[Sim]

Europe's Marathon Talks Clinch a Deal

Europe can breathe a sigh of relief after a marathon night of negotiations ended in a deal. After German Chancellor Angela Merkel raised the stakes by threatening to go ahead without Poland, Warsaw was finally placated with a number of concessions and all 27 countries agreed to move forward with a new draft treaty to replace the defunct constitution.

The news came at 4:24 a.m.: The EU leaders had reached a hard-fought deal on a new treaty that will streamline the way the bloc does business. After two years of stagnation and introspection, the EU can finally re-launch its program of closer political integration. The 27 member states had agreed to the compromise treaty, presented by German Chancellor and current EU president, Angela Merkel -- after an evening of tense debates and high drama, Merkel had finally brokered a deal.

"I was sure that if we didn't achieve this today, we would have ended up in a rather disastrous situation as many would have thought they had been pushed too far," she told a news conference on Saturday morning. "This shows that Europe came together in the end," she said.

EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the deal was vital: "I think now we have made a great step forward." He praised Merkel for a success that many had thought impossible, and presenting her with a bunch of flowers, thanked her for all she had done for Europe.

Poland's President Lech Kaczynski, who had threatened to torpedo the summit, said he was pleased with the final deal: "We did not have to swallow any bitter bills." And British Prime Minister Tony Blair said "I don't think there is anything that can derail the process now." (...)

The agreement is crucial for the EU. After the collapse of the constitutional project, following its rejection by France and the Netherlands in 2005, the bloc was caught in paralysis. But Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel had been determined to revive the plans to streamline the EU when Berlin took over the presidency in January. She has spent the past six months trying to hammer out a deal for a slimmed down treaty that could be accepted by all 27 members. And she finally succeeded. The member states have agreed to an intergovernmental conference which will give the deal a legal framework. The treaty will then be ratified by the member states and should come into force by 2009.

Poland Wins Concessions

As expected the biggest hurdles to overcome were Poland and Britain. Poland felt that its role in the future European decisions would be diminished while bigger countries, in particular Germany would have a greater say under the new "double majority" voting system. Under the new system, decisions made by the European Council will no longer be made unanimously but rather by a combination of 55 percent of EU states, which have to represent at least 65 percent of the total EU population.

In the run up to the summit Poland's undiplomatic rhetoric, including its repeated references to the Nazi occupation during World War II, shocked and enraged many EU leaders. Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski said Poland's population would have been much bigger than its current 38 million if it weren't for the fact that millions of Poles died during the war.

The compromise with Poland includes the postponement of the new voting system until 2014, and it will now not be fully implemented until 2017. In essence, it means the Poles can maintain their current level of influence in the EU for another 10 years. Under the current system Poland has 27 votes on the EU's decision-making council, compared with 29 for Germany, although its population is twice as big. (...)

The issue was debated until the early hours of Saturday morning. In the end, Britain won a convoluted exemption from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Blair won a guarantee that the charter wouldn't create "justiciable rights'' in the U.K. -- a way of preventing EU laws from coming into the U.K. by the back door. The 50-article charter contains an exhaustive list of well-established rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, and will now be legally binding in the other 26 member states.

And London also won the concession that the bloc's new foreign policy chief will not be called "minister," but the rather less catchy "High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy." The new chief will chair meetings of EU foreign ministers and head a combined external action service, drawing on both national and EU diplomats.

Blair, who leaves office on Wednesday and who 10 years ago had pledged to place Britain in the heart of Europe, could go home with a deal which let London continue to control over its own national affairs. "The most important thing here is that the constitutional treaty was put to one side," Blair said on Saturday. "This deal gives us a chance to move on."

smd/reuters/ap


Current President of the EU Council Angela Merkel and President of the EU Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso

source

--------------------


This new draft treaty brings several new elements to the EU:

- an EU President, elected for 2.5 years by the EU Council

- the unanimous vote, respectively the Nice Treaty voting system will be replaced by a "double majority": From 2014 on, decisions will be made in the EU Council when 55% of the member states representing 65% of the EU population agree

- a "High Representant of EU Foreign Policy" will be installed, who also is Vice President of the EU Commission

- both the national parliaments and the EU Parliament get more influence on EU decisions; the latter will become an equal legislative organ besides the EU Council

- a basic Charta of Human Rights will become legally binding in 26 of the 27 EU member states (with the exception of the UK)

- the number of EU Commissioners will be reduced from 27 to 15


This reform of the EU structures is supposed to make the EU efficient since it has enlarged the number of its members from 15 to 27 since 2004. The treaty will take effect in 2009, with the exception of the double majority voting system, which will be delayed until 2014 because of Poland's nationalistic radicalism.

