constitutionala din aceasta tara urmeaza a se pronunta asupra compatibilitatii tratatului in cauza cu dreptul constitutional… Guvernul ceh si-a prezentat punctul de vedere. Cititi aici, din EUObserver.

Si poate doriti sa cititi si punctul de vedere al Presedintelui Cehiei, Vaclav Klaus, trimis Curtii Constitutionale.

Semnificatia votului irlandez

Despre acest subiect se va scrie, probabil, enorm. Asa cum s-a scris si despre votul francez, respectiv olandez anterior, asupra “Constitutiei”.

Ei bine, aici trimitem la doua analize de presa:

1. Irlanda & neoliberalismul (*)

Jack O’Connor, the union’s president, suggested that while EU social legislation has benefited Irish workers, there is a deep-rooted unease over how the interests of capital seem to be taken more seriously by the Brussels elite than social issues. “People are not comfortable with this ruthless neo-liberal Europe that seems to be emerging,” he said.

Although the treaty includes a bill of rights — including the right to strike — fears have been voiced that its provisions on social issues would have less legal weight than many of those relating to macro-economic policy. For example, the treaty says that competition must not be “distorted”. In some controversial recent verdicts, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg has found that laws setting minimum wages flout competition rules.

Joe Higgins, leader of the Socialist Party and a former member of the Dáil, said many activists regarded the treaty’s rejection as “an opportunity to start a campaign against the neo-liberal juggernaut that’s being pushed down their throats.”

2. Instituirea cadrului institutional in asteptarea votului (*), articol din The Telegraph.

First, they will push through as much as they can under the existing dispensation. To a large degree this has already happened. Many of the institutions that would have been created by the constitution have already been established in anticipation of a “Yes” vote: the Human Rights Agency, the External Borders Agency, the Defence Agency.

Din nou Irlanda. Sindicatele, Lisabona & neo-liberalismul

Evident, problema sindicatelor de acolo si din alte parti este abordarea CJCE in “cele trei hotarari“, dar si a Cartei drepturilor fundamentale a UE si, mai nou, problema lucrarilor temporari… De aici.

Private and public sector workers have today been urged to reject the “neo liberal” bias of the Lisbon Treaty and to ensure that Europe is as much about social as economic well being.

Speaking at a Dublin press conference attended by representatives of six trade unions, several of whom were appearing in a personal capacity, Jimmy Kelly, Irish regional secretary of the Unite union said it had advised its own membership to vote against the treaty from the outset.

He highlighted the impact of three recent judgments of the European Court of Justice which he said would have a serious impact on workers, and said there was a need for a “social progress” clause to be inserted to protect their rights.

He noted that the outcome of these judgments, known as the Laval, Viking and Ruffert cases, was not known when the treaty was being drawn up.

“Equal recognition of the rights of working people is essential if Europe is to deliver a sound, fair future for its citizens,” he said.

“Lisbon does nothing to recognise this…..we now appeal to all workers to stand up for their rights by rejecting Lisbon and sending a clear message that Europe should be as much about social as economic well being.”

Several contributors to today’s press conference argued that the treaty served to promote the “neo liberal” agenda and privatisation of services in areas such as health and education.

Eddie Conlon, a former national secretary of the Teachers Union of Ireland (TUI), said the Charter of Fundamental Rights “will not give workers the rights” which those on the “Yes” side had claimed.

He said it was noteworthy that a deal on the rights of agency workers had been agreed, after being opposed by the Government “all along”, just days before the polls opened here.

Milionar britanic actioneaza guvernul in justitie pentru neorganizarea unui referendum asupra Tratatului de la Lisabona

Tony Blair promisese un referedum care nu s-a mai tinut. Reclamantul invoca asteptarile sale legitime in cauza referitor la organizarea unui astfel de referendum de catre succesorul lui Blair, Gordon Brown.

Din EurActiv. Si din EUBusiness.com

Bernard Kouchner, Daniel Cohn-Bendit & poporul irlandez

Din EUObserver. Ce se intampla daca…? nomen odiosa. O noua CIG? sau mergem si fara ei…?

Si aici.

