The Dutch referendum on the EU/Ukraine association agreement: What will the impact be?

Dr. Maja Brkan and Alexander Hoogenboom

On 6 April 2016, the Dutch voters – not surprisingly according to the recent polls – rejected the EU-Ukraine association agreement with 61.1 percent of votes against. While the voters came just above the 30 percent threshold, the result itself seems to be quite a convincing “nee”.

The EU has so far concluded numerous association agreements with other countries, for example with Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Israel, Egypt, Chile and, most recently, Kosovo. So why was the referendum organised exactly regarding Ukraine?

Summer fun?

The reason is both banal and worrying. The so-called ‘Citizen’s Committee-EU’ (Burgercomité EU), which was behind the initiative, publicly and boldly stated prior to the vote that they ‘did not care about the Ukraine’: the referendum was meant solely to weaken the EU, as well as to put the relationship between the EU and the Netherlands under pressure. The Association Agreement was simply one of the ‘actionable’ items picked from the list maintained by the Dutch Voting Council and so became a scape goat for undermining Dutch-EU relationship.

In order to be able to organise a referendum and to make it subject to the new law on referenda, entering into force just a few days after the association agreement with Ukraine should have been voted upon, the campaigners petitioned the Socialist Party (SP) and the Freedom Party (PVV) in the Dutch parliament to postpone the voting on AA in the Parliament. And it happened. Subsequently, the committee contacted the popular right-wing weblog ‘Geenstijl’ to help organise the campaign to raise the necessary signatures for a referendum. The latter agreed, calling the initiative ‘Een leuk zomerdingetje’, a summer fun thing to do.

Legal consequences at the EU level: a ticking bomb?

From a legal perspective, several issues need to be addressed. The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement falls within the category of mixed agreements, meaning that, on the side of the EU, both the EU as well as its Member States are parties to the agreement. In practice this means that all the signatories have to ratify the agreement before it can enter into force. From the side of EU Member States, they have to ratify the agreement in accordance with their constitutional tradition. From the side of the EU, the European Parliament has to give its consent and the Council needs to vote with unanimity (Article 218(8) TFEU). The question is, of course, what legal consequences the NO vote will have for the actual Agreement.

On the one hand, it is yet to be seen whether the Dutch government takes the public opinion into account and whether or not it will nevertheless ratify the agreement. The referendum is what is termed ‘advisory corrective’: a non-binding plebiscite addressing the desirability of laws enacted, including those approving certain international treaties. As such, legally, there is no obstacle to Dutch ratification of the Association Agreement. Politically, however, the matter is a different one: the government, and the ruling coalition, already lack popular support. Prime Minister Rutte can therefore not afford to simply ignore the result. Indeed, he has already promised to take the ‘nee’ seriously and announced that would not ratify the agreement ‘as [it] is’. Nonetheless, it remains hard to predict how seriously one should take this: the Dutch lack a constitutional tradition as regards referenda, with the only other referendum held at national level being the 2005 referendum on the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe.

On the other hand, the NO vote might have an impact on the agreement itself. It is possible that the Dutch government will require a renegotiation of the agreement in the sense of softening the clause on potential accession of Ukraine to the EU. However, with regard to other parts, since the arguments of the NO campaign have little to do with the content of the agreement itself, it is rather unclear which parts of the agreement would need to be renegotiated. In fact, in the Netherlands, the politicians are still trying to unravel what exactly is the message that the voters were trying to cast. In addition, as all other Member States of the EU have already ratified the agreement it is unlikely that the Netherlands would find much support for extensive amendments to the text.

Another option is to draft an opt-out for the Netherlands. Although this option is not used very often, it could potentially be a plausible solution for the current conundrum. A comparable opt-out is the one of Ireland and the UK not being signatories of the Schengen Agreement. Within the EU, there are other important opt-outs: Denmarkand UK have opted out of the monetary union and those two countries together with Ireland have an opt out from the area of freedom, security and justice.

 However, it is not sure whether such an opt-out of the Netherlands should be limited only to certain provisions depending on the type of competence of EU for a particular policy matter. With regard to the provisions of the Association Agreement relating to Common Foreign and Security Policy, an opt-out would be legally possible, for example by using a protocol stating that the Agreement does not apply for the Netherlands except for parts that are already subject to provisional application.

However, with regard to provisions that fall within EU exclusive competence, such as common commercial policy (trade), an opt-out would be both legally and practically difficult. Legally because in the area of exclusive competence, the Netherlands would need to get a special empowerment from the Union in order to be able to act on its own (pursuant to Article 2(1) TFEU). Practically, opting out from trade provisions would face immense difficulties. Not only would this be difficult because this part of the Association Agreement already provisionally applies, but also for another reason: if Ukrainian goods were imported to EU under lower customs tariffs, how could the goods circulate freely within the EU if the Netherlands would not apply these lower customs tariffs due to its opt-out to the Association Agreement? In essence, the EU would become a free trade area rather than a customs union.

It therefore seems most likely that the content of the agreement will remain unchanged. It is most probable that the Agreement will (continue to) be provisionally applied until the final solution on the Dutch position is reached. Provisional application of an agreement is namely, according to Article 218(5) TFEU, possible before its entry into force. The EU-Ukraine association agreement was adopted in 2014 and is already being applied provisionally. Since 2014, the titles on Justice, freedom and security (Title III), on Economic and sector co-operation (Title V), on Financial cooperation, with anti-fraud provisions (Title VI), and Institutional General and Final Provisions (Title VII) have been provisionally applied. The title on Trade and trade-related matters (Title IV) has had provisional application since the beginning of 2016. A provisional application is common with regard to international agreements and has happened on more than one occasion, including for the Association Agreements with Georgia and Moldova. Such provisional application of association agreements requires unanimity in the Council following Article 218(5) juncto 218(8) TFEU.

Potential influence on Brexit and Turkey’s membership in the EU

Perhaps an even more important question is whether a Dutch NO vote could have an influence on other high profile association and accession agreements. A pertinent example in this regard is Turkey. Recently, the EU leaders promised to reopen a chapter of the long-frozen accession negotiations in return for Turkey’s help with the EU refugee crisis.  Turkey, which applied for the full EU membership already in 1987, became an official candidate country in 1999. Accession negotiations started in 2005, but were not progressing, with both sides dragging their feet. With the current renewed impetus, and the opening of some chapters for negotiation, future EU membership of Turkey again seems a real, albeit currently remote, possibility.

There is no direct legal link between the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement and the potential future Accession Agreement with Turkey. The link between the two, however, goes over the political bridge of the Brexit where the results of the referendum on 23 June 2016 might be influenced by both the results of the Dutch referendum as well as by the question of potential accession of Turkey to the EU. The UK public debate already confirmed that voters would be likely to vote in favour of leaving the EU should Turkey join. Politically, it is therefore to be expected that the accession negotiations with Turkey will slow down and may even come to halt before the Brexit referendum. Also, both France and Austria are determined to hold referenda for accession of Turkey, and to that list one might – in the light of recent events - perhaps also add the Netherlands. Moreover, the Cyprus question will probably also slow down the negotiations with Turkey, regardless of Brexit.

