12. The institutional changes agreed in the 2004 IGC will be integrated partly into the TEU and partly into the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union. The new Title III will give an overview of the institutional system and will set out the following institutional modifications to the existing system, i.e. the Articles on the Union’s institutions, the European Parliament (new composition), the European Council (transformation into an institution4 and creation of the office of President), the Council (introduction of the double majority voting system and changes in the six-monthly Council presidency system, with the possibility of modifying it), the European Commission (new composition and strengthening of the role of its President), the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs (creation of the new office, its title being changed to High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security policy) and the Court of Justice of the European Union.

(The Presidency Conclusions of the European Council - 21/22 June 2007, p. 18)

Here there are many interesting innovations:

1. the European Parliament will have a new composition
2. the European Council will become an institution with an office of President which I suppose will be also the President of the Council about which the six-month rotating system will be changed with a 2-year-and-a-half presidency
3. the Commission will have a new composition (smaller) too, and a strengthening of its President
4. the new office of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs
5. some little changes about the Court of Justice

About points 1, 3 and 5 I am not interested here. About point 2 I have to say that it will be very good. I would have liked much more a five-year presidency than this 2-year-and-a-half one. However it is still better than 6 months, and I guess that it will become a common practice to renew the President a second time so that we will have a de facto 5-year presidency.

And what about the High Representative? They didn’t call it Minister for Foreign Affairs. Names. Sometimes our politicians seem to be as ancient Chinese ones… they were convinced that if you change the name then you change the substance of thing, especially in the social relation field. Well you can call it as you like, i.e. The Great Granny, and it will not change anything! What matter in politics, and they perfectly know, is which kind of powers you give to an