Irlanda. Tratatul de la Lisabona & pastrarea dreptului de veto in materia avortului & in privinta OMC

Despre regimul avortului in statul respectiv am mai scris recent. Acum si despre OMC (Organizatia Mondiala a Comertului, nu?!). Stirea suna astfel, iar comunicatul aici:

Ireland will retain its right to veto World Trade Organisation talks and maintain its position on abortion if the Lisbon Treaty is passed, the Referendum Commission said today.

The Commission had decided to offer “clarification” to voters given the “confusion” that has surrounded some of the debate, the chairman of the Referendum Commission, Judge Iarfhlaith O’Neill.

World trade talks can be blocked because all such deals include elements that require unanimity, even if the agricultural chapter does not.

In his statement, Judge O’Neill said Protocol 35 to the Lisbon Treaty makes it clear that nothing shall affect Article 40.3.3. of the Constitution.

“Protocols have full legal force – they have the same legal status as an Article of the Treaties. This Protocol is EU law and it explicitly excludes Article 40.3.3. of the Irish Constitution from any other EU law. This mean’s Ireland’s constitutional position on abortion would not be affected by the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty,” he said.

Judge O’Neill said it was the Commission’s role to explain what is in the treaty and not to supervise the debate in the referendum campaign.

He said the Commission had listened to the debate in recent weeks and “we believe there may be some confusion on a number of issues”.

One area that needed further clarification, Judge O’Neill said, was how qualified majority voting would work under the new treaty and in which areas it would apply.

He explained the proposed voting system was not directly comparable to the existing system. Under the Lisbon Treay, decisions would require 55 per cent of member states to agree and that those states must support at least 65 per cent of the population.

“In addition, at least four member states must be opposed to a decision in order for it to be blocked. This ensures that decisions cannot be blocked by just three of the larger member states acting together, even if the population criterion is met.”

Ratification of the treaty would also mean some policy areas where unanimity is currently required would in future be decided by qualified majority voting, he said.

Member states will no longer have a veto in areas such as the election of the President of the European Council, measures concerning an immigration policy and the immplemetation of the solidarity clause in the event of a member state suffering a terrorist attack or a disaster.

However, unanimity will persist in agreements in the field of trade in services and the commercial aspects of intellectual property, as well as foreign direct investment, Judge O’Neill said.

But anti-treay group Cóir today accused the Commission of breaching its mandate by not providing “impartial information” and actively campaigning in the referendum on Lisbon.

Cóir spokeswoman Niamh Uí Bhriain claimed the Commission was engaged in giving its opinion rather than presenting the facts. She said the Commission was trying “to fudge the issue” on abortion by saying that it will not affect the Irish Constitution.

“If the Judge O’Neill had listened closely, as he claims he and the Commission had done, he would have heard Cóir position on the issue”.

“The Lisbon Treaty gives the European Court of Justice the right to make a future ruling on Ireland’s abortion laws - and on other areas of importance such as family law and children’s rights,” she said

“In doing so it allows the EU Court to overrule the wishes of the Irish people, “ she claimed.

Lectia lui Jefferson pentru europeni

Jefferson: a lesson for Europeans

din The Times

de William Rees-Mogg

The US Constitution is 221 years old… hard to see the Lisbon treaty being so successful

On June 19 Sotheby’s will be holding an auction of “fine books and manuscripts” in New York. Included in the sale, at lot 18, is a fascinating letter from Thomas Jefferson to Dr William Bache. It is dated Philadelphia, January 2, 1800. At that time, Jefferson was Vice-President. Sotheby’s estimate is that it will sell for $100,000 to $150,000. This is an historic document of the highest importance.

Jefferson himself is one of those rare historic characters whose influence still remains alive long after their death. Americans, both of liberal and conservative views, tend to regard him as the most original thinker among all the presidents, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln. It was Jefferson who drafted the Declaration of Independence in 1776; through his work on the Constitution of Virginia, he had considerable influence on the drafting of the US Constitution itself, though in 1787, when it was signed, Jefferson was still in Paris, as the US Ambassador to France.

