The European Union ratifies the Lisbon Treaty1

The Lisbon Treaty has finally been ratified and is expected to enter into law in December 2009 in what could be a defining moment for the greatest experiment in the history of  international co-operation and global governance. The Treaty’s proponents believe that it will rejuvenate the decision-making procedures of the EU institutions, making the functioning of the 27 member state more efficient and democratic. They state that the European Parliament, the only institution directly elected by the people, will receive more powers and that the Treaty will help harness Europe’s economic, humanitarian, political and diplomatic strengths to promote European interests and values worldwide, while respecting the particular interests of the Member States in Foreign Affairs. Whereas its opponents argue that the Treaty will centralise more power in Brussels, thus weakening democracy by moving more power away from national parliaments. Consequently, they also bemoan the loss of more than fifty national vetoes, the the lack of transparency and accountability, the inefficient outdated policies; which they claim will actually end up maintaining the status quo.

So what is all the fuss actually about I hear you cry? Well the EU originally started life as a purely economic entity (the European Coal and Steel Community), designed to help maintain the prices of the commodities of coal and steel in post-war Europe. The 1950 declaration by French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman was based on the idea that European unity is the key to peace. Schuman believed that solidarity in production would make war between France and Germany “not merely unthinkable but materially impossible.” However, the European Union (as it became known in 1993 after the Maastricht Treaty came into force) quickly built up competencies in many other areas beyond the original economic remit and of course it rapidly expanded in size too.

Indeed the accession of ten new member states in 2004 and the possibility of future enlargement play a large part in the need to review the EU’s constitutional framework. the need to improve the transparency, efficiency and the democracy within the EU was widely accepted even if there was disagreement about how to achieve these goals. Disagreements are not uncommon within the EU (particularly between the institutions and not least the Member states) as in any organisation comprised of a wide range of diverse actors. Compromise is the name of the game, you have to be prepared to sacrifice a little of what you want in order to achieve anything and as a consequence of there being twenty-seven Member states, negotiations can often be lengthy as all documentation (legislations and policies) are translated into the 23 official and working languages of the EU.

So the EU is a vastly complex organisation, one that is far from perfect, therefore moves to reduce the democratic deficit and improve the transparency of the EU must be widely welcome. The Lisbon Treaty itself has been discussed for the best part of a decade in one form or another and is currently running almost two years behind schedule. So whatever the positive and negative aspects of the Treaty, it is time to draw a line under the issue of constitutional reform because the European Union of the future will definitely continue to expand and further drawn out debate will only weaken the organisation’s ability to act decisively. Albania, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey are all in negotiations to join the EU and this provides even more motivation to ensure that Europe moves forward together. By doing so Europe can act collectively to  help each other and the rest of the world on issues such as climate change, economic stability, job creation and energy security.