Two vetoes for the price of one

In Parliament this afternoon, David Cameron gave his statement on last week's EU summit, followed by questions from MPs. The debate was a bit all over the place if we're to be perfectly honest, with the 2.9% increase to the EU's 2011 budget dominating.

The most talked about intervention came from Ed Miliband who said in response to Cameron's alleged cave-in on the EU budget freeze for 2011: “He wished he could come back and say No, No No, but in his case it's a bit more like No, Maybe, Oh go on then.” (apparently a phrase Miliband didn't quite come up with himself).

On actual substance, Chris Heaton-Harris made the most astute observation. He noted that the PM now has two separate vetoes at his disposal: one over Treaty change and one over the EU budget post-2013. Heaton-Harris asked whether Cameron would use the two vetoes independently to achieve EU reform. As we’ve argued before, a twin-track approach to EU negotiations is by far the smartest way to achieve reform in Europe and the restoration of some democratic control over key EU powers.

If the two vetoes are used in parallel but for seperate issues - one for repatriation of powers and the other for concessions on the CAP for instance - we bet anyone (eurosceptics and federalists alike) that the Coalition government will get at least one game-changing concession in return.

The Coalition could even get other member states along for the ride if it's confident and strategic enough. After all, Merkel has given us a great example for how to do it.

Unfortunately, in response to Heaton-Harris and also earlier in the debate, Cameron hinted he would pass up his veto over the treaty change, effectively giving EU partners a two-vetoes-for-the-price-of-one deal.

Hopefully this isn't the end of the story though, as there's still much to play for before Treaty changes are agreed. But MPs need to get their line of argument in order or the Coalition might well go for the do-nothing option.

For Cameron to use the twin-vetoes separately but in parallel, is surely what backbenchers in favour of EU refom should be pushing for?

This could be interesting

Do you remember all that talk about how national parliaments would be strenghtened under the Lisbon Treaty (something which the pro-Lisbon camp continuously banged on about, presenting it as a 'fact', when in reality it's anything but)?

We've looked at what post-Lisbon life is like for national parliaments many times before (and it ain't that pretty), but it now appears that national parliaments' "new powers" to challenge proposals from the Commission are being tested for the first time.

The Lisbon Treaty says that, in the event that a third of national parliaments - that's 9 - get together to oppose their governments on a piece of legislation, on the specific grounds of 'subsidiarity', and within an 8-week window, then the legislation would have to be reviewed, following which, it would be open to the institution which originated the proposal to choose whether to maintain, amend or withdraw the proposal.

Hardly practical. But the Swedish Parliament (the Riksdag) is determined to give it a try. The Treasury Committee of the Riksdag has raised objections against the Commission's proposed amendments to the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive. Under the amended Directive, deposit guarantee schemes must offer depositors up to €50,000, if their bank collapses. The schemes are to be 75 percent pre-funded from bank contributions, with the remainder coming from other sources. However, the Riksdag's Treasury Committee is opposed to a provision in the Commission's proposal which could see Sweden (or any other member state) being forced to lend money to other member states' funds, if these funds face a shortfall in cash.

The Riksdag, going against the Swedish government, said that such mandatory lending could lead to some member states under-funding their deposit schemes, knowing that someone else would be lender of last resort. It also argued that the provision represents a violation of the EU's subsidiarity principle. The Riksdag will now seek to spread the word amongst other parliaments in a bid to get the Commission to reconsider the proposal.

One tiny problem: many national parliaments around Europe are on recess at the moment - including the UK's. To muster the support of an additional eight will be a difficult task indeed.

This is one to watch.

We are where we are

The phrase "we are where we are" was oft repeated in this evening’s debate in the House of Commons – but sadly for many MPs it seems that ‘where we are’ was anywhere other than the Green benches judging by the numbers in attendance.

While a Hansard transcript is not yet available to link to for those interested in the debate – there are a few worthwhile interventions to take note of.

NB: This was a debate to approve a motion on the EU’s External Action Service – allowing the Government to give its official approval to the launch of the EEAS at the next meeting of EU leaders.