The main criticism that is now made of Jefferson’s career is that he, like Charles James Fox in England, became overcommitted to the extreme development of the French Revolutionary process; Jefferson became more Jacobin than the Jacobins, even expressing approval of the execution of Louis XVI, whom he had previously regarded as a “good” king. So long as there was any hope of the French Revolution following the same course as America’s, Jefferson remained on the side of revolution.

The date of this letter is significant. Early February 1800 was the time when the news reached America of Napoleon’s coup d’état, best known as the Coup of 18 Brumaire from the French Revolutionary calendar. In Anglo-Saxon terms, it occurred on November 9, 1799.

Jefferson’s response to the news of Napoleon’s seizure of power was virtually a cry of pain. The event forced him to reconsider his whole position. He wrote to Dr Bache: “You have seen the afflicting details from Paris. On what grounds the revolution has been made, we are not informed, and are still more at a loss to divine what will be its issue; whether we are to have over again the history of Robespierre, of Caesar, or of the new phenomenon of an usurpation of the government for the purpose of making it free.

“Our citizens, however, should derive from this some useful lessons. They should see the necessity to rally firmly and in close bands round their Constitution; never to suffer an iota of it to be infringed; to incubate on minorities the duties of acquiescence in the will of the majority, and in the majority a respect to the will of the minority; to beware of a military force even of citizens; and to be wary of too much confidence in any man.

“The confidence of the French people in Bonaparte has enabled him to kick down their Constitution, and instead of that to leave them dependent on his will and his life. I have never seen so awful a moment as the present.”

Many European politicians have seen the EU as a future United States of Europe, although many of them are reluctant to admit it. The extraordinary thing is that they have not studied the history of the American Constitution. This is like the problem of bishops and Adam Smith. One hardly ever meets a bishop with a student’s knowledge of classical economics. They have seldom read Smith’s Wealth of Nations; they just assume it must be wrong.

In the same way, there are few Europhiles with a good knowledge of late 18th-century American history. Hardly any of the “experts” on the European constitution seem to have read The Federalist, which was written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, and first published in 1788.

In 1825 Thomas Jefferson himself proposed that The Federalist should be adopted as a required text in the University of Virginia. He described it as: “An authority to which appeal is habitually made by all… as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the United States, on questions as to its genuine meaning.” Perhaps The Federalist should be a required text in Brussels and for the European Court of Justice.

I do not argue that the problems of early 21st-century Europe are identical to those of late 18th-century America. I am not myself a federalist. Yet the Americans did have to face similar problems in trying to reconcile the relationship of the federal government with the individual states - the very questions that confront Europe in the Lisbon treaty.

The American Constitution has succeeded in providing the US with a stable democratic framework that has survived the great changes of the past two centuries, including - in the 20th century - two world wars, a Cold War and a slump. The US Constitution is 221 years old, and still able to produce a presidential election with three highly gifted candidates. The Constitution has repeatedly proved able to regenerate itself.

The original French Constitution was adopted only shortly after the American; within a decade it had been overtaken by the Terror and overthrown by Napoleon. Surely, Europe should be asking this question: why did the US Constitution succeed when the French Constitution has repeatedly failed? There is also the primary question of assent. The articles of the US Constitution were adopted by the Federal Convention in September 1787; the opening words are: “We, the people of the United States…”

Combined with the earlier treaties, Lisbon does form a sort of constitution, though an unsatisfactory one. Yet no one would be entitled to start this European constitution with the words: “We, the people of Europe…” It might have to be: “We, the people of Ireland…”, since the Irish are the only people allowed a vote. Will the Lisbon constitution last as long as the American? The answer is probably not.

Articol din perspectiva sistemului constitutional italian despre guvernarea pe mai multe niveluri

… care s-ar numi “multilevel governance” in (fosta) limba in care a scris Shakespeare…

Articolul, in limba italiana, aici.

Un interviu al unui profesor de la Universitatea din Birmingham despre Tratatul de la Lisabona

 Anand Menon se cheama acel profesor, iar titlul articolului este “EU works well even without Lisbon Treaty” (*). Interviul este interesant; ca mostra un fragment:

Sometimes we hear that without a Lisbon Treaty, the only alternative is some kind of disintegration to the core and periphery, the creation of a multi-speed Europe or some kind of catastrophe. How would you comment? 

