impact of the Treaty of Lisbon
Critically evaluate the impact which, if ratified, the proposed Lisbon Reform Treaty would have on the constitution of the European Union It has been suggested that the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon would lead to a more "transparent, effective and democratic" Europe.1 The Treaty, which came about following a period of reflection and the failure to bring into force the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (Constitutional Treaty or CT), is set to make significant reforms to the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty Establishing the European Community - the latter of which is to be renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This paper will examine the key amendments to the TEU and the TFEU before going on to discuss whether these amendments will serve to aid and increase the transparency, efficiency and democracy and, in turn, aid the integration process of the European Union. The changes that are to be investigated lie predominantly in the areas of constitutional and institutional reform, and will focus on such matters as the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the legislative procedure; the "intergovernmental vs. supranational" debate; and the proposed use of qualified majority voting. This evaluation, however, cannot be undertaken without first addressing the presupposition by the question that the European
Critically discuss the proposition that the Treaty of Lisbon has completed the evolution of the EU legal system
David McCabe 11090596 Words: 2837(excluding footnotes and bibliography) Question: Critically discuss the proposition that the Treaty of Lisbon has completed the evolution of the EU legal system Introduction: .1 In the aftermath of WW2 the leaders of Europe faced many challenges, economically, politically and socially. It was in this aftermath that the framers of the original EC treaties sought to create an economic union which was to promote trade and commerce within the continent and thus encourage propensity and co operation in a land which had been haunted by war after war. Also in this aftermath, the Council of Europe was founded in 1949 to ensure the protection of human rights and thus ensure the atrocities of authoritarian governments did not re-occur.1 This paved the way for the creation of the Convention of human rights (referred from now on as the ECHR) which enshrined a set of common goals and standards to the countries which agreed to abide by the Convention. The European court of Human rights (referred from now on as the ECtHR) was also established as a mechanism to which human rights cases and states in breach of the Convention could have the issues adjudicated. .2 Upon the creation of the EEC, fundamental human rights were not considered part of its mandate, promoting stronger economic ties and breaking down trade barriers was to be its primary function.
To what extent has the EU become a federal state? Does the Treaty of Lisbon form a constitution for that state?
FOUNDATIONS IN EUROPEAN UNION LAW Assignment 2008/09 To what extent has the EU become a federal state? Does the Treaty of Lisbon form a constitution for that state? The EU was formed partly out of this desire, with the early architects seeing its predecessors as the first step to a European federation. Since the 1950s, European integration in this manner has seen the development of a supranational system of governance, as its institutions move further from the concept of intergovernmental. However, with the Maastricht Treaty of 1993, new intergovernmental elements have been introduced alongside the more federal systems making the definition of the European Union much more complex. The European Union, which operates through a hybrid system of intergovernmental and supranational, is not officially a federation - though various academic observers treat it as a federal system. Federal Europe is a speculative scenario where a politically united Europe, usually in the modern context of the European Union (EU), would acquire the full features of a federation. Currently there are no reasonable grounds to declare EU as a federal state. Of course treaty of Lisbon must be mentioned as a tool which can bring prominent changes including more qualified majority voting in the EU Council, increased involvement of the European Parliament in the legislative process through extended
Why was Article 13 of the Convention left out of the Human Rights Act 1998 and with what results? How could the relationship between the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights change after the entry into force of Article 6 (2 and 3) of the Lisbon Treaty?
Read Article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty 2009 together with the United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights 1950. Then answer the following questions: Why was Article 13 of the Convention left out of the Human Rights Act 1998 and with what results? How could the relationship between the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights change after the entry into force of Article 6 (2 and 3) of the Lisbon Treaty? Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights 1950 promises the right to an effective remedy, stating “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”[1] This article was deliberately left out of United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act 1998, which integrated the ECHR into English law. For the years between 1951 and 1998, English courts were influenced by the European Convention of Human Rights 1950 yet it was not enforced.[2] “The House of Lords stated that they would presume that Parliament did not intent to legislate contrary to the ECHR.”[3] This leads us to assume that decisions taken by the House of Lords would most closely correspond with the rules set out in the ECHR, but that this compliance is not legally
the lisbon agenda UK Response to enhancing skills is insufficient
Lisbon Agenda For 2005 - 2010 UK Response to enhancing skills is insufficient By Yasmin Latif BA Public services student, Position Paper for Politics Age of Global Competitiveness, Professor Paul Cammack Date 09th November 2006 Contents . Introduction pg.3 2. UK Position pg.4 3. Comparison pg.8 4. Conclusion pg.10 5. Bibliography pg.11 Introduction The Lisbon Agenda is a programme brought by the EU (A8, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia) to make Europe competitive in the economic and knowledge- driven world today by 2010. It was initiated in 2000 but due to failure of several related procedures was delayed and relaunched in 2005. Specifically UK's target set is for it to become competitive in the global economy, looking at where it'll be in the investment in skills and strategies for employment. UK aims to create a balance of fiscal sustainability and funds for welfare allowing ageing population to be a part of this equation and making Britain a knowledge-driven society by giving more young people necessary education, training (skills) where the 25plus and 50 plus making either education or employment a realistic opportunity channelled through the emergence of innovation, technology, speed of learning, getting people off benefits. I will be looking at what measures should be taken to
Does the Irish rejection of the Draft Constitutional Treaty signal that democracy is alive and well in the EU
Political Studies Governing the EU PIED 'Does the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty signal that democracy is alive and well in the EU?' Word Count: Student ID: 200332132 'Does the Irish rejection of the Draft Constitutional Treaty signal that democracy is alive and well in the EU?' The Irish rejection of the draft constitutional Treaty of Lisbon highlights various implications for the apparent democratic deficit concerning the EU. Firstly, it is important to recognise that there are numerous potential reasons for the lack of democratic legitimacy within the EU that do not signal well for its citizens. These will be considered alongside the issues surrounding the Irish rejection of the draft constitution to gain an overall insight into the topic of democracy in the EU. The main themes that will be considered include the issues of the value and accuracy of referendums, other member states who's citizens that have rejected some form of the draft constitution, the problem of identity and transparency concerning the EU. The argument that there is not a sufficient opportunity for public discourse and the representational issues, regarding voting and the possibility of them being substandard due to affecting factors such as domestic issues swaying peoples decisions. All these points are important when considering the democratic qualities of the European Union, using
The Treaty of Rome - aims for the European Economic Community (EEC).