[Bondo]

Sim, on Jun 24 2007, 07:07 AM, said:

In the run up to the summit Poland's undiplomatic rhetoric, including its repeated references to the Nazi occupation during World War II, shocked and enraged many EU leaders. Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski said Poland's population would have been much bigger than its current 38 million if it weren't for the fact that millions of Poles died during the war.

Does anyone talk to Poland during these things? Or do they shun it like they should. Why did you let them in anyway? They're just a nuisance.

Quote

And London also won the concession that the bloc's new foreign policy chief will not be called "minister," but the rather less catchy "High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy."

Okay...

Quote

- the number of EU Commissioners will be reduced from 27 to 15

This reform of the EU structures is supposed to make the EU efficient since it has enlarged the number of its members from 15 to 27 since 2004. The treaty will take effect in 2009, with the exception of the double majority voting system, which will be delayed until 2014 because of Poland's nationalistic radicalism.

Will Poland be any less nationalistically radical by then? And how will reducing the number of Commissioners work out? Some people are not represented.

[Sim]

Bondo, on Jun 25 2007, 01:26 AM, said:

Does anyone talk to Poland during these things? Or do they shun it like they should. Why did you let them in anyway? They're just a nuisance.

Reports indicated this statement by President Kaczynski was answered with "shaking the head" by most representants of other EU countries. And Poland did not give in without an eclat: After PM Kaczynski declared on Polish TV they won't give up their position, EU Council President Merkel threatened Poland with isolation -- if they don't give in, the other 26 member states will have to find a compromise without Poland. That was the point when President Kaczynski finally gave in, accepting the compromise according to which the "double majority" will be delayed until 2014 and a special bonus will remain until 2017, for that Poland can keep its priveleges another 10 years.

And yes, the current Polish government, encompassing rabid fascists, is a nuisance. When Poland was accepted into the EU, this government was not yet elected, though.

Quote

Okay...

Yeah, it's only a symbolic gesture towards the British, who are very reluctant to accept anything which may give the impression this new treaty is a kind of constitution, turning the EU into a super-state. But as long as it's just a symbolic gesture, reflected by the name of this position, I don't particularly care.

What I find much more annoying is that the British got an exception concerning the charta of basic human rights -- why don't they agree? Do they not believe in human rights?

Quote

Will Poland be any less nationalistically radical by then?

We can hope. According to polls, the approval rate of the current Polish government is down to 30%. And the Polish people is alledgedly by far not as nationalistic and eurosceptic as their government. So probably this is just a phase in a transition country, which has to get used to a representative democracy. West-Germany was extremely conservative in the late 1950s and early 60s as well, but soon changed.

Quote

And how will reducing the number of Commissioners work out? Some people are not represented.

Yes, for the sake of more efficiency, not every country will be represented in the EU Commission (executive) from 2009 on -- but of course they are still represented in the EU Council and EU Parliament (legislative). So this isn't much of a problem.

It's simply not feasible to have a Commission encompassing 27 "ministers"; too many fields of politics are stretched and distributed among too many people. The number of 15 is simply more efficient. And of course, the countries represented will rotate.

[Jason Vines]

According to The New York Times, new French President Nicolas Sarkozy also played a key role in the negotiations with the Poles.

New York Times said:

Still, Mrs. Merkel was getting nowhere with Lech Kaczynski, so she raised the stakes, threatening to go ahead with treaty negotiations despite Polish objections.

The gamble nearly brought the negotiation to complete collapse. By 9 p.m., officials from the Czech Republic and Lithuania made it clear they would not go ahead without the Poles. Meanwhile, Belgium and Italy were furious at Mrs. Merkel for giving concessions to Britain that they said had diluted the deal.