I was one of the people writing and arguing against the enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe because I thought it would lead to gridlock. I was totally wrong. Even under the procedures of the Nice Treaty, the enlarged European Union is functioning fine. Insofar as there have been disputes about specific pieces of legislation, these have been between old member states. There would have been rows about Iraq even without enlargement. The same goes for the Services Directive. These were debates dividing the old member states, not dividing “old” and “new”. 

For me, what the figures about voting in the Council indicate is that the EU has not slowed down at all. It is producing the legislation with the same speed as before. There isn’t an institutional crisis to be addressed. Or at least there isn’t an institutional crisis that is more serious than what existed prior of enlargement. 

Noutati despre ratificarea Tratatului de la Lisabona

Portugalia si Danemarca au ratificat tratatul, iar in Germania si Cehia au fost sesizate Curtile constitutionale. Despre acestea aici (*) si aici (*).

Si Slovacia ratifica Tratatul de la Lisabona

Slovakia’s parliament has ratified the Lisbon Treaty, despite a boycott of the vote by some opposition parties.

Previous attempts to hold a vote had to be scrapped because of a series of walkouts by MPs over a media law, which critics say harms press freedom.

But one of the opposition parties decided to drop its boycott and give Prime Minister Robert Fico the majority he needed to push the bill through.

BBC; alta sursa

Il fallimento della Costituzione europea. Note a margine del Trattato di Lisbona

Articol recent; aici (*).

SOMMARIO: 1. La rinuncia di Lisbona. Breve cronaca di un fallimento annunciato. - 2. Da Maastricht a Lisbona. Ovvero: dai Trattati alla Costituzione e dalla Costituzione ai Trattati. - 3. Le tesi habermasiane e la retorica “intellettuale” sull’Europa. - 4. L’art. 16 della Déclaration des droits quale matrice esclusiva del concetto di costituzione - 5. Le ambiguità di un progetto costituzionale senza pathos. - 6. I luoghi comuni dell’habermasismo all’italiana. - 7. L’evanescente identità dell’Unione europea. - 8. I rischi di una Europa “antisovrana”. - 9. Diritti versus democrazia? - 10. Il mito delle “costituzioni senza Stato” come reazione alle degenerazioni delle costituzioni statali. Un falso problema. - 11. Il mito delle “costituzioni senza Stato” come reazione alla “morte dello Stato”. Un problema falso. - 12. Per una fondazione democratica dell’Europa. - 13. L’Unione europea contro l’identità europea? - 14. Quale prospettiva costituzionale per l’Europa - 15. Una breve postilla

Claudio De Fiores

Austria ratifica Tratatul de la Lisabona

Nimic deosebit pana aici, nu?, numai ca, din stire reiese o ecuatie interesanta: apel la referendum = extremism…

De la Euractiv (*).

Austria ratifies EU Treaty amid protests 

The Austrian Parliament voted on Wednesday (9 April) to approve the Lisbon Treaty, rejecting calls from two minority far-right groups to hold a referendum on the matter.

Austria became the eighth EU country to ratify the treaty after it was approved in Parliament on Wednesday (9 April) by a wide coalition of Social Democrats, Conservatives and the opposition Green Party. 

The vote took place despite the opposition of two minority far-right groups – the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) and Federal Future Party of Austria (BZÖ) - which called for a referendum to be held on the issue. About 1,500 protesters from the “Save Austria” movement took the streets of Vienna on Tuesday, handing in a petition signed by over 100,000 people to demand a referendum.

The eight-hour Parliamentary debate was colourful, the German news agency DPA reported, with opposition deputies waving Austrian football scarves as a sign of protest. But ultimately, the treaty was easily approved by a sweeping majority of 151 votes to 28.

The eurosceptic current runs deep in Austria although it is now confined to a minority in Parliament following the 2006 elections, won by the Social Democrat (SPÖ) party of Alfred Gusenbauer. The election dealt a blow to the Conservative People’s Party (ÖVP) of Wolfgang Schüssel, who had ruled for the previous six years with the far-right FPÖ. But the ÖVP managed to return to power by entering a coalition government headed by Gusenbauer in January 2007.

