Lisbon Treaty & future 1
description
Transcript of Lisbon Treaty & future 1
Lisbon Treaty & future 1
Helen Toner
Outline … Freedom, Security & Justice? From Tampere to Hague & Stockholm Lisbon Treaty; Competences and
decision-making – redressing democratic deficit?
Pact on Immigration & Asylum & Stockholm programme – agenda for the future
The new framework ‘A new supranational setting that is
characterised by stronger democratic accountability, judicial control, efficient evaluation mechanisms for the full application of the rule of law and an ambitious, fundamental human rights strategy’ (Guild & Carrera) – these are all important themes
Lisbon Treaty decision-making Prior to Lisbon Treaty – intergovernmental
third pillar in Maastricht Amsterdam Treaty 1999: significant but
not complete Communitarisation 1999 Intergovernmental processes – unanimity,
limited EP role and Commission shared initiative with MS – moves slowly to the more ‘traditional’ Community method in first years
Lisbon Treaty decision-making Immediately before Lisbon Treaty: QMV & Co-decision: border controls,
some visa issues, TCN travel, asylum and irregular migration
QMV & Consultation: admin co-operation, common visa format & list
Unanimity & Consultation: legal migration
Lisbon Treaty decision-making Virtually all shifts to regular ‘normal’
decision-making legislative process ie QMV and co-decision
Will this make a difference? Much already changed anyway ... legal
migration most significant change And to what extent will Parliament
actually make a real difference?
The good the bad and the ugly? Will this commonly perceived pattern
continue? First readings & Returns directive? Many first reading agreements – secret
‘trialogues’ have been roundly criticised Returns Directive major recent
legislation under co-decision – Acosta asks ‘has the Parliament become bad and ugly?’
The good the bad and the ugly? Directive passed on first reading in
EP after ‘trialogue’ compromise. Key compromises on issues such
as scope, voluntary departure, re-entry ban, remedies, a bit more success in amending Council position on detention and on unaccompanied minors.
The good the bad and the ugly? Why? Pragmatism, pressure from MS, fear
of something worse, procedural pressures to get agreement at first reading?
Is this undermining any potential benefit from input of EP and its LIBE committee?
Yet other indications are more positive with rejection of SWIFT agreement, VIS, position on fundamental rights, willingness to challenge to FR Directive etc?
National democracy? What new enhanced role for national
parliaments? Subsidiarity control mechanism strengthened especially in AFSJ (stronger than elsewhere).
Yet increased co-operation needs to work in practice – communication with, and between, national parliaments will be key.
Is it realistic to think that the timescales involved will really work effectively?
Lisbon Treaty competences General Provisions – Article 67 TFEU Concepts of Freedom, Security and
Justice central? Security – focused on crime 67(3) Justice – focused on civil proceedings
67(4) Freedom?? Where does that appear!?
Immigration & Asylum Instead of ‘freedom’ of movement … ‘It shall ensure the absence of internal
border controls for persons and shall frame a common policy on asylum, immigration and external border control, based on solidarity between member states, which is fair towards third country nationals. For the purpose of this title, stateless persons shall be treated as third country nationals’
Borders & visas competences Compare Art 77 TFEU with old Art 62 Three month limit dropped ‘Common policy’ on visas rather than
previous 4 categories … an extension? ‘Common’ policy vs ‘Uniform’ visa? Freedom to travel – beyond 3 months
to a ‘short period’!
Borders & visas competences New competence re gradual
establishment of integrated border management system for external borders
Line between this (opted-out) and customs co-operation (not opted-out) will have to be considered
Borders & visas competences Passports & other now other documents
also: if necessary to facilitate EU Cit’s rights ‘to move and reside freely’, and if not provided other power to do so
Passport and i/d for EU Citizens and id/residence cards for their family members security issues, could be covered by borders competence
Asylum competences Compare Art 78 TFEU, old Art 63(1) 64(2)
EC ‘Common policy’ on asylum rather than
previous refs often to ‘minimum standards’ Will this allow more ambition? With previous framework ‘difficult to see
how a genuinely common system could ever be established’ (Peers) and this may well now change?