Legally, however, the Dutch rejection of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement will have no implications for the potential negotiation of an Accession Agreement with Turkey. The two types of agreements show rather differences than similarities. While the EU-Ukraine agreement is a mixed agreement concluded with the consent of the European Parliament and unanimity in the Council (Articles 218(6 and 8) TFEU), the accession agreement is concluded only between the Member States of the EU and the acceding state (Article 49 TEU). Furthermore, with regard to the legal base, the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement was based on Articles 31(1), 37 TEU and 217 TFEU. While Article 217 TFEU gives the Union a general competence to conclude association agreements, the other two Articles concern the Common foreign and security policy (CFSP). The Accession Agreement, however, not being a mixed agreement, is a classical international agreement between several states and thus has no legal base as such in the European treaties: Article 49 TEU simply stipulates the basic requirements and procedure for accession. Moreover, an Accession Agreement– contrary to Association Agreements – has to date not been provisionally applied. Therefore, the procedure for conclusion as well as ratification requirements of these two types of agreements are different, with accession agreements needing to be ratified (only) by EU Member States and the future Member State.

In conclusion, the Dutch referendum should be taken as a warning for the European Union leaders that things can rather easily go wrong if the EU does not sufficiently engage with the domestic level in the context of some of its more controversial decision-making. The almost complete apathy of the Dutch government towards the referendum and the lack of serious attempts at defending the decision to sign the agreement almost certainly contributed to the rejection of the Association Agreement with the Ukraine. The lesson that should be therefore drawn for the future is, as the House of Lords EU committee recently argued for the UK, that Member States should actively take responsibility for their EU Membership, and the decisions they take in that context, and be prepared to defend them at the national level.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 2, chapter 25

Photo credit: www.dawn.com

Is Brexit inevitable? The UK’s EU membership after the General Election

Steve Peers

The unexpected election of a Conservative majority government in the UK raises some fundamental questions about the UK’s continued membership of the European Union. As a first response to the election results, I’ll discuss here in turn the issues relating to the referendum and the renegotiation.

The Brexit referendum

What are the key issues of principle concerning the upcoming referendum?

First of all, let’s start with the obvious point: the new government will implement the Conservative party’s policy of attempting to renegotiate the UK’s membership of the European Union, followed by an in-out (‘Brexit’) referendum on the results of the referendum by the end of 2017. A government bill to this effect will likely be swiftly introduced; it will probably be similar to the Private Member’s Bill tabled on this issue in the last parliament, which was supported by the Conservative party.

Secondly, as I blogged last year, the opposition of many pro-Europeans to a referendum was both a mistake in principle, and a tactical error too. There’s clearly no point in expending any political energy on resisting a referendum any further.  The issue for the pro-EU side is now how to win the referendum.

Thirdly, the idea of trying to expand the voting franchise to cover all EU citizens living in the UK is a moot point in light of the outcome of the election. That’s simply because the Conservatives have the votes to push through (as they proposed in the prior Bill) a referendum based on the usual UK general election franchise (UK, Irish and Commonwealth citizens living in the UK, and UK citizens who have lived abroad for less than 15 years). Indeed, as I blogged earlier this year, while I sympathise with EU citizens living in the UK who would like to vote in a Brexit referendum, it would again be both wrong in principle and a tactical error to expand the franchise for that referendum.

Thirdly, there’s no particular reason to assume, as some inside and outside the EU do, that the anti-EU side will win the referendum. Rather the contrary: according to polling, support for staying in has risen in recent years, and clearly exceeds the support for leaving. That’s before any renegotiation takes place. Of course, we might not want to rely on polling so much in light of the election result - although the lead for the pro-EU side in this poll is much larger than the error in opinion polls during the general election. There’s also no good reason to consider the election result as a de facto vote for Brexit: the Conservative party was arguing for a renegotiation and referendum, not Brexit as such, and did not even get near 40% of the vote in any case. In a referendum, there is no ‘first past the post’ to distort the outcome of the public choice between multiple parties – only a straight ‘yes or no’ decision.

Renegotiation

There are three important political dynamics that will shape the debate over renegotiation of EU membership – and therefore affect the ensuring referendum – in the two and a half years to come.

First of all, a key issue will be the relationship between David Cameron and the rest of his party, most notably the large Eurosceptic chunk of it. Cameron’s decision to promise a renegotiation and a referendum, and then to make immigration from the EU such a key feature of the renegotiation, was prompted by demands from his backbenchers and concerns about losing Tory votes to UKIP. The latter concern will surely now go on the back burner issue as a result of the general election; but could the former issue become more important? With a small majority, is Cameron now even more at the beck and call of his back-benchers?

The key issue here is whether Cameron will continue to respond to Eurosceptic demands to harden his negotiation position (or not to give any ground on the position he has already set out), or whether he will (on this issue at least) feel less pressure than before. After all, he has answered his internal party critics by winning a majority in the House of Commons – and he has less pressure on him as a result of his intention to retire by the end of this parliament. A crucial question here is whether he could count on other parties’ support, if necessary, in the event of a rebellion by his own Eurosceptic backbenchers.

There’s an important point of principle here. Not only does the Conservative party have a democratic mandate to hold a renegotiation and a referendum: it also has a mandate to hold that renegotiation on the terms that Cameron has already set out. Some Eurosceptics believe that the UK could demand any renegotiation terms it liked from the rest of the EU, and automatically get them. But the lack of enthusiasm from other Member States for Cameron’s demands so far suggests that the Conservative party’s demands are already at (if not beyond) the limits of what other Member States could be willing to accept. Those Eurosceptics who feel that his current renegotiation demands are not enough should join the pro-Brexit camp openly and honestly, instead of trying to trick Cameron into making unrealistic demands in the hope that other Member States’ rejection of them would compel Cameron to give up on renegotiation and campaign for Brexit himself.

Secondly, a key issue is what other Member States now do following the general election result. There seemed to be little interest in discussing the renegotiation requests before, but that was understandable for two obvious reasons. First of all, because of the pending general election: why start to renegotiate with someone who might soon lose office? Secondly, because (and this was widely misunderstood) the British government never requested a renegotiation; it was Conservative party policy only. In the absence of agreement on Cameron’s strategy from the Liberal Democrats, the UK government as such never requested a renegotiation.

Both those obstacles to talks have now been removed. The question is whether other Member States are now inclined to respond to the requests for renegotiation or not. The response of key Member States like Germany, and traditional friends of the UK like the Netherlands and Ireland, will be crucial. While some Member States may think ‘this is too politically difficult for us’ or ‘if you don’t like the EU, just go away’, this would be a mistake. As a net contributor to the EU budget and a net importer of goods from the EU, it would be foolish for other Member States to refuse to negotiate at all – although as I said already, that does not mean that the UK can expect the rest of the EU to accept any and all renegotiation demands it might wish to make.

The renegotiation process will raise some important legal questions about the form and substance that renegotiation will take. I have blogged about some of these points earlier, and will be coming back to them over the months ahead.

Thirdly, the role of other political parties in the UK will be crucial. As I already mentioned, Cameron might need their support in the event of a rebellion by Eurosceptic backbenchers. Tempting as it might be to cause trouble for Cameron, it’s not in the interests of pro-EU parties to jeopardise the UK’s EU membership, which they support. Because the Conservative party has a majority, other parties will have no direct influence on the renegotiation as such. But they have an indirect importance, because of their key role in ensuring a Yes vote in the Brexit referendum. This can hardly be secured by Tory votes alone, given that the party attracts under 40% of the vote, including many anti-EU voters.