Lege fundamentala si post-constitutionalism. Tratatul de la Lisabona

Articol nou, in italiana:

Una legge fondamentale post-costituzionale? Il diritto pubblico europeo alla luce del Trattato di Lisbona  (*)

Marea Britanie. Comisia constitutionala din Camera Lorzilor. Raport asupra implicatiilor Tratatului de la Lisabona asupra “Constitutiei” britanice

da, da, pentru ca, poate, va intrebati daca statul in cauza are sau nu o constitutie scrisa… ei bine, raspunsul simplu este… NU.

Raportul, intitulat “The Lisbon Treaty: Implications for the UK Constitution“, poate fi gasit aici (*).

Polonia & ratificarea Tratatului de la Lisabona

Daca nu se mai aude nimic din Slovacia, in schimb din Polonia vin vesti; stirea e reflectata astfel:

Kaczynski twins threaten Polish ratification of Lisbon Treaty
 

17.03.2008 - 09:26 CET | By Renata Goldirova
The Polish opposition, led by former Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski, has threatened not to approve the EU’s Lisbon Treaty in the country’s parliament unless the ratification bill contains legal guarantees respecting Poland’s sovereignty and its constitution as the highest law in the country, out of worries about gay marriage “being imposed” on the country.

According to Mr Kaczynski, who earned himself the reputation of a trouble-maker on European issues in the past, the bill should reaffirm a mechanism allowing countries to block some EU decisions as well as opt-outs secured by Poland, namely an exemption from the Charter of Fundamental Rights.The citizens’ rights document, legally binding by the treaty, is seen in Poland’s conservative circles as a back door to allowing abortions, euthanasia and gay marriages.The special addendum to the ratification bill was needed so that “homosexual marriages cannot be imposed on us” and that Polish property rights were secure on territory taken from Germany after World War II, Mr Kaczynski said, according to the Financial Times.

His party, Law and Justice (PiS), negotiated the document last year, but some suggest that the opposition leader is currently under pressure from eurosceptic nationalists and the religious right.

Mr Kaczynski’s twin brother, President Lech Kaczynski, has already thrown his weight behind his brother’s warning. He needs to give the final approval to the EU’s Lisbon Treaty, which is set to finally close the chapter on the union’s institutional reform after years of negotiations.

“In my opinion, the new ratification law … should ensure the farthest-reaching security. Simply speaking, it should be as hard as possible to change whatever has been signed,” the country’s president was cited as saying by AP.

The threat to block treaty ratification is a blow to the the country’s current leadership, who vowed after elections last November to be the first to ratify the EU’s Lisbon Treaty.

The ruling Civic Platform, led by Prime Minister Donald Tusk, wanted to draw a clear line between the 16-month era of his predecessor and putting Poland back on the European stage.

The Polish parliament is set to debate the issue on Tuesday (18 March), with the government hoping to find a compromise. The government needs at least 14 opposition votes to secure the two-thirds majority necessary for parliamentary ratification of the document.

Some domestic media outlets are reporting that Prime Minister Tusk would consider a referendum on the treaty, should the parliament fail to ratify it. So far, Ireland is the only EU member state planning to hold a public ballot.

Sursa (*). O alta stire aici (*).

Parlamentul britanic a respins propunerea de supunere la referendum a Tratatului de la Lisabona

Scriam ieri despre aceasta initiativa; s-a hotarat ca nu mai e cazul de un astfel de referendum. 

Cateva randuri din stire: 

MPs have rejected proposals to hold a UK-wide referendum on whether to ratify the EU’s Lisbon Treaty.

The House of Commons turned down the Conservative proposal by 311 votes to 248 - a margin of 63.

Stirea intreaga aici (*) (BBC). EUObserver (*).

Parlamentul britanic & referendumul asupra Tratatului de la Lisabona

Stirea suna asa:

British MPs will today (5 March) vote on whether a referendum should be held on the EU treaty.
Two amendments calling for a public poll are to be put to the vote, one put forward by the opposition Conservatives and one drawn up by Labour MP Ian Davidson.

Restul aici (*).

The European Court and Civil Society

Rachel A. Cichowski este o profesoara din America. Ea a venit in Europa unde a scris o carte.

Sper sa revin si cu alte amanunte.