Asylum competences Status vs Qualification? Asylum Status ‘valid throughout the
union’ – goes beyond competence relating to subsidiary protection. Range of possible approaches to interpreting this.
Temp protection: common system not just minimum, but only if ‘mass influx’ (which already had been in legislation)
More comprehensive limitation to TCNs
Asylum competences Burden sharing power old 63(2)
gone … but solidarity underpinning Measures for benefit of individual
MS Partnership and co-operation with
third countries - clearer competence
Immigration competences Compare Art 79 with old 63(3) and (4) ‘Common policy’ – again more
intensive competence? Guiding principles: efficient
management, fair treatment of lawful resident TCN, enhanced measures against illegal migration and trafficking
Legal migration 79(2)a and b Clearer competence to regulate
rights within first state as well as migration to second state: (tho’ this seems already to have be assumed previously … albeit mostly in context of onward migration (LTR, Blue Card; but common framework?)
Legal migration Express limitation in 79(5) re volumes
of admissions Only refers to art 79, volumes not
rights once admitted, or procedures, not applicable to intra-community migration, only for those seeking employment (what does this mean, maybe primary purpose of admission?)
Irregular migration Compare 79(2)c&d, 79(3) TFEU with
63a(c), (d) and 63(3) Limited changes ‘illegal’ becomes
‘unauthorised’ and ‘removal’ alongside ‘repatriation’
Re-admission treaties – competence already implied and exercised, express recognition of this
Trafficking competence expressly clarified - though watch for split between migration and criminal law related issues …
Conclusion Some changes in the Lisbon Treaty –
mainly to competences rather than decision-making processes, and most significantly moving to competences specifically ‘common policy’ rather than often being tied to ‘minimum standards’ as before – culmination and completion of movement from intergovernmental to supranational legislative processes
Outline … Area of Freedom, Security &
Justice? From Tampere to Hague &
Stockholm Pact on Immigration & Asylum &
Stockholm programme – agenda for the future?
‘An Area’? – fragmentation Fragmentation and opt-outs
continues and even becomes ever more complex, as Peers suggests they are ‘in a world of their own’?
UK, Ireland and Denmark continue to have special arrangements – even greater extent than before (all FSJ)
‘An Area’? – fragmentation Complex dilemma and difference of
views on what happens when legislation amended – procedure to ‘expel’ if it becomes inoperable without opt-in
UK has opted into some second stage asylum amending legislation (Dublin, Eurodac) but not others. Will it still be bound by previous legislation?
Freedom Freedom – freedom of movement
as well as fundamental freedoms How far has freedom of movement
been truly achieved?
Security Safety from external threats, could
also include protection against persecution & torture
How far has securitisation been pushed at the expense of providing secure refuge for those who need it?
Justice Law enforcement – but also
respecting the rule of law, and access to justice
Has access to justice and judicial remedies been neglected in favour of enforcing removals and strict rules?
Tampere … 1999-2004 First five year programme – setting
an ambitious agenda High expectations about
possibilities in Amsterdam Agenda including Partnerships with
countries of origin, CEAS, fair treatment of TCNs, management of migration flows
Successes and failures Commission ambition, yet member
states protecting existing provisions First building blocks put in place,
including much of first phase of CEAS Key measures including Family
Reunification, Long term residence, Dublin, Qualification Directive, Reception conditions
Successes and failures Has been said that the agenda
hasn’t exactly remained totally unfulfilled yet the content remains unfulfilling
Hague … 2004-2009 Securitisation emerges as much
stronger theme after 9.11 in the Hague programme
Metaphor of ‘balance’ between security and liberty, between rights and law enforcement emerges more strongly and has been much criticised
Successes and failures (Com) Schengen borders lifted Final completion of the first stage of CEAS
and common visa policy – Visa Code strengthening clarity and remedies
Framework for integration developed Stronger action against illegal immigration
(Frontex, Returns directive) Implementation of initial directives into
national law
2009 - to the future Pact on Immigration and Asylum
2008 Development of Stockholm
Programme Developing agenda for the next
years
Pact on Immigration and Asylum Political document developed under
French Presidency – reflects some of the domestic French immigration agenda?