This has implications for the content of the renegotiation. Many Tories would love to see a renewed opt-out from the social chapter; but many voters on the left might reject staying in the EU on that basis (even if it could be negotiated with other Member States). Anything beyond a modest curtailment of the EU’s working time Directive (for instance, overturning the wacky CJEU case law counting doctors’ sleep as ‘working time’) could risk an anti-EU vote.

Furthermore, this means that pro-EU opposition parties will have to share a platform with (some) Tories – even though we can be certain that after two years of Tory government there will be utter loathing of that idea. But a ‘no’ to the EU will not force the Tory government out, or even cause Cameron to resign (it’s widely assumed that he would resign as Tory leader shortly after the Brexit vote anyway). And the most fervent supporters of the free movement of EU citizens will have to accept that some curtailment of free movement rights is an inevitable consequence of the renegotiation. Without it, there will soon be no free movement between the UK and EU at all.

As for the anti-EU parties (mainly UKIP and a big chunk of the Tories, with a smattering of politicians from other parties), the key issue will be whether they can sell a coherent and plausible alternative to the UK’s EU membership. This is another issue which I will come back to, since it raises many legal issues. But suffice it to say that the simplest alternative to EU membership (the European Economic Area) is unattractive to Eurosceptics because it still provides for free movement of people. Any other alternative will entail a negotiation of a new agreement with the other Member States. But the anti-EU side will not only have to agree a common view on what this would entail, but also convince the public that other Member States will necessarily accept it. Compare to the Scottish independence referendum last year, where the SNP government was able put forward a single detailed plan on what independence would look like (I doubt that the various Eurosceptics could easily agree on the equivalent) but could not then (as I blogged at the time) convince enough Scottish voters that the remaining UK would agree to it. This may prove to be the Achilles heel of the anti-EU side.

Finally, a more general point. The result of the general election is undoubtedly a great shock and disappointment to non-Tories like myself. But the prospect of a Brexit referendum offers us a chance to fight (alongside pro-EU Tories) for important things we believe in, well before the next general election: employment rights, environmental and consumer protection, human rights, animal welfare, openness to the outside world and economic prosperity through trade in goods and services and free movement of people.  Let's try to light this candle, not simply curse the darkness.

 

*This post is linked to research for my forthcoming book from Hart Publishing – Brexit: The Legal Framework for Withdrawal from the EU or Renegotiation of EU Membership

 

Barnard & Peers: chapter 2

Image: ConservativeHome.com

The UK's general election: a fundamental change to UK/EU relations?

Steve Peers

The result of the current British election campaign could be crucial for the future of the UK’s relations with the European Union. Every UK-wide election party which is likely to win seats in the election has now released its election manifesto, namely: the Conservatives; Labour; Liberal Democrats; UKIP; and the Greens. It’s therefore a good time to examine what the parties are saying about the EU, and what the various post-election scenarios would mean for the UK’s relations with the EU.

According to pollsters, at present the most probable outcome of the election is that no party will have an overall majority, although there is a small possibility that either the Labour party or the Conservative party will obtain enough seats for a majority. In the absence of a majority, either the Conservative party or the Labour party will try to obtain enough votes to govern from other parties, which are likely to include parties running in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.  So it’s necessary to consider what these other parties’ view on the EU is, and (more indirectly) whether they are likely to support Labour or the Conservatives in office.

Of these parties, only the Welsh Plaid Cymru has released its manifesto already, but I will refer to the other parties’ positions to the extent that they have been announced to the press: the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). I won’t discuss Sinn Fein, since it will not take up its seats in Parliament, or the Northern Irish Social Democratic and Labour Party, since it sits and votes with the UK-wide Labour party.

Party manifestos

There’s a lot in the manifestos that touches upon EU-related policy. For instance, the Liberal Democrats promise a ‘Digital Rights Bill’, which is closely related to EU laws on data protection and net neutrality. EU law also has a big impact on environmental law, consumer law and some other policies. But I will focus here on the key question of ‘Brexit’, ie the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

The Conservative party re-iterates that party’s policy of renegotiating EU membership and then holding an in/out referendum by the end of 2017. The renegotiation would focus on free movement (‘immigration’) from the rest of the EU, although the manifesto also refers to changing the principle of ‘ever closer union’ of EU Member States, and protecting the interests of non-eurozone Member States.

The Labour party manifesto refers to specific EU reforms, including EU immigration issues. It promises an in-out referendum if there is a further transfer of powers from the UK to the EU  This policy pledge is a development of current legislation (the 2011 European Union Act), which requires a referendum already in the event of such transfer of powers – but not an in/out referendum. However, the party does not promise an in-out referendum relating to the renegotiation. Indeed, they have made much of their opposition to that prospect.

The Liberal Democrats also promise an in-out referendum if there is a further transfer of powers from the UK to the EU. In fact, it’s their long-standing policy. They don’t call for a referendum following renegotiation.

The UK  Independence Party reiterates its long-standing policy in favour of the UK leaving the EU. It calls for a referendum to be held ‘as soon as possible’, with the preferred question ‘Do you want Britain to be a free, independent and sovereign democracy?’. They support a negotiated withdrawal, rather than a unilateral departure.

The Green Party declares itself in favour of the EU, although supports reform of it, and favours holding an in/out referendum on EU membership. However, it seems unlikely that this party would support a Conservative-led government.

Plaid Cymru declares that it is pro-European, and makes no demand for a referendum. It also seems unlikely that this party would support a Conservative-led government. The SNP support the UK’s EU membership, but in the event of an in/out referendum, they would like the public in each region of the UK to have a veto on leaving. This party has expressly ruled out supporting a Conservative-led government. The Labour party has in turn ruled out a coalition with the SNP, although it has not ruled out less formal arrangements.  

Finally, according to press reports, the DUP supports an in-out referendum on EU membership. It’s not clear if they would support renegotiation first, or would like an immediate referendum along the lines of UKIP. The DUP has traditionally supported Conservative governments in the past, although the party has declared its willingness to negotiate with the Labour party as well. It’s not clear if they would insist upon an EU referendum as the price of their support of a Labour government (it would be superfluous to insist on one as a condition of supporting the Conservatives). It’s also not clear if, like the SNP and Plaid Cymru, they would insist that Northern Ireland would also have to vote in favour for Brexit to be valid, but I doubt that this is their view, since they traditionally seek stronger ties between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

Analysing the manifestos

To make things simpler, I will assume that politicians will stick to the policies that they are promising. Of course, it’s always possible that politicians will break their promises; some might say that this is about as certain as death and taxes. But politicians do keep some promises, and in some cases there are strong pressures on them to keep those pledges. For instance, if David Cameron reneged on his renegotiation policy, he would not last 24 hours as leader of the Conservative party.

There are three different visions of the UK’s future with the EU on offer: an immediate Brexit referendum (favoured by UKIP); renegotiation followed by a referendum (supported by the Conservatives); or renegotiation without a referendum (supported by Labour and the Liberal Democrats).

The latter two parties do support a referendum in the event of a transfer of powers from the UK to the EU, but that would only happen if there were a Treaty amendment that other Member States appear to have little enthusiasm for. In the event that Eurozone Member States want new measures to ‘save the euro’, it’s possible to agree separate treaties or EU legislation among themselves (as they have before), or, if necessary, to agree on amendments to the EU Treaties which only apply to the Eurozone states, or which otherwise give the UK an opt-out. In that case, there would be no transfer of powers from the UK to the EU, and so no need for a referendum.  Simply put, an in/out referendum under the Labour or Liberal Democrat policies is very unlikely.