Supra-legitimitate

Anand Menon, Stephen Weatherill, Democratic Politics in a Globalising World: Supranationalism and Legitimacy in the European Union (October 2007). LSE Legal Studies Working Paper No. 13/2007 Available at SSRN.

This paper addresses the relationship between legitimacy and international organisations via a consideration of the supranational principle that lies at the heart of the European Union. It is built on two arguments. First, that using State paradigms as the starting-point in measuring the legitimacy of the EU (or of any international organisations) is falsely to assume that the EU aspires to become a State. Second, that even in so far as there may be virtue in drawing on State practice to interrogate the legitimacy of the EU system, one must do so with full recognition of the failures of states in practice to live up to the worthy ideals which represent their own claims to legitimacy. The core of our analysis holds that the nature and impact of supranationalism can only be grasped in the context of an understanding of the nature of European politics as an interlocking system of European governance. To argue that the EU should become a nation state recreated at European level is, in my our view, the road to (the EU’s) ruin. It would not work because of the enduring absence of adequate popular support for such a project. But nor should it work. Stripping out the supranational elements of the EU as part of a quest for accountability of the type found in States makes deeply implausible assumptions about the ability of Member States deprived of the ‘Community method’ to solve many of the (transnational) economic, political and social problems that confront them and their citizens, while also opening up the opportunities for ‘beggar-my-neighbour’ economic policies of the type controlled by EC trade law. Thus, we argue for an appreciation of the functions of both national and European institutions in meeting the challenge of securing legitimacy, an approach which connects to the normative reading of supranationalism that treats it as directed at ‘taming’, but neither eliminating, nor replacing, the Member states.

Franta. Ratificatu-s-a…

Stirea:

France ratifies EU treaty

08.02.2008 - 08:58 CET | By Honor Mahony
The French parliament has approved the new EU treaty, making France the first of the large member states to ratify the document and drawing a line under the shock ‘No’ vote of almost three years ago when French voters rejected the original EU constitution.Both the national assembly (336 in favour and 52 against) on Thursday (7 February) and the senate (265 in favour, 42 against and 13 abstentions) on Friday voted strongly in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, a reworking of the rejected constitution containing most of its innovations.

Europe Minister Jean-Pierre Jouyet told parliament on Thursday that ratification was a “historic moment for France” while foreign minister Bernard Kouchner said “this treaty deserves to be appreciated for its value: as an important moment in the construction of the European ideal.”“This is excellent news, a great victory for France which has gone from being the country holding up Europe to being the one that pulled Europe out of gridlock,” said government spokesman David Martinon.

The socialists and their allies who had criticised Mr Sarkozy for choosing the parliamentary rather than the referendum route, nonetheless largely voted in favour of the Lisbon Treaty.

Vincent Peillon, socialist MEP, was one of the politicians who advocated a ‘no’ to the old EU constitution.

He explained to La Croix daily on Thursday, ahead of the vote, that he was voting in favour of its replacement, the Lisbon Treaty, because “it is neither about the same text or the same context.”

Mr Peillon points out that the third part of the EU constitution “that constitutionalised the liberal policies of the European Union and made free and undistorted competition an objective of the Union” no longer exists.

While admitting that the socialist position is “difficult” to understand, Mr Peillon said that “to say ‘no’ again would cut us off from our European allies and block Europe.”

The French ratification, which has to be formally signed and sealed by president Nicolas Sarkozy, makes France the fifth country after Hungary, Slovenia, Malta and Romania to approve the treaty.

The treaty introduces a powerful foreign policy chief, a permanent president of the European Council and gives greater legislative powers to the European Parliament. It must be ratified by all 27 member states to come into force.

Ratification is expected to take place through the year. Germany plans to ratify in June while others such as Spain will follow suit later in the year. Only Ireland has pledged to have a referendum

Meanwhile, the ratification saga continues in Slovakia. Its treaty approval process has become tangled up in a separate dispute between government and opposition parties over a media bill, which the opposition say is too restrictive.

The government needs the opposition to secure approval of the treaty. An attempt to resolve the issue failed on Thursday, and Slovak media reports now suggest that the parliamentary vote on the treaty has been postponed indefinitely.