David Lidington made clear that EU Foreign Minister Cathy Ashton and the EEAS may only represent an EU common position where it has been agreed by unanimity among member states ahead of time. Of course while that may work in practice, EU embassies will likely be offering positions before they become official in an informal manner in third countries.

The Europe Minister also said (in what we suspect is a dig at the European Parliament over their refusal to agree to the EEAS blueprint before they got everything they wanted) that those who argued that Lisbon would be an end to the institutional turf wars “were plainly wrong”. He also said that member states had resisted the proposals of the EP that it be able to hold official ‘confirmation’ hearings of the heads of EU delegations, and to bring the entire service under the control of the Commission (and by extension the European Parliament).

Mr Lidington also said that the Government accepted that, despite promises of budget neutrality for the service, the start-up costs and the burden of bringing over national secondees to Brussels would require start-up funding – of which he estimated the UK’s share would be approx £1.1 million (before any reduction for the rebate).

Interestingly, former Europe Minister Chris Bryant suggested that it was “optimistic” to believe that only £1.1mn additional funding would be needed (we share his opinion on this) and that there may be pressures from other member states further down the line for the EU to shoulder some of the cost burden of foreign representation.

Mr Bryant also said that there was no assurance in the agreement that no additional money could be requested in order for the EEAS to provide consular services – something which the UK and other countries are opposed to anyway.

And finally Richard Ottaway, new Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee in Parliament, said that he thought the increased role for the new EU delegations – the fact that they represent the EU as a whole rather than the Commission – was potentially “one of the most significant changes” introduced under the Lisbon Treaty.

Update: The results of the division were 321 in favour of the motion, 12 against. Parliament stamps its approval on the EEAS.

Left waiting

It seems that the lack of scrutiny for Parliament since the Lisbon Treaty came into effect is not restricted to the SWIFT agreement.

Documents from the European Scrutiny Committee point that three additional measures have been limited to only four weeks scrutiny time because of the failure of Ministers to deposit the relevant documents with the Committee.

Two different agreements on the sharing of passenger-name records (with the US and Australia), and an extradition agreement between the EU and Iceland and Norway have both seen their scrutiny time cut short in January.

The Committee points out that this "contravenes the undertaking in Baroness Ashton's statement on JHA opt-ins that the Government will place an Explanatory Memorandum before Parliament 'as swiftly as possible and no later than ten working days after the publication of the proposal.'"

Maybe the relevant department took a holiday on 17 December, when the Memorandum was due to be deposited, but that doesn't explain why they failed to do so until 19 and 20 January respectively. While these measures are not as controversial as SWIFT, it would be nice to see the Government adhering on all these proposals to the assurances it made on Parliamentary scrutiny when it was ramming the Lisbon Treaty through.

This is important stuff, as it strikes at the very heart of national democracy and scrutiny in the wake of the Lisbon Treaty (which, on the whole, reduces the role of national parliaments in EU decision making).

A shame so few people are paying attention.

Ignorance is not bliss for Chris Bryant

The controversial EU-US anti-terrorism data-sharing deal, named the Swift agreement, came under further attack yesterday as an almighty row broke out in the Commons. Labour’s very own Michael Connarty accused the government of treating Parliament with "disdain and contempt" by choosing to bypass the standard eight-week period given to the European Scrutiny Committee to examine such agreements, with Treasury Minister Sarah McCarthy-Fry asked to justify the Government's decision.

The Swift agreement allows the US authorities to access EU citizens’ bank transactions under the name of anti-terrorism. But whilst the Government claims the agreement will protect us from the threat of terrorist attacks we are left wondering, who is protecting us, the citizens, against attacks on our civil liberties?

The Lisbon Treaty was sold with the promise that it would strengthen national parliaments' ability to scrutinse EU legislation. This is a particular concern for matters concerning justice and home affairs where the UK can decide to 'opt in' to a proposal or not. Let us not forget, the negotiated 'opt in' was used by the Government to justify its decision to abandon the promised referendum on the Treaty.