As for the details of the Brexit policies, I have commented already on the details of the Conservatives’ intentions to renegotiate the free movement rules, and so won’t repeat these points again.

While UKIP make much of the need for an unbiased referendum campaign, their suggested question is clearly biased. A genuine unbiased question would be: ‘Do you support the UK remaining a member of the European Union, or leaving it?’, with boxes for ‘remain’ and ‘leave’ (so that neither side has the supposed advantage of being the ‘Yes’ vote).  

The demand for regional voting on a Brexit referendum in the different parts of the UK is clearly incompatible with the constitution of the UK as it currently stands. It resembles the arrangements in federal states like Canada, Australia and Switzerland, where there are both national and regional thresholds for constitutional amendments. But the UK is not such a state – though whether it should be one is a rather broader question. In any event, it’s a moot point, since it would only arise in practice if the SNP is supporting a Conservative government – which it has said it won’t do.

Negotiations between parties

What happens if no party holds a majority? The exact composition of the next government will then depend on negotiations between the parties, which in turn depends on the exact numbers of seats each gets. It’s too early to predict that now. But some basic points can be made.

First of all, it’s simply not true, as Professor Tim Bale has pointed out, that the biggest party always gets to form the government. It’s rare for the second largest party to form one, but it’s entirely legal and consistent with constitutional convention if it does.

Secondly, the Liberal Democrats have clearly indicated via press reports their willingness to compromise on the Brexit issue, and to support the Conservative demand for a referendum subject to discussion of the details, such as the width of the voting franchise and the wording of the referendum question. A Brexit referendum is clearly a ‘red line’ (non-negotiable issue) for the Tories. So a renegotiation and referendum would be likely to take place if the Tories and Liberal Democrats hold a majority of seats between them, or if the Tories, Liberal Democrats and DUP hold a majority.

Thirdly, a coalition or other arrangement involving UKIP (Tory/UKIP; Tory/DUP/UKIP; Tory/LibDem/UKIP; Tory/LibDem/UKIP/DUP) might have difficulty agreeing on the Brexit issue, due to the different policy of UKIP. Some Conservative backbenchers would undoubtedly like to a see an immediate Brexit vote, but others in the party, and the Liberal Democrats, would not. But it would be awkward for UKIP to back down on its most important policy.

If Labour and the Liberal Democrats held a majority, or if Labour formed a government in most other scenarios (Labour/SNP; Labour/LibDem/SNP; Labour/SNP/Green/PC etc) a Brexit referendum is highly unlikely.

Finally, in the improbable event that Labour and the Conservative party do a deal, differences in the Brexit referendum policy would be one of many obstacles. But the far bigger issue would be managing the consequences of hell freezing over.

Passing EU-related legislation

Finally, would there be any difficulties legislating for Brexit? It can be assumed that a Tory-led government would immediately introduce a government bill to put into effect its planned referendum. One potential problem here is the House of Lords, which blocked a previous private member’s bill which aimed to put this policy into law. The so-called ‘Salisbury Convention’ means that the House of Lords does not block government bills which implement policies which were set out in the leading party’s manifesto. According to the House of Lords itself, the convention should only apply if all of the coalition parties have set out the same policy – but only the Tories (and likely the DUP) have set out a renegotiation and referendum plan in their manifesto. That could lead to the House of Lords blocking the referendum Bill. Although a majority in the House of Commons could use the Parliament Act to overrule the Lords, that would mean a year’s delay in the law coming into force, which might complicate renegotiation talks.

Art credit: Adam, Daily Telegraph

Barnard & Peers: chapter 2

Who should get the vote in a Brexit referendum?

 

Steve Peers

“Nasty Yes won the referendum yesterday”

That was my initial response to the Brexit referendum of 1975, written precociously in my childhood diary. I rather suspect that a hundred or so miles away, in a rather posher diary, and in an infinitely posher school, David Cameron was writing exactly the same words.

Of course, we had different motivations for this youthful flirtation with the Dark Side. In my case, I was simply copying my parents’ left-wing opposition to the EU, which remained unabated even though my dad had been one of the very first British citizens to (briefly) exercise the free movement of workers to another Member State. (I remained in the UK with my mother, who was a third-country national; it’s lucky we didn’t end up as an EU law exam question).

On the other hand, David Cameron probably didn’t care much about the referendum at all, but felt he needed to write those (hypothetical) words in his diary so that right-wing Eurosceptic bullies would finally leave him alone. They didn’t.

Forty years later, it looks like we may have another Brexit referendum in the near future, depending (as things stand) upon the very uncertain result (and aftermath) of the general election due in May. I have already blogged here about the reasons why advocates of the EU should support such a referendum. My topic today is who should get the vote in a Brexit referendum; I suspect many on the pro-EU side won’t like my argument on this issue much either. But like my case for a referendum, I believe that the case I make here is a principled one – and ultimately, the pro-EU case can only legitimately be made upon principled foundations.

Although it’s not yet certain that a Brexit referendum is imminent, I am prompted to write now on the issue of the franchise due to comments on the weekend by Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence Party, who said that only British citizens should get the vote in the referendum. It wasn’t clear whether he thought British expatriates in the EU (or elsewhere) should also get it.

The starting point should be the franchise rules that already exist, although they could be changed for a referendum (as they were for the Scottish independence referendum last year). Among the existing rules, it makes sense to focus on those for UK-wide elections, rather than those for local government or the devolved bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, since a Brexit vote would be held nationwide.

There are two nationwide templates to choose from. In general elections, all British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens can vote, as can any British expatriates if they have been away from the country (whether in the EU or elsewhere) for less than 15 years. In European Parliament elections, citizens of all European Union countries can vote.  (For more details, see here).

At first sight, it might seem attractive to argue (as many on the pro-EU side do) that all EU citizens in the UK should get the vote. The departure of the UK from the EU would certainly affect them fundamentally. Even though UKIP’s current official position is that all those legally present should get to stay, there’s no guarantee that this protection would exist in practice after Brexit. And giving all EU citizens the vote is not unprecedented for nationwide elections, as they have the vote in European Parliament elections. (Indeed, they have the vote in local elections too).

However, this argument should be rejected, for two reasons. First of all, European Parliament elections are different in principle from other nationwide votes. They determine who will be the UK’s Members of the European Parliament, but that is a multinational body with a role in EU-wide decision-making. Of course EU laws have an impact on the UK, but the European Parliament is not the place where decisions distinct to the UK as a separate state get made. In contrast, such decisions get made via means of direct democracy, in nationwide referendums, and more frequently via means of indirect democracy, via means of our vote for the national parliament. So it makes more sense for all votes on the future of the UK as a separate state to be subject to the same franchise rules. In fact, this is the practice: the Westminster voting rules (leaving aside members of the House of Lords) were applied to the 2011 referendum on a change to the electoral system, and in the recent private members’ bills (supported by the Conservative party) providing for a 2017 Brexit referendum.

