Fact Sheet 2.19

Foreign Affairs Committee Report: Foreign Policy Aspects of the Lisbon Treaty

Introduction

In Fact Sheets 2.17 and 2.18, the main conclusions of the European Scrutiny Committee's Reports on the EU IGC were listed. The ESC partly curtailed their assessment of the foreign policy aspects of the Lisbon Treaty, because of the inquiry being undertaken by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC). The FAC's report on these aspects was released in January 2008.¹

Main conclusions and recommendations

Criticism of the Government's handling of the Treaty (paragraph 38):

• "We recognise that the compressed time-table during which the most important decisions on the EU's new Treaty were taken, over a few days in June, was driven by the EU's Presidency-in-office. The Government could and should have provided more information to Parliament during Spring 2007 about its approach to the renewed EU Treaty reform process. It should also have pressed for a less compressed timetable in June. Parliament was entitled to expect adequate time to be consulted and to be able to make an input into the contents of the Treaty, through the Government."
• "After the Treaty was finalised, Parliament was also entitled to have adequate time to make a thorough examination of the Treaty's detailed impact on the EU and the United Kingdom constitution. Parliament has been denied these opportunities, on both counts. We conclude that the procedure followed meant that the 2007 Intergovernmental Conference mandate was agreed with little scope for UK public or Parliamentary debate and engagement. This sets an unfortunate precedent which is in our view damaging to the credibility of the institutional reform process itself."

Criticism of Government's downplaying the significance of the foreign policy aspects of the Treaty (paragraphs 67 and 220):

• "...we are concerned that the Government risks underestimating, and certainly is downplaying in public, the importance and potential of the new foreign policy institutions established by the Lisbon Treaty, namely the new High Representative and the European External Action Service. We recommend that the Government should publicly acknowledge the significance of the foreign policy aspects of the Lisbon Treaty." (Paragraph 67)
• These criticisms are effectively repeated late in the report. "We conclude that the creation of the post of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and of the European External Action Service, represent major innovations in the EU's foreign policy-making machinery. We further conclude that although their establishment does not risk undermining the CFSP's intergovernmental nature, the Government is underestimating, and certainly downplaying in public, the significance of their creation. This is unlikely to be beneficial to the UK's position in the EU. We recommend that the Government should publicly acknowledge the significance of the foreign policy aspects of the Lisbon Treaty." (Paragraph 220)

Criticisms of procedures extending QMV (paragraphs 88& 112):

• "We welcome the Bill's provisions giving Parliament the right to accept or reject individual proposals to extend qualified majority voting. However, we are concerned at the implications of the provisions whereby Parliament could be invited to set aside this right in respect of "any later draft decision", as long as a Minister certifies that the decision in question is an amended version of the original decision. We see nothing on the face of the Bill that would preclude this power being invoked in circumstances where the "amended version" of the draft decision contains further transfers to qualified majority voting not found in the original decision. If this were to be the case, transfers to qualified majority voting might take place without specific Parliamentary approval. This could represent a breach of the undertaking given by the Prime Minister." (Paragraph 88)
• "We recommend that further consideration be given to procedures which would allow Parliament to decide separately on "amended versions" of initial draft decisions to transfer items to qualified majority voting. We further recommend that all amendments to the Treaty, including extensions of qualified majority voting, should be done by primary legislation and not simply by a vote of the House." (Paragraph 88)
• "We conclude that the Government's confirmation that any movement of further CFSP decisions from unanimity to qualified majority voting under the "passerelle" procedure would be subject to a prior vote in Parliament, even where the Lisbon Treaty itself does not provide for national Parliamentary involvement, is welcome, although we recommend elsewhere that all Treaty changes are the subject of primary legislation. (See above.) However, our concerns remain about the possible use of the provision in the Government Bill which would allow "amended versions" of decisions moving items from unanimity to qualified majority voting to avoid a separate Parliamentary vote." (Paragraph 112)

Conclusions about the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (paragraphs 154 and 157):

• "We conclude that the new post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has the potential to give the EU a more streamlined international presence and to contribute to the more coherent development and implementation of external policy. We further conclude that it is clear that the High Representative is there to enact agreed foreign policy." (Paragraph 154)
• "We conclude that the Lisbon Treaty provision for the new High Representative to speak at the UN Security Council will make little difference to current practice. It will not undermine the position of the UK in the United Nations system nor the UK's representation and role as a Permanent Member of the Security Council." (Paragraph 157)

Comments on the European Council President (paragraphs 162 and 170):

• "We conclude that it is regrettable that the Lisbon Treaty does not state explicitly that the new European Council President may not simultaneously hold any other office." (Paragraph 162)
• "...we recommend that in its response to this Report, the Government sets out more clearly its conception of the role of the new European Council President, and its assessment of the likelihood that this will be realised. We further recommend that the Government initiates, in the course of discussions with its counterparts on the appointments to the new posts, the drawing-up of a memorandum of understanding on the respective roles which the European Council President and the High Representative are to play in the external representation of the Union." (Paragraph 170)

Comments on the European External Action Service (paragraphs 189 and 190):

• "We conclude that the establishment of the European External Action Service will be a highly complex and challenging exercise. Given the scale and significance of the issues that remain to be resolved, it is vitally important for the Government to be fully engaged in negotiations on these matters, in order to ensure that the European External Action Service works as effectively as possible, and in a way concomitant with UK interests." (Paragraph 189)
• "We recommend that the Government reports regularly to Parliament during 2008 and beyond on the progress of the discussions with other Member States and the EU institutions on the establishment of the European External Action Service, and on the positions it is adopting. We further recommend that, in its response to this Report, the Government informs us of the arrangements which it proposes to put in place to ensure that Parliament and its committees receive the information necessary to scrutinise on an ongoing basis the work of the European External Action Service." (Paragraph 190)

Comments on the European Security and Defence Policy (paragraph 207):

• We conclude that the Lisbon Treaty retains from the Constitutional Treaty a wording that on the surface at least is clumsy and ambiguous in its references to the prospect that the European Security and Defence Policy both "might" and "will" lead to a common defence. We therefore recommend that in its response to this Report the Government states whether or not it agrees that this is the case, providing such clarification as is necessary.

Conclusion that there is no material difference between the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty (paragraph 219):

• We conclude that there is no material difference between the provisions on foreign affairs in the Constitutional Treaty which the Government made subject to approval in a referendum and those in the Lisbon Treaty on which a referendum is being denied.

Mike Gapes (Labour), Chairman

Mr Fabian Hamilton (Labour)

Rt Hon Mr David Heathcoat-Amory (Conservative)

Mr John Horam (Conservative)

Mr Eric Illsley (Labour)

Mr Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat)

Andrew Mackinlay (Labour)

Mr Malcolm Moss (Conservative)

Sandra Osborne (Labour)

Mr Greg Pope (Labour)

Mr Ken Purchase (Labour)

Rt Hon Sir John Stanley (Conservative)

Ms Gisela Stuart (Labour)

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat)

1. House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Foreign Policy Aspects of the Lisbon Treaty, 3^rd Report of Session 2007-08, HC 120-I, January 2008.

Ruth Lea, January 2008