Sursa (*).

Slovacia & ratificarea Tratatului de la Lisabona

Stirea suna asa. Este de urmarit ce va fi.

Internal row in Slovakia threatens EU treaty

31.01.2008 - 09:27 CET | By Renata Goldirova
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - European Parliament president Hans-Gert Poettering has called on Slovakia to act responsibly, as the country locked in internal bickering is heading for a crucial vote on the EU’s hard-fought Lisbon Treaty on Thursday evening.“I call on all respective politicians in Slovakia to realise their enormous political responsibility,” Mr Poettering said at the beginning of the parliament’s plenary session on Wednesday (30 January).

A similar message came from the parliament’s two leading groups, the Conservatives and the Socialists.

“I totally reject the idea of making the Lisbon Treaty dependent on some national law. If all the countries do it, we would never have any progress in Europe,” the Socialists’ vice-chairman Hannes Swoboda said, describing the current deadlock in Slovakia as “negative and un-European”.

The EU’s treaty has been held captive by the Slovak centre-right opposition since Monday (28 January). Even though an overwhelming majority backs the document, they are refusing to vote in favour of the treaty unless the government redrafts a separate media bill.

They say the proposed law will curb press freedom - an argument backed up by Europe’s democracy watchdog, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Wednesday saw a series of negotiations between the two camps, with the country’s president also taking a part. However, no compromise has been reached and all three opposition parties are still set to walk out from the chamber if the treaty is put to the vote.

The vote is scheduled for 5pm CET on Thursday (31 January).

Without at least five votes from the opposition, Prime Minister Robert Fico’s coalition government will not have the constitutional majority required for the treaty to be passed in the parliament.

Earlier this week, a European Commission spokesperson said it was not up to Brussels to say what issues may or may not be raised during the debate, but he added that the EU’s executive hoped the debate would focus on European issues.

The EU’s Lisbon Treaty, formally signed on 13 December in Portugal’s capital, must be ratified by all EU states in order to enter into force on 1 January 2009. It marks the end of six-year long wrangle to reform the bloc’s institutions.

So far, Hungary, Slovenia and Malta have approved the document.

Sursa (*)

Notiunea & natura “Constitutiei” europene din perspectiva Tratatului de la Lisabona

… un articol recent.

Abstract:      This paper argues on the basis of comparative constitutional law the following five points: 1) That the European Union has developed into a constitutional order, can only be understood if we acknowledge the non-revolutionary, evolutionary and incremental nature of the European constitution. 2) We need to say farewell to formal criteria in order to identify what is constitutional in the political and legal order of the European Union. 3) In European law, we do not know exactly where the boundary is between `constitutional’ and `ordinary’ law, just as is the case with other constitutions of the `historic type’. 4) For lack of a `constitutional moment’, a formal EU `constitution’, if ever realized, would only be a momentary reflection, no more than a snap-shot; it would be a Grundgesetz rather than a Verfassung; that is to say in the appropriate equivalent terms: a fundamental treaty, rather than a constitutional treaty. 5) The coming together of contrasting cultural perceptions of constitutions, the arch-types of `revolutionary’ and `un-revolutionary historic’ types of constitutions (the `French’ v. `British’ type of constitution) within the European Union, can lead to ambiguity and an equivocality which leads to frictions and misunderstandings about the constitutional nature of the European Union; this may fail to contribute to the legitimacy of a consolidated constitutional document. The Notion and Nature of the European Constitution after the Reform Treaty (*)

Franta- despre ratificarea Tratatului de la Lisabona

French socialists to abstain from EU treaty vote (*)

16.01.2008 - 09:24 CET | By Elitsa Vucheva
France’s biggest opposition party – the Socialist party – has decided to abstain from a vote in February on constitutional changes eventually leading to the ratification of the EU’s recently agreed Lisbon treaty.The so-called “Versailles Congress” that will take place on 4 February will gather the country’s National Assembly and Senate to vote on a revision of the French constitution, which is a pre-condition for the ratification of the Lisbon treaty.

Last week, the president of the Socialist group, Jean-Marc Ayrault, called for a Socialist boycott of the February vote, but many of the party’s politicians voiced their disagreement with this position.