The second argument is one of legitimacy. If the pro-EU side narrowly wins a Brexit referendum in which all EU citizens are allowed to vote, Eurosceptics will endlessly claim that the election was ‘stolen’ from them. I can already anticipate the reaction to this point: Eurosceptics will demand another referendum anyway. The historical parallels are legion: Quebec separatists demanded another referendum after they lost the first one in 1980; Scottish nationalists are already agitating for a second independence referendum; and the Eurosceptics of the 1970s took over the Labour party shortly afterward.

But the point is not to try to stop hardcore Eurosceptics arguing for another Brexit referendum. They are bound to do that. The point is to stop them winning the argument for another referendum in public opinion more broadly. The pro-EU side should aim to win that argument fairly, by ensuring that the upcoming Brexit referendum (if there is one) is, as far as possible, beyond reproach.  (Again, of course hardcore Eurosceptics are bound to reproach it if they lose; the battleground is mainstream public opinion). The result of a Brexit referendum is always likely to be seen as a little bit dubious in mainstream public opinion if it depends on the votes of people who don’t usually have the vote in general elections, given that EU citizens can only vote in EP elections in the first place because of EU law. A good historical parallel would be the Canadian election of 1917, which was won by a pro-conscription party in the midst of the First World War by disenfranchising conscientious objectors and enfranchising women, but only if they were related to servicemen. For good reason, this victory was regarded as illegitimate by those opposing conscription.

Furthermore it’s not impossible to convince the broader public that a fresh referendum is unnecessary, where there’s a good case that the earlier one was clearly legitimate. After all, while Quebec separatists did get to hold another referendum in 1995, they have not yet secured another one despite their very narrow loss on that occasion. The Eurosceptic takeover of the Labour party proved shortlived, since it contributed to splitting the party and its biggest electoral defeat since the 1930s.

Should the franchise be changed in some other way for a Brexit referendum? No, for the same reason: any special rule would look like an attempt to fix the result, possibly in a Eurosceptic direction. So the franchise should not be narrowed to British citizens only: Irish and Commonwealth citizens have the vote in general elections, so should have the vote for the Brexit referendum too. (Remember that Cyprus and Malta are in both the EU and the Commonwealth). So should British citizens living abroad, whether they are living in the EU or not. It can’t be assumed that they are all pro-EU voters, as my dad’s example shows. Some of them may even have left the UK because of a belief that there were too many immigrants there – displaying an obvious lack of appreciation of irony.

What if the general election mandate is changed anyway? There may indeed be a case to be made that only British citizens should vote in general elections. However, for good reasons, there is a tradition that changes to the franchise need broad support across the political spectrum, including the main opposition party. And it would clearly be obnoxious to shove through a change to the franchise in the last few weeks before a general election. If there is such broad support for changing the franchise after the next general election, the first time to apply the new rules should be the subsequent general election, not any Brexit referendum that might take place.

My argument above will disappoint those who believe strongly that EU citizens in the UK should have the vote on a matter that affects them so significantly. But the case against letting them vote in a Brexit referendum is also tactical: the complaints against it are more likely to lead to a further referendum in the near future, or even to increase the votes for the anti-EU side. Yet even if the net result of letting all EU citizens vote would be to increase the pro-EU vote, it would be wrong to give them the vote in principle. And if EU citizens are particularly keen to vote, they could always consider obtaining UK citizenship.

Postscript (10 May 2015):

The above analysis obviously becomes more relevant after the results of the UK general election, given that a referendum on EU membership now seems certain to happen in the near future. That doesn't give me any reason to change my view, but it's a good occasion to make two further points.

First of all, I would reiterate the case against changing the voting franchise at all for the EU referendum, no matter what the changes concern. So the UKIP argument that 'only UK citizens should have the vote' should also be rejected, because it is equally wrong in principle. If Commonwealth citizens and Irish citizens can normally vote on the key issues facing this country in general elections, why can they not vote on the question of EU membership? Excluding them would appear to be an attempt to bias the vote toward the anti-EU side. Similarly, while I am in favour of extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, the EU referendum would be the wrong time to change the rules. Again, it would appear to be an attempt to fix the results, particularly in light of the bizarre UKIP argument that young minds have been polluted by EU colouring books featuring evil Euro-cows.

Secondly, I think there's a better way to put my argument of principle against allowing all EU citizens to vote in the EU referendum. The whole point of the referendum is to decide on the polity (ie the political identity) of the UK in the first place. Should we remain part of the EU or not? Allowing all EU citizens in the UK to participate in that decision would effectively mean that they are judges in their own case.

I can understand the concerns of EU citizens in the UK that they ought to have a vote in an issue which will affect them so directly.  One solution is to obtain UK citizenship. For those unwilling or unable to do that, they have every right to participate in the broader public debate to convince voters that EU membership makes an important contribution to the UK's economic prosperity, environmental protection. social justice, animal welfare and cultural identity - and in particular that migrants from the EU make a huge contribution to Britain's economic and social success.  

Second postscript (25 May 2015)

Press reports indicate that the UK referendum on EU membership will indeed essentially follow the general election franchise, and not extend the vote to citizens of other EU countries (besides Ireland, Cyprus and Malta) living in the UK. Some have questioned the legality of this, but there seems little ground to challenge it. The EU Treaties require Member States to give all EU citizens the vote in local and European Parliament elections, but there is no reference to other votes. Since the Treaties include the power (never used) to widen EU citizens' rights beyond those listed, it must therefore be presumed that the Treaty drafters did not intend to require Member States to extend voting rights in referenda (or in any other elections) in the absence of a decision to lengthen the list of rights attached to EU citizenship.  As for the ECHR, the First Protocol to the Convention requires States to hold 'free elections', but on the face of it this does not apply to referenda, and the case law does not suggest that voting must be extended to non-nationals in any event.     


Barnard & Peers: chapter 2

Photo credit: www.jonworth.eu
Meme: Steve Peers
Jumper design: Nigel Farage :)

Article 50 TEU: The uses and abuses of the process of withdrawing from the EU

 

Steve Peers

If the UK holds a ‘Brexit’ referendum on its continued membership of the EU in near future, voters will be hearing a lot about Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU), the Treaty provision which regulates the process of a Member State withdrawing from the EU. We have already begun to hear about this clause, with some suggestion that it should be invoked in order to trigger a renegotiation of UK membership. Most recently, a former UK cabinet minister, Owen Paterson, has suggested that the UK should invoke the clause. But what are the legal and political constraints upon using it?

The text of Article 50

Article 50(1) TEU provides simply that any Member State can withdraw from the EU in accordance with its own constitutional rules. The key part of Article 50 is the next paragraph, which states that:

A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

(Note that the European Council is the EU institution consisting of Heads and State of Government, and Article 218 of the TFEU is the provision dealing with treaties between the EU and third countries).

Article 50(3) TEU then sets out the timing of withdrawal. The UK would cease to be an EU Member State either at the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, ‘failing that’, two years after the notification of its intention to withdraw from the EU, unless the European Council and the UK unanimously agree to extend that period. (Of course, Article 50 applies to any Member State that might choose to leave, but I will focus my comments on the possibility of the UK withdrawing in particular).

According to Article 50(4), during this period, the UK could not participate in discussions concerning it in some EU institutions – namely the European Council and the Council, which comprises Member States’ ministers.  A ‘qualified majority’ vote would be recalculated without the UK.

Finally, Article 50(5) says that the UK could rejoin the EU again after its withdrawal. This would be subject to the same rules applying to any other country which asks to join the EU.

