4 The Treaty of Nice and its critics Introduction In February 2000, yet another IGC, the fourth since the entry into force of the SEA in 1987, inaugurated its workings with the explicit objective to arrive at a resolution on the so-called ‘Amsterdam leftovers’. That is to say, on those decisions that should have been decided upon during the June 1997 Amsterdam Summit, where a pronouncement had not proved possible. This was no easy task given the animosity of the deliberations during the Amsterdam process and the high stakes drawn in case of breakdown and, by
This substantially updated and revised edition offers a comprehensive overview of the challenges confronting the political system as well as the international politics of the European Union. It draws from a spectrum of regional integration theories to determine what the Union actually is and how it is developing, examining the constitutional politics of the European Union, from the Single European Act to the Treaty of Nice and beyond. The ongoing debate on the future of Europe links together the questions of democracy and legitimacy, competences and rights, and the prospects for European polity-building. The aim is to contribute to a better understanding of the emerging European polity and the questions that further treaty reform generates for the future of the regional system. The authors also assess the evolving European security architecture; the limits and possibilities of a genuine European foreign, security and defence policy; and the role of the EU in the post-Cold War international system. Common themes involve debates about stability and instability, continuity and change, multipolarity and leadership, co-operation and discord, power capabilities and patterns of behaviour. The book traces the defining features of the ‘new order’ in Europe and incorporates an analysis of the post-September 11th context.
Treaty of Maastricht in 1992 that brought some of the most important policy changes in external relations. In contrast, changes incorporated by the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam, the 2001 Treaty of Nice and the 2009 Treaty of Lisbon did not alter EU policy-making towards Mercosur. It should be noted that the term EU is used consistently throughout, in an attempt to avoid the confusion that would arise from the use of European Community or European Union, depending on whether the discussion concerns pre- or post-Maastricht events. EU policy-making towards Mercosur EU policy
streitbare Demokratie Structural Funds [See: Economic and Social Cohesion] subsidiarity Suez crisis Tangentopoli terrorism Treaties of Rome Treaty of European Union (TEU) [See: Maastricht Treaty] Treaty of Nice Treuhandanstalt Trizonia [See: Bizonia] two-ballot electoral system ‘Two
formalisation of the spillover in both scope and level to which this gives rise. CFSP would appear to have evolved in this way, with the Copenhagen Report, London Report, SEA, TEU, Treaty of Amsterdam and Treaty of Nice successively codifying informally developed practices and gradual policy expansion. 30 Naturally, this conceptualisation of intergovernmental integration leaves the question of the ultimate institutional destination
secure approval for the transfer of competencies in a referendum. This echoed demands for referendums on the Amsterdam and Nice Treaties. The Conservatives opposed the Treaty of Amsterdam (agreed in 1997) and the Treaty of Nice (agreed in 2000), claiming that they pursued an integrationist agenda rather than focusing on enlargement. These were the first cases in which the Conservatives issued a three line whip against legislation amending the 1972 European Communities Act. The party proposed major changes to the role and powers of
possible Community action in the field of sport . . . The Amsterdam Treaty included a Declaration on Sport and the Treaty of Nice includes an Annex (Annex IV) on sport: neither of these, however, constitutes a legal basis for Community action.’ In this connection the Committee ‘regrets that its long-standing appeal for the inclusion in the Treaty of a legal basis for Community action in the field of sport has once again been rejected; and calls for the creation of such a legal base in any future revision of the Treaty’.58 Presidency follow-up discussions on sport took
, 2001, p. 17. 38 Yves Mény, ‘A Basic Treaty of the European Union: The EUI’s Draft’, in Kim Feus (ed.), A Simplified Treaty for the European Union?, London: Federal Trust, 2001, p. 34. 39 Andrew Duff, ‘Constitution or Bust: The Laeken Declaration’, in Martin Bond and Kim Feus (eds), The Treaty of Nice Explained, London: Federal Trust, 2001, p. 239. 40 For more on this see G. Durand, ‘The Need for Council Reform’, Working Paper, European Policy Centre, Brussels, October 2001. 41 J. Olsen, ‘Organising European Institutions of Governance: A Prelude to an Institutional
either altering the locus of sovereignty or having any significant impact on the way in which the central institutions exercise political authority. The extension of QMV by these treaty revisions, as well as by the AMT in May 1999 and the more recent Treaty of Nice (signed in February 2001), on largely non-conflict-prone areas, helps to illustrate this point. But let us now turn to the way in which this ever-demanding exercise of EU theory-building has evolved over time. Theorising integration As already suggested, there are various ways of examining an inherently