Editorial : Study of the impact of the Lisbon Treaty

Since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force in December 2009, its institutional innovations have been gradually being implemented. At this stage it is too early to draw conclusions on the implications of the new provisions, but it is already possible to observe some trends.

In this vein, EPC, EGMONT Institutes and CEPS issued a joint study The Treaty of Lisbon, a second look at institutional innovations, which was presented on 24th September 2010.
One preliminary consideration of this study is that the treaty was not implemented in the same context in which it was originally drafted. Two major challenges, namely climate change and the economic and financial crisis put significant pressure on the European Union’s role on the world stage. Bearing this in mind, it is sensible to think that the implementation of the Treaty rules will adapt to a certain extent to changing circumstances. Only the experience over some years will show if the Institutions and Member States will be able to strike the right balance.

Within the new institutional architecture, two presidents are simultaneously operating in Brussels, respectively at the head of the Commission and of the European Council. Two different forms of presidency coexist in the Council, the semi-permanent and the rotating one of the country holding the six-monthly presidency. In addition to that the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy has a double role in the Commission and in the Council for Foreign Affairs. The Treaty of Lisbon does not establish how these different positions should relate to each other but leaves room for interpretation.
What seems to be clear from the outset is that the good functioning of the EU will depend on a good interplay between all the persons concerned.

The European Council is chaired by a president elected for a two and half month period, renewable once. This semi-permanent presidency currently held by Herman Van Rompuy, the former Belgian Prime Minister, provides support an continuity to the European Council by giving the chair enough time to prepare meetings, to understand different and often conflicting interests and look for solutions. This is undoubtedly an asset in a complicated system with an ever-growing number of heads of State and Governments resulting from successive enlargements.
The European Commission retains its -monopoly of the right to initiate legislation because it is the only institution which can propose new laws. However, it shares the right of political initiatives with the European Council, the Council, the European Parliament and since the introduction of the European citizens initiative with civil society. It can be argued that also its role of defending the common interest has been gradually taken over by other institutions. In the last years, in some debates such as the notorious Services Directive, the European Parliament has played the role of mediating between the diverging Member States interest within the Council, which is the intergovernmental institution of the EU. Moreover the extensions of the of the co-decision procedures in a number of policy areas, has increased the collaboration between the Parliament and the Council to seek an agreement, sidelining to some extent the Commission’s role as mediator.

Other major innovations of the Treaty of Lisbon highlighted in the study are the subsidiarity check of the national parliaments and the European citizens’ initiative. The so called « yellow » and « orange » card procedures allow national parliaments to obtain the revision or the withdrawal of a legislative proposal before it is considered by the Parliament and the Council. If there is a suspicion of a breach of the subsidiarity principle, each national parliament has eight weeks to decide to communicate it to the Commission. An increased role of the national parliaments in influencing EU decision-making can bring more legitimacy to legislative proposals but more importantly it can connect them better to the political reality at local level. However, a number of elements in the process still need clarifications: First of all, there is not a precise definition of what subsidiarity means. Second, there could be problem of timing in consulting regional parliaments. It may be difficult for some national parliaments to meet the eight weeks deadline to consult regional parliaments and therefore scrutinize the impact of a proposal at local level. With the introduction of the European citizens’ initiative (ECI), one million citizens from a significant number of Member States, will be allowed to invite the Commission to submit a legislative proposal. This means that direct participation from citizens will be put on equal footing with the Parliament and the other institutions as regards the power of political initiative. The regulation put forward by the Commission in order to use this tool will be adopted by the end of this year or early 2011.
The ECI could succeed in bringing citizens closer to the EU and bring about transnational debates on European issues but at the same time it may bear the risk of further alienating citizens. There are two possible sources of frustration: if the nature and the quality of response of the Commission do not match the expectations of citizens (the commission is not bound to put forward a legislative proposal). The second factor is time since it may take long time before a successful citizens’ initiative is implemented.

Indeed the ECI is not likely to drastically reduce the democratic deficit and lead to more participatory democracy overnight. In particular, from CEDAG perspective, a successful citizens initiative should coupled with regular, transparent and coherent dialogue between institutions and CSOs, recognized by the Treaty in art. 11 par.2 and 3.
A strong civil dialogue framework may not only influence the agenda-setting but also contribute significantly to all the phases of the decision-making process.

What are the necessary steps to trigger this process? Which are the necessary conditions for a strong architecture on civil dialogue? How to make to get the most of the provisions of art.11 of the treaty?

These are some of the questions, CEDAG will attempt to answer and stimulate reflection on in a Conference on Lisbon treaty and participatory democracy planned for December.

You can download the full study for free here.