What does Article 50 mean?

Article 50 TEU was added to the Treaties by the Treaty of Lisbon. It confirms the possibility to leave the EU that many (but not all) legal observers believed existed beforehand. No fully-fledged Member State has in fact left the EU before or after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, although some parts of Member States have done so. Before the Treaty of Lisbon, this was accomplished by means of Treaty amendment (an amendment just to remove Greenland was ratified in the 1980s, and Algeria’s independence from France was finally recognised as part of Treaty amendments in the 1990s). After the Treaty of Lisbon, there’s a special procedure relating to small parts of Member States (or their associated territories) becoming less (or more) connected to the EU. But it doesn’t apply to entire Member States, or even to territories linked to the UK (the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar).

So Article 50 confirms the possibility of Member States to leave the EU, and it is clearly the only legal route to leave, as a matter of EU law. There’s no possibility to throw a Member State out of the EU against its will, although its membership could be suspended if there are serious and continued breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (Article 7 TEU). That clause has never been used to date either.

What are the crucial features of Article 50?

The first crucial feature is the timing of withdrawal. An official notification to withdraw will automatically result in the UK ceasing to be a Member State of the EU, as of two years from the date of notification, unless one of two things happens: a withdrawal agreement sets a different date, or the UK and the remaining Member States (voting unanimously) agree to extend that time limit. Presumably the date of the withdrawal agreement could be set either before or after the two-year default time limit.  

One important point is not explicitly addressed: would it be possible to withdraw a notification to leave the EU? In the absence of explicit wording, the point is arguable either way. It could be argued that since a notification to withdraw is subject to a Member State’s constitutional requirements, the Treaty therefore leaves to each Member State the possibility of rescinding that notification in accordance with those requirements. On the other hand, it could also be argued that Article 50 only provides for two possibilities to delay the withdrawal of a Member State from the EU once notification has been given (an extension of the time limit, or a different date in the withdrawal agreement). There’s no suggestion that this is a non-exhaustive list. Therefore the notification of withdrawal can’t be rescinded.

Would it be possible to circumvent this by the European Council and the UK agreeing to extend the deadline indefinitely? This would probably be open to challenge (and it surely would be challenged in practice by Eurosceptics who wanted to ensure the UK’s departure from the EU). While such an indefinite extension is not explicitly ruled out, the logic and context of Article 50 suggests that extensions of the time limit are temporary. It’s Article 50(5) that expressly provides for rejoining the EU after withdrawal. If the Treaty drafters had intended there to be other means to remain an EU Member State after notifying withdrawal, they would surely have said so expressly.

This legal issue has important political implications. It means that it would be foolish, as is sometimes suggested, to invoke Article 50 as a means of forcing a renegotiation of UK membership of the EU. Legally speaking, it’s just not possible to do this. It’s obvious from Article 50(2) that invoking Article 50 leads to negotiations on the UK’s departure from the EU, not about Treaty amendments or changes to other forms of EU law. While it is likely that if the UK left the EU, there would be a separate Treaty amendment agreed by the remaining Member States (at the very least, to remove mentions of the UK from the Treaties), the Treaty drafters clearly did not want Article 50 itself to be used for the purpose of renegotiating EU membership or amending the Treaties in any way.

This is obvious when we compare Article 50 to Article 48, which elaborates a number of different ways of amending the Treaties, and to Article 49, which states that an accession Treaty can amend the Treaties. In contrast, Article 50 makes no mention of Treaty amendments. And this makes perfect sense: why should a Member State leaving the EU have a say in Treaty amendments that won’t affect it?

Politically speaking, invoking Article 50 as a means of triggering Treaty amendment would be foolish too. Once the UK gives notification of its intention to leave the EU, it will be forced out two years afterward, unless all remaining Member States agree to extend that deadline. So triggering Article 50 in the context of a renegotiation of UK membership would immediately give leverage to all the other Member States: we would be forced out of the EU unless we agreed to whatever terms they were willing to offer. Even if they were willing to be fairly generous, it would look as if we were forced to agree those terms as a condition of remaining a Member State.

All this suggests that those who wish to invoke Article 50 as a means of renegotiation actually have the objective of ensuring that the UK leaves the EU. There’s nothing unprincipled when those who openly favour the UK leaving the EU advocate invoking Article 50 to that end. But those who claim to support invoking Article 50 to trigger renegotiation either have a hidden agenda or are quite naïve about what they are suggesting.

Secondly, as to the content of the negotiations, Article 50 provides for the negotiation of a withdrawal arrangement, not a deal on the UK’s future relationship with the EU. This is obvious from the wording of Article 50(2), which refers only to taking account of that ‘future relationship’ in the withdrawal arrangement. In practice, the details of the withdrawal arrangement and the treaty establishing that future relationship would be closely linked. Probably the withdrawal treaty would, among other things, aim to regulate a transition period before the treaty on the future relationship entered into force.

In this context, it should be noted that (contrary to what is sometimes asserted), there’s no legal obligation for the remaining EU to sign a free trade agreement with the UK. The words ‘future relationship’ assume that there would be some treaties between the UK and the EU post-Brexit, but do not specify what their content would be.

This point is politically significant because while the withdrawal arrangement would be negotiated by a qualified majority, most of the EU’s free trade agreements are in practice ‘mixed agreements’, ie requiring the consent of the EU institutions and ratification by all of the Member States. That’s because those agreements usually contain rules going outside the scope of the EU’s trade policy.  While it seems likely that in practice the remaining EU would be willing to enter into a trade agreement with the UK (see, for instance, the ‘gaming’ exercise conducted by Open Europe), the unanimity requirement would complicate this.

It has been argued that a post-Brexit UK could simply retain its membership in the European Economic Area (EEA), a treaty between the EU, its Member States, and Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein which extends the EU’s internal market rules to the associated States. I will come back to this idea in a future blog post. But for now, suffice it to say that the EEA includes the free movement of persons, an aspect of EU membership that particularly upsets most UK critics of the EU (indeed, that's why UKIP rules EEA membership out). Although the EEA does contain a safeguard clause permitting the suspension of some obligations, that clause permits the other party to retaliate. So if the UK suspended the free movement of EU citizens, the EU would likely retaliate by suspending access to the EU by the UK financial services industry, and/or removing tariff preferences for UK car exports to the EU.

Two final points. First of all, it’s sometimes suggested that that the UK could ignore the Article 50 process, and simply leave the EU without invoking that clause. As a matter of domestic law, that’s certainly correct. Our membership of the EU depends upon the European Communities Act, and Parliament could end that membership by repealing that Act.

But politically and economically speaking, this option is insane. It would leave many practical details of withdrawing from the EU unresolved, such as payments of EU funds to UK recipients. Even if the UK could revert its membership of the EEA, that would only govern the trade arrangements with the EU, not issues outside the scope of the EEA. For instance, it would immediately end the UK’s involvement in the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). Unless we had negotiated a transitional and/or replacement arrangement – which is obviously the point of having the two-year period set out in Article 50 – defence lawyers would argue that any EAWs which the UK had issued to other Member States, and any EAWs issued by other Member States which the UK was seeking to execute, were invalid. That would mean that no fugitives could be arrested or detained on the basis of those invalid EAWs, and those already detained would have to be released.