Consequently, an internal vote took place during the weekly meeting of the Socialists on Tuesday (15 January), where a majority of 68 deputies voted for attending the Congress but abstaining from the vote; 30 expressed their wish to vote “no” on 4 February, and eight abstained, according to French press agency AFP.

An abstention by a majority of Socialists at the Congress means the constitutional reform will still be approved and the EU treaty will still be ratified, as a three-fifths majority of the votes is needed for the reform to pass.

The Socialists have been trying to find a position which would reflect both their support for the treaty and their opposition to the means used for its ratification – they have been calling for a referendum on the issue rather than a parliamentarian ratification.

“The Socialist party has decided to ratify this project [the Lisbon treaty], which does not stop it from demanding that the French people have their say [on it],” said Mr Ayrault following the internal vote.

The Socialists will therefore table a motion on 6 February calling for a referendum, according to French daily Liberation.

Persisting disagreements
After being divided during the debates on the EU Constitutional treaty three years ago, when they split into two camps – one backing and one opposing the document, the Socialist Party now wants to avoid similar divisions and develop a single common stance on the Lisbon treaty.

But internal disagreements between the former “yes” and “no” camps seem to persist.

“Going to Versailles to abstain is using petrol for nothing,” said deputy Henri Emmanuelli, one of the campaigners against the EU constitution in 2005, according to AFP.

“I will go to Versailles and I will vote ‘no’,” he added, insisting the Socialists should go as far as needed to obtain a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

A majority of the former “non” camp, including deputies such as Laurent Fabius and Jean-Luc Melenchon, is expected to follow Mr Emmanuelli’s position.

***

In alta ordine de idei, dosarul tematic cu modificarea legislativa a Constitutiei Frantei il gasiti pe site-ul Senatului.

Consiliul constitutional (Franta) & Tratatul de la Lisabona

Da, da, pe 20 decembrie anu’ trecut, instanta respectiva s-a pronuntat. Stirea arata asa:

Plusieurs modifications de la Constitution sont nécessaires pour ratifier le traité de Lisbonne

Le 20 décembre 2007, par sa décision n° 2007-560 DC, le Conseil constitutionnel s’est prononcé sur le traité modifiant le traité sur l’Union européenne et le traité instituant la Communauté européenne signé à Lisbonne le 13 décembre 2007. Il a énuméré à cette occasion les points du traité modificatif impliquant une révision constitutionnelle. Si les dispositions relatives aux droits fondamentaux de l’Union et à la Charte qui les consacre ne soulèvent aucun problème, comme le Conseil a pu l’exprimer dans une décision précédente (Cons. const., 19 nov. 2004, déc. n° 2004-505 DC : JCP A 2005, 1025, par M. Gautier ; Europe 2005, étude 2, par D. Simon), certaines d’entre elles, identiques à leur version initiale au sein du texte de la Constitution européenne ou inédites, nécessiteront une modification de la loi fondamentale.
Il s’agit principalement :
- de dispositions reprenant celles présentes dans le texte de la Constitution européenne, déjà énumérées par le Conseil constitutionnel dans sa décision 2004-505 DC, et portant en particulier sur les modalités d’exercice de compétences déjà transférées (notamment la question du passage du vote à l’unanimité à la majorité qualifiée au sein du Conseil de l’Union européenne) ;
- de dispositions nouvelles relatives aux transferts qu’impliquent les avancées de l’ « l’espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice » ou les pouvoirs nouveaux reconnus aux parlements nationaux pour s’opposer à une révision simplifiée, faire respecter le principe de subsidiarité, ou s’opposer à ce que le droit de la famille soit régi à la majorité qualifiée et non à l’unanimité au sein du Conseil de l’Union européenne.
Le principe de primauté du droit communautaire n’étant pas inscrit dans le traité modificatif, le Conseil n’a pas eu à se prononcer à son sujet (sur ce point, V. notamment Europe 2007, étude 23, par P. Cassia et E. Saulnier-Cassia).

Source
Cons. const., 20 déc. 2007, n° 2007-560 DC
Cons. const., 20 déc. 2007, communiqué

(*)

Si aici decizia (*). Mai multe amanunte cu alta ocazie.