When Mrs. Merkel reconvened the national leaders over dinner, Mr. Sarkozy offered to make one final effort to bring the Poles back on board. He and Mr. Blair went to the French delegation room, where the crucial negotiation took place with Lech Kaczynski seated between the British and French leaders, and two interpreters in attendance. "One or two of the Poles were smoking,” said a diplomat who attended the talks, “so it literally became a smoke-filled room."

Mr. Sarkozy, speaking in French and sometimes English, offered to visit Poland and address its Parliament to sell the deal. Luxembourg’s prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, arrived to cajole the Poles. Mr. Blair used his famous charm.

For 90 minutes, the talk continued, with the Polish president phoning his brother in Warsaw at crucial intervals until the final breakthrough.

Eventually the Kaczynskis accepted the new voting system on the conditions that it not come into force until 2014 and that they have the right to demand the use of the old arrangements for a further three years.

[Sim]

Jason Vines, on Jun 25 2007, 01:11 PM, said:

According to The New York Times, new French President Nicolas Sarkozy also played a key role in the negotiations with the Poles.

Yes, Spiegel Online reported this too. It's nice to see Sarkozy playing a constructive role already, shortly after his inauguration. It seems he and Blair played the "good cop" the moment Merkel started playing the "bad cop" to get Poland on board. Good job done, by all involved negotiation partners.

[Little Sheba]

Europe and it's individual States should remain independant and free of one another, the last thing we need on this planet is another united states or russia or china, all huge failures for their PEOPLE!

Think about it!

Foreshame on the whole so called "united europe" debacle!



Each Country's own people have their own unique ways, your plans would destroy this.

And then you in germany will be under the oppression of some clown in france...you wont like it!
Anarchy will eventually rule due to the mad world leaders ruining our one and only planet!

I will do everything in my limited power against such tyrrany!

What about you, Sim?

[Sim]

Little Sheba, on Jun 25 2007, 08:42 PM, said:

Each Country's own people have their own unique ways, your plans would destroy this.

The motto of the EU is "In varietate concordia", "united in variety". The EU is no super-state, and not likely to become one. We are more like the United Federation of Planets. =)

Quote

And then you in germany will be under the oppression of some clown in france...you wont like it!
Anarchy will eventually rule due to the mad world leaders ruining our one and only planet!

Oh that would be ok, as long as there are legal structures determining why my country should do this or that, and as long as this decision is democratically legitimized.

Quote

I will do everything in my limited power against such tyrrany!

What about you, Sim?

I love the ENLIGHTENED idea of the rule of law, instead of the rule of brute force and power, as among independant national states!

Everybody who disagrees will see the force of enlightment and reason !!!

[Yoda]

I am so confused. I am so lost. U.S. is a failure? U E is a debacle? Clown in France running Germany? Mad world leaders ruining our only planet? I don't get it.

[Cymro]

Quote

What I find much more annoying is that the British got an exception concerning the charta of basic human rights -- why don't they agree? Do they not believe in human rights?

We do, but Blair doesn't since he's been getting so pally with Bush. It's been especially noticeable since 9/11 and 7/7, using the excuse of "National Security", though most Brits including conservatives are weary of such things. They also passed an act of Parliament a couple of years ago that restricted free speech, specifically one's ability to make bigoted comments towards others, which is a kind of restriction I think the EU is OK with(but I'm not entirely comfortable with).

It's important to set apart the terms "British" and "British government"(as with other nations and their governments) as the government does not represent the majority of British people in practice or in theory. The majority of people who voted in the last election did not vote Labour and that fact is given extra emphasis by the fact that not everyone who could vote voted. I'd also advise you take into account the many things an elected government does that aren't mentioned in it's election campaign, after all "We will reduce human rights for all" is not a vote winning slogan.

EDIT: It should also be noted that we have a new Prime Minister now, and the things he's obliged himself to do are quite promising, especially in terms of constitutional reform. This being said, I hated him as Chancellor of the Exchequer and he's very much still in his honeymoon period. So far he seems to be interested in pursuing a less authoritarian style of leadership than his predecessor though; he's made numerous commitments to concede powers currently belonging to the Executive to the Parliament, most notably the ability to declare war.

This post has been edited by Cymro: 07 July 2007 - 06:54 AM