More broadly, such a ‘unilateral declaration of independence’ would destroy the UK’s credibility as a negotiating partner with the remaining EU, and indeed with anyone else, given the clear contempt that it would display for the legal rules which the UK had previously accepted. It would be a long time before the UK could plausibly claim again that it had a record of ‘fair play’ in international negotiations.

Finally, what about Owen Paterson’s specific suggestion that the UK should leave the EU before holding the Brexit referendum – which would then be a choice between EEA membership on the one hand, and full EU membership (including participation in Schengen and the single currency on the other)?

The basic problem with this suggestion is that it is utterly and totally undemocratic. Over the last twenty years, the UK constitution has developed an unwritten convention that major constitutional changes need to be approved by a referendum. This convention has only once been applied at national level during this time (as regards changes to the voting system), but it has frequently been applied in regions and cities across England, as well as in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Leaving the EU is clearly such a major constitutional change that a referendum is required before it happens, not after.  Indeed, this is recognised by David Cameron’s policy of renegotiation and a referendum. It isn’t clear from the UKIP website whether that party would hold a referendum before leaving the EU or not, although that party’s leader has made reference to a referendum pledge as a condition of supporting another party after the next general election. 

This now-established principle of the British constitution cannot and should not be set aside for the convenience of securing a tactical advantage for those who dislike the EU. Paterson’s suggestion would in fact rob the British public of voting either for the status quo of EU membership (which does not involve the single currency or Schengen) or for any renegotiated agreement which David Cameron might renegotiate (which will also surely not involve either feature of EU law).  A Brexit referendum should never be held on such an unprincipled basis.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 2

 

The Cameron express: could there be a ‘fast-track’ Treaty amendment on the free movement of workers?

 

Steve Peers

For EU law geeks, the Treaty amendment process is the World Cup, the general election and the second coming of the Millennium Falcon rolled into one. Following the Treaty of Lisbon, it seemed unlikely that there would be another significant Treaty amendment for years. But following David Cameron’s demand to renegotiate EU free movement rules (which was echoed to a lesser extent by the UK Labour party), it has become rather more likely.

So we must move on to the next question: what type of Treaty amendment would it be?  Before the Treaty of Lisbon, there was only one form of Treaty amendment set out in Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). However, it was also possible to amend the Treaty by means of accession treaties, and there were sundry forms of minor Treaty amendment (such as amendments to the EU Court’s Statute) scattered around the rest of the Treaties.

Since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force five years ago today, this situation is considerably more complicated. The previous Treaty amendment process has been revised, and there are two variations of it; it’s now called the ‘ordinary revision procedure’. There are two entirely new ‘simplified revision procedures’. Furthermore, there are additional possibilities for minor Treaty amendment scattered around the rest of the Treaties, and it’s still possible to amend the Treaties via means of an accession treaty.

These distinctions are important because if Cameron’s plans could be put into place by using a simplified revision procedure, the process would be speeded up at EU level – although not necessarily at national level.

The changes were so fascinating that, in an explosion of EU law geekiness, I took over 100 pages to analyse them in an article for the Yearbook of European Law. I won’t subject you to all of my analysis there, but it’s the basis for my following comments on which Treaty amendment process would apply to Cameron’s reforms.

Legal framework

There’s no accession to the EU planned for the next five years. So even if an accession treaty could address David Cameron’s renegotiation demands (and I don’t think it could), that prospect is irrelevant, since they couldn’t be addressed by this route before the deadline he has set for a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU (end of 2017). The minor Treaty amendment processes aren’t relevant to any of his renegotiation demands either.

That leaves us with the ordinary revision procedure and the two simplified revision procedures set out in Article 48 TEU. These have been discussed in posts on other blogs over the weekend, in particular the 'Boiling the Frog' blog. I’ll respond below to some of the points made there.

The ordinary revision procedure requires a ‘Convention’ to be called, consisting of representatives of national parliaments, Member State governments, the European Parliament and the Commission. The Convention meets for a while (the details have to be worked out on a case-by-case basis) and recommends Treaty amendments. An Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC) of Member State representatives then convenes to consider the proposed amendments. If the IGC reaches agreement by the ‘common accord’ (ie the positive support) of all Member States, then the resulting Treaty amendment must be ‘ratified by all Member States, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements’.

As a variation on this procedure, it’s possible to skip the Convention stage if a simple majority (15/28) Member State governments think that it’s unnecessary, in light of the limited extent of the proposed amendments. But an (inevitably short) IGC and Treaty ratification process is still necessary. If governments want to skip the Convention stage, they must convince the European Parliament to consent to it.

What about the two simplified procedures? The first simplified procedure, set out in Article 48(6) TEU, is the only one that might be relevant to Cameron’s proposed amendments. It provides that a Decision to amend the treaties can be adopted by the ‘European Council’, ie the EU body consisting of Heads of State and Government (Cameron, Merkel, et al), acting unanimously. This Decision then has to be ‘approved by all Member States, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements’. This procedure applies to amendments of ‘all of part of Part Three’ of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the second of the two main Treaties establishing the EU (more below on what’s in Part Three of the TFEU). This process ‘shall not increase the competences conferred on’ the EU.

The second simplified procedure, set out in Article 48(7), provides for a shift away from unanimous voting of Member States to qualified majority voting, or for changes in the type of legislative procedure, as regards most (but not all) of the two main EU Treaties. Again, the decision concerned would be adopted by the European Council, acting unanimously. But instead of ratification or approval by national parliaments, the Decision could be adopted if no national parliament objected within six months.

Obviously the second procedure couldn’t apply to Cameron’s proposed amendments, since increasing qualified majority voting in the EU is the last thing on his mind. This means that the curtailed role for national parliaments in the second procedure would not apply to the amendments which Cameron is seeking. The Boiling the Frog blog post gets this point wrong.

Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, Article 48 has been used four times for Treaty amendments. (There’s also been an accession treaty and some minor Treaty amendments). The ordinary revision procedure was used on three occasions, as regards: a Protocol increasing the number of Members of the European Parliament temporarily; a Protocol on the concerns of the Irish people about the Treaty of Lisbon; and a Protocol limiting the effect of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Czech Republic.  The first of these Protocols entered into force in 2011; the second Protocol is still being ratified; and the ratification of the third Protocol stopped after a new Czech government withdrew its request, because it no longer wanted to limit the effect of the Charter.

The other Treaty amendment was based on Article 48(6). It consisted of a Decision adding a single paragraph to the TFEU in order to provide for Member States to adopt a treaty establishing a European Stabilisation Mechanism (ESM), ie a bailout fund for Eurozone Member States. This Decision entered into force in 2013.

The key questions about the possible use of the simplified Treaty amendment procedure set out in Article 48(6) for Cameron’s suggested changes are twofold. Firstly, how much easier is it to use than the usual Treaty amendment process? And secondly, when exactly can it be used? I’ll address these procedural and substantive questions in turn.

Procedural simplification

The simplified procedure doesn’t require a Convention to discuss the Treaty amendments. Furthermore, it allows a Convention to be skipped without the European Parliament’s consent; the Parliament only gets to be consulted on the Treaty amendment. There’s no IGC either, although inevitably there is some discussion among Member States, within the framework of the European Council, about the text which the European Council should adopt.