Aiming to have impact on development of Stockholm programme
Five key areas
Pact: legal immigration ‘Organise legal immigration to take
account of the priorities, needs and reception capacities determined by each MS, and encourage integration’
Focus on MS competences and controls esp notable in comments on family reunification
Pact: irregular immigration Control irregular migration by
ensuring the return of irregular aliens to their country of origin
Regularisations discussed but proposed ‘ban’ didn’t survive into final version
Pact: Border controls Make border controls more
effective Continued development of border
controls, biometrics, Frontex
Pact: Asylum Construct a Europe of Asylum Continued development of CEAS
Pact: external dimension Comprehensive partnership with
countries of origin/transit, encourage synergy between migration and development
Global approach to migration – again emphasises MS agreements with countries of origin
Evaluation? Themes – re-emergence of Nationalism
and Intergovernmentalism? Perpetuates tension between
Europeanisation and National control Transfer of elements of domestic
agendas to European level? Little or no reference to significant EU
initiatives/measures?
Evaluation? Some developments between the July
and September drafts … some elements removed as discussions proceeded (eg, reference to integration contract) and some added (combating discrimination), and more references to the Commission and its role, strengthening this recognition, regularisations also.
Stockholm Programme Drafted in 2009 – after the 2008 Pact and
at same time as coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty
Building on Commissions communications in 2009 COM(2009)262 and 2008
Puts the political priorities in place Key features/themes: ‘Putting solidarity
and responsibility at the heart of our response’
Access to Europe in Globalised world Integrated External border
management Visa Policy
Asylum & migration Europe of responsibility, solidarity
and partnership …
Migration Consolidating global approach to
migration Migration and development In keeping with labour market
requirements Proactive policies for migrants and
rights Integration
Action plan Borders Amending Frontex Progress report on Eurosur Amending Borders code EES and RTP SIS II Development of Large-Scale IT systems
Agency EASO – methods for identifying protection
needs in ‘mixed flows’
Action plan Visa Western Balkans Handbook Further visa facilitation agreements VIS Communication re consular
co-operation/common application centres Evaluation of Visa Code, VIS Communication re ‘new concept of Visa
policy’
Action plan Migration Communication on coherence with
other policy areas, Annual reports, developing statistics
Global approach, development, labour market, migrant rights, integration, illegal immigration
Global approach Further report on
evaluation/development of Global Approach
Ongoing further dialogue, mobility partnerships
Migration & development Communication on maximising
positive and minimising negative effects of migration
Climate change communication Observatory network and co-
operation with third countries esp in Africa
Labour market Seasonal employment, intra-country
transfers Reports on existing directives and
follow-up Communication on labour shortages Developing European Migration
Network
Migrants and rights, minors Family Reunification – Green paper
and future amendment of directive? Development of Immigration Code
in longer term Further action on Integration Action Plan on unaccompanied
minors now published
Illegal immigration Evaluation of readmission
agreements Evaluation of return policy Report on directives, possible
amendments Continued negotiation of readmission
agreements (Turkey Morocco China Bangladesh etc)
Action Plan Asylum Eurodac Development Joint processing communication Geneva Convention Accession
communication EASO evaluation – impact on practical co-
operation Communication on framework for transfer
of beneficiaries and mutual recognition Common methodology to reduce disparities
Action Plan Asylum Reviewing national systems esp
Capacity issues Communication on solidarity Evaluation of possible mechanisms
for facilitating secondment procedures
Strategic partnership UNCHR
Action Plan Asylum Resettlement programme
evaluation and development New approaches to access –
targeting transit countries New Regional Protection
Programmes