PA report that Connarty, the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, said he had been assured by ministers, including Prime Minister Gordon Brown, that opt-ins would be subject to proper scrutiny. Connarty said that the SWIFT agreement was the first test of the Lisbon Treaty assurance and this was a "very bad start to the new process.”

But it's getting even worse.

In a public lecture at the LSE yesterday evening we asked Chris Bryant, the UK's Europe Minister, to comment on the day's debate in the Commons. And yet, to our surprise (and his), he wasn't even aware that the Commons debate had happened, remarking:

"What on earth does this have to do with Sarah McCarthy-Fry, I don't think this is right". Then calling to an assistant, he asked "Did Sarah McCarthy-Fry answer a question today?". He continued "I'm really perplexed about it because if anyone would be answering EU [questions] it should be me...I don't know if I can say much more."

With the Government so quick to ignore due Parliamentry process and the Minister for Europe totally unaware of what's going on, it’s sure time to recognise that democracy has not been strengthened by the Lisbon Treaty.

Luckily enough we have the episode on the dictaphone, so click here for a listen. Chris does sound very confused...

The Lisbon Treaty and national parliaments: In practice

The true effect of Lisbon, the practice not the theory, is beginning to come to light and, as some of us warned, it is far from pretty.

The House of Commons' European Scrutiny Committee, the body charged with sifting through EU legislation and holding the Government to account, has published its annual report today and has some quite interesting things to say about the Lisbon Treaty's impact on Parliamentary scrutiny of EU proposals - a largely unexciting process but, if it can be effective, one that is key to maintaining a link between our national representatives and the Brussels legislative machine.

Lisbon Treaty advocates have always argued, which we have refuted here, that it would improve national parliaments' scrutiny of new legislation and even increase their powers to enforce subsidiarity - the principle that actions should only be taken at the EU level if they cannot be achieved at the local, regional or member state level.

However, as politicians, the public and the media are starting to realise, the Lisbon Treaty is desperately failing the Ronseal test.

The Committee notes that under the Lisbon Treaty's so-called yellow and orange card procedures, which in theory give member states' national parliaments the right to ask the Commission to withdraw a proposal on the grounds that it infringes subsidiarity, "the legislative decision on subsidiarity would continue to rest with the EU institutions." I.e. the Commission is still free to ignore the views of national parliaments (for more on this see here).

The Committee therefore concludes:

There is, in our view, less to the provisions on subsidiarity than meets the eye. In our experience it has been rare for the entirety of a proposal for legislation to be inconsistent with the principle of subsidiarity. We do not therefore expect frequent use to be made of the yellow and orange cards. Indeed it would be surprising if the mere existence of such provisions gave rise to a growth in the number of well-founded subsidiarity cases.

The point is that subsidiarity is a politically subjective concept and that for as long as the Commission makes the decisions they are only likely to go one way. The European Commission will always find a way to justify EU action if it wants to and, needless to say, it usually does.

These are the challenges facing the Conservatives in their pledge to introduce a Sovereignty Bill which could give the Government the teeth to actually say No when it believes the EU is over-interfering.

The Committee's report raises two more important points. The first is the Government's increased overriding of the Committee's scrutiny reserve. Among other things, the scrutiny reserve obliges ministers to provide the Committee with requested information before they sign up to EU proposals. Between July and December 2008 there were 23 overrides compared with 12 during the corresponding period in 2007. If scrutiny is to be effective, MPs must curb the Government's willingness to circumvent Parliament.

Secondly, the report suggests that the growing use of 'first reading deals', often negotiated in confidentiality between the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission, make it "well nigh impossible" for national parliaments to scrutinise any amendments made to an original Commission proposal in the process. With the Lisbon Treaty now in place this is only going to become more problematic as it has dramatically increased the number of policy areas to which co-decision between the Council and the EP applies.

Stay tuned for more of what they failed to tell you about the implications of the Lisbon Treaty in practice.