What about transparency? The last few IGCs have been fairly transparent, but when the European Council drew up an Article 48(6) amendment in 2010, no drafts of the Decision were published, and the European Council staff simply ignored my requests for access to the documents. Let’s hope this obnoxious attitude wouldn’t be applied to future cases. For a starting point, it was illegal to ignore my requests for access, since the EU’s access to documents rules apply to documents of the European Council. Furthermore,  while those rules allow for access to be refused in the interest of the institution’s decision-making efficiency, that interest can be overridden in the greater public interest. Obviously the public interest in scrutinising and debating planned Treaty amendments should take precedence.

While it's been suggested that a European Council Decision can be quietly adopted and presented as a fait accompli, that isn’t legally accurate or politically realistic. On the legal side, Article 48(6) expressly makes clear that the Decision will have to be ratified at national level. For the UK, if Cameron is doing the negotiating, that would also necessarily mean that the Conservative party either had obtained a majority at the next election or had done a deal with one or more parties to allow it to govern. In the scenario, an Act of Parliament providing for a ‘Brexit’ referendum would surely be on the statute books by the time the renegotiation of membership takes place.  

In the event of a Labour (or Labour-dominated) government, there would be no commitment to a Brexit referendum (unless that party changes its current policy). So the Treaty amendment in question would be subject to the European Union Act 2011, which requires an Act of Parliament for its ratification (see s. 3 of that Act; such a Treaty amendment is not among the list of changes which would require a referendum, according to s. 4 of that Act).

On the political side, if David Cameron secured a Treaty amendment and said he would not hold a Brexit referendum after all, he would not remain as Conservative party leader for more than 24 hours.  Anyway, since the referendum Act would presumably be on the books already, it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which a Conservative-dominated House of Commons would vote to rescind it. Equally, the Labour party says that it supports the European Union Act 2011, and if it has enough votes in the House of Commons to form a government, it should probably have enough votes to pass an Act of Parliament approving the Treaty amendment.

It’s often thought that all Treaty amendments require referendums in some other Member States, at least in Ireland. But that isn’t the case: the post-Lisbon Treaty amendments mentioned above didn’t require one. The crucial issue, according to Irish constitutional case law (see the Crotty case), is whether there is a fundamental change in the basis of Irish participation in the EU. It might be argued that a cut back in the rights of free movement of workers would constitute such a change; but the favourable immigration status of Irish people in the UK derives originally from UK domestic law, not the EU Treaties. On the other hand, an amendment to the Treaties would leave more flexibility for the UK to change that domestic law if it wished to.

Substantive issues

As a reminder, Article 48(6) can only be used if a Treaty amendment would revise Part Three of the TFEU, and would not increase the EU’s competences. Part Three of the TFEU is the biggest part of that Treaty, and sets out the main rules on the internal market, along with other EU internal policies on issues such as Justice and Home Affairs and the environment. Obviously, this means that the Treaty amendment could not be used to amend the separate TEU Treaty, or to amend the other six Parts of the TFEU.

What do these two legal constraints mean exactly? An interesting feature of Article 48(6) is that the CJEU has jurisdiction to rule on whether the European Council Decisions are valid or not. That’s because these particular Treaty amendments take the form of decisions of an EU institution, whereas the ordinary revision procedure results in acts of the Member States. The CJEU can rule on the validity of the former, but not the latter.

Challenges to the European Council Decision could come from the European Parliament (which might want to argue that the ordinary revision procedure should have been used), or via the national courts, which would send a question on validity to the CJEU. The latter process was indeed invoked when the Article 48(6) process was used before. In the case of Pringle, the CJEU was asked (among other things) whether the Treaty amendment relating to the ESM treaty was valid.

According to the Court, it was; and its judgment gives us some insight into the limits of Article 48(6). First of all, the Court assessed whether the Treaty amendment only amended Part Three TFEU. Formally speaking, that was an easy question to answer, since the amendment took the form of a new paragraph added to Article 136 TFEU concerning economic and monetary policy, and Article 136 is within Part Three. But the CJEU went further than that, and examined whether there was an indirect amendment to other provisions of the Treaties. This is surely the right approach, because otherwise it would be possible for an amendment placed in Part Three of the TFEU to limit the scope of an EU competence described in Part One of the TFEU, or to alter the Treaty amendment procedure as set out in the TEU (a separate Treaty).  

The importance of this point is that it could crop up again in respect of Cameron’s planned Treaty amendment. It could be argued, for instance, that a limit on EU workers’ rights might take the form only of an amendment to Article 45 TFEU (which sets out the basic rules on free movement of workers), it might impact upon the rules on EU citizenship and non-discrimination, which are set out in Part Two of the TFEU. Arguably, it might also impact upon the objectives of the EU, which include the free movement of workers, as set out in Article 3 TEU. Someone might also argue that it violates the EU Charter of Rights, which is separate from the Treaties but has the same legal value.

Furthermore, it’s clear that Cameron still wants to make changes to EU law besides the free movement rules. He confirmed this in his speech, when he said that he stood by every word of his Bloomberg speech of January 2013. The other changes he wants, such as a weakening of the ‘ever closer union’ rule and some changes relating to EU regulation, might not require a Treaty amendment, as I suggested earlier this year. But if Cameron did seek one, that would be problematic. The ‘ever closer union’ rule appears in the preamble, and Article 48(6) TEU cannot be used to amend the preamble either directly or indirectly. Arguably, any curtailment of the ‘ever closer union’ rule affects the entirety of the Treaties anyway. It would be easier to use Article 48(6)TEU as regards regulation issues, since the rules on the internal market and employment policy both appear in Part Three TFEU. But again it might be argued that such amendments have an indirect impact upon the objectives set out in Article 3 TEU, or the Charter.

What if the amendments took the form of a Protocol? Arguably Article 48(6) cannot be used to add, amend or repeal a Protocol, even if the content of that Protocol relates only to Part Three TFEU. The reason for this interpretation is that Protocols are attached to the entirety of both of the main EU Treaties, rather than to any Part of the TFEU as such.

That still leaves the issue of increasing EU competences. In Pringle, the CJEU ruled that the relevant Treaty amendment was acceptable on this point, since it simply confirmed the existence of competences that the Member States already had. Applying this to Cameron’s planned Treaty amendments, they could probably not take the form of permitting the EU institutions to pass legislation to curtail the free movement rules, since that might be described as a new competence for the EU, given that the institutions would be able to provide for more limits than they can at the moment.

So the amendments would have to take the form of a new power for the Member States to curtail workers’ free movement rights. In principle this should be acceptable legally, since the prohibition on increasing EU competences set out in Article 48(6) surely implies that this process can be used to decrease such competences. But remember, in Pringle, the CJEU stressed that the Treaty amendment was acceptable because it confirmed existing powers of Member States. The amendments to the rules on the free movement of workers would be giving Member States new powers. While this also seems to fall within the scope of Article 48(6), the CJEU sometimes takes unusual approaches to the interpretation of Treaty rules.

Conclusion

A simplified Treaty amendment for Cameron’s free movement plans is possible, but only if they remain tightly restricted to amending rules set out in Part Three TFEU, provide for powers for Member States (rather than the EU institutions), and (probably) do not take the form of a Protocol. In any event, there would likely be a legal challenge, either from those who do not like the proposed changes or who think they do not go far enough (or both). It’s possible that they would survive such a legal challenge, but it might be politically unhelpful.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 2