After years of wrangling and mishaps, last weekend the leaders of the 27 EU countries finally agreed on a treaty, the Reform Treaty, that marks the next stage of development of the European Union.
Many have asked me what this new treaty is all about and what it will mean for us. I do not blame people for feeling somewhat lost, if not disconnected. A lot of explaining needs to be done to ensure that the public in all EU countries is adequately informed on what this is all about and how it will affect them.
Today, I will give a brief outline. But I intend to do my part to help as many people as possible understand why this document should be of interest to us as EU citizens.
Firstly, this treaty will amend all existing EU treaties and update them in a way that organises the EU and its functions better. It takes the place of the botched European Constitution, which had been rejected in France and in the Netherlands.
The fact that the document is a set of amendments to previous treaties means that, unlike the Constitution, it is not a "stand-alone" document that can be read on its own, but one that must be read in conjunction with the previous treaties, once it amends them. It is only when it enters into force that a single consolidated version of the amended treaties can be used.
Consequently, as far as user-friendliness goes, this treaty is a step backwards on the Constitution, not a step forward.
Secondly and ironically, the treaty takes on board much of what was already included in the Constitution. This is good because 18 countries, including us, had already accepted and ratified the Constitution. The new treaty merely removes certain references to an EU flag, hymn and the like and makes some concessions to countries that had not yet ratified the Constitution. But other than that, it keeps the substance of the Constitution intact.
So, frankly, I saw little point in this whole exercise and the consequent delay, except that this was necessary to get the remaining countries on board. So be it.
Thirdly, like the Constitution, the new treaty organises the powers of the Union better and lists much better what the EU can do and, by strengthening the principle of subsidiarity, what it cannot do. When this treaty enters into force, the EU will gain new powers in areas ranging from energy to space technology and from tourism to sport.
On tourism, for example, we have a clear interest in a role for the EU. On immigration, another key area for us, the Union will have a strengthened role and, hopefully, this will translate into a coherent common immigration policy, the absence of which has affected us dearly.
Fourthly, the treaty organises the structures of the Union better. For instance, it provides for the appointment of an EU commissioner responsible for foreign affairs who will be an EU foreign minister (but called "High Representative") giving the Union greater visibility and impact on the world stage. It was high time that the Union increased its effectiveness on foreign policy.
Coming from a small country we should have a vested interest in this too.
The treaty also provides for a new president of the European Council elected for up to five years replacing the current six-monthly presidency rotation and, thereby, making for more continuity in the work of the Union.
Less positive, I find, is the reduction of the number of EU commissioners from 2014 when the number will go down from one commissioner per member state, as it is now, to a number corresponding to two thirds of the total number of EU countries (currently, 18 out of 27). This means that countries will have a commissioner on the basis of rotation, twice out in every three terms. Or for 10 out of every 15 years. Given the unique institutional role of the Commission, I have always viewed this development with reluctance.
On the other hand, significantly for us, our representation in the European Parliament will be greatly increased - from five to six seats, which is a considerable 20 per cent increase. The minimum threshold of seats in the Chamber has been set at six seats, which means we can never go below even when new countries join and take up seats from existing members.
This was a major victory for Malta - much trumpeted but probably still underestimated, not least because the European Parliament gains major powers under this treaty becoming a full co-legislator in all but a handful of EU decisions. Indeed, on occasions, our representation in the European Parliament may now prove as crucial, if not more, than within the Council of Ministers.
Fifthly, the treaty makes the EU Charter of Human Rights legally binding. This is the first time that the EU will have its own human rights charter, which lists our rights as EU citizens. Sadly, this development comes with a catch since, on the insistence of the United Kingdom, the Charter has been thrown out of the text of the treaty, which instead only makes reference to it and assigns it legal status. A retrograde step compared to the pride of place that it occupied in the constitutional text. Nevertheless, the Charter will be binding and it will be officially "proclaimed" in December in the European Parliament.
I look forward to that occasion.
What happens now?
The Reform Treaty will be officially signed on December 13 in Lisbon and will then need to be ratified by all EU countries. So we are in for another ratification marathon all over again. It is up to each country to decide how ratification will be made, whether by parliamentary vote or by referendum. So far, only Ireland has indicated it will hold a referendum - it is constitutionally obliged to.
Ratification in all 27 EU countries is expected to take the best part of next year and if that goes smoothly the treaty may enter into force in the beginning of 2009. In time for the next elections of the European Parliament due in June 2009.
Readers who would like to ask questions to be answered in this column can send an e-mail, identifying themselves, to contact@simonbusuttil.eu or through www.simonbusuttil.eu.