Table of contents Introduction............................................. 3 Single Market - basic principles..................... 4 The freedom that the Internal Market brings........ 7 Conclusions............................................. 10 Bibliography........................................... 11 Introduction Article 2 of the Treaty of Rome set the following aim for the European Economic Community (EEC): "to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it". The single market was declared "complete" on 1 January 1993 - and even then the project was not quite finished. But still, gone are most of those barriers - physical, procedural, bureaucratic and commercial - that tended to confine people, goods and money behind national, protectionist walls. Now those barriers have been broken down, peoples' opportunities, experiences and horizons are widening. Now people, goods, services and money move around Europe as freely as within one country. Of course, the process of opening up Europe is far from complete and much work remains to be done. Not all the principles behind the single market are yet fully applied in practice. However already, the single market has
Was the Treaty Of Versailles a Harsh Treaty?
Was the Treaty Of Versailles a Harsh Treaty? When the peace armistice was signed on 11th November 1918, no plans had been made for a peace settlement so it was decided that one would be drawn up in the New Year. Representatives from Great Britain, France and USA were among those attending. Each had different ideas of how to treat Germany, and to what extent she would pay for the war. After the treaty of Versailles was agreed, the Germans were upset by the terms; as they felt it was too harsh. The treaty was harsh but could have been a lot worse. Who can say for sure whether the Treaty of Versailles was fair or not? The answer depends on your point of view. From the French perspective, the Germans deserved to give up everything in order to make amends for the destruction they caused in France. Therefore, the treaty wasn't punishing them enough. From where the American and British point of view, it seemed impossible to place the entire blame on one country, so the Clause 231, which stated Germany must except the blame for the war must have seemed quite harsh, but the treaty was a compromise - no one got everything they wanted, but more importantly, no one was completely short-changed, not even Germany. Many of Wilson's Fourteen Points weren't accomplished, but he had faith in the League of Nations to sort things out later. Clemenceau had wanted nothing but revenge on
Was the treaty of Versailles a good treaty?
Was the treaty of Versailles a good treaty? The treaty of Versailles bad its good and bad elements to it. Depending on where you come from you will have different views on how the end product of the treaty was. Each of the leaders went with goals aimed at meeting their country views. However, in general all the leaders went from the treaty not achieving what they wanted. As the talks at Versailles went on it became clear that the very different objectives of the three leaders could not all be met. There are many answers to why no one could compromise on how Germany should or should not be treated, being from different areas of the world being a major factor. It was a very controversial issue at the time to how harsh Germany should be punished for accepting fully to the war gilt clause, Germany were forced to do this as part of the treaty. This was something that the leaders (especially Clemenceau) used to their advantage when the treaty was being drawn up. France went away from the treaty looking the worst off. This is for a number of reasons, mainly because France had the most aims out of all the three. France wanted back areas of Germany, which caused a lot of anger amongst German people, and it built up a lot of hate between the two countries. Germany complained that if France took away Germany's industrial areas (which were originally Frances) it would crush the Deutsche
Treaty of Versailles
Evaluate the proposition that the "Treaty of Versailles was a harsh peace". To officially end the First World War, a peace treaty named the Treaty of Versailles was signed at Versailles on June 28 1919. This peace treaty was signed after the war had stopped and was the one of the most dominant and imperative peace treaties of the fiver others to conclude the War. It is disputed that the Treaty of Versailles was an insensitive concord; however this termination is seen erroneously by several people. Germany was left in sorrow as a result of the harsh result of the Treaty of Versailles as well as the greediness of the Allies. The big four; Woodrow Wilson of the USA, Georges Clemenceau of France, David Lloyd George of England and Vittorio Emanuele Orlando of Italy were left responsible for negotiating the treaty. It is supposed that the leaders resulted in such a harsh treaty because of the conflicting, greedy ideas and the sense of demilitarising the country. The treaty was known as the "War Guilt Clause," and Germany was not invited to the negotiations of the Treaty of Versailles due to their recently defeated power resulting in a very ruthless peace treaty. The treaty formally placed all blame for the war on Germany and imposed Germany with reparations payments. German Colonies were divided amongst allies, the right bank of the Rhine was permanently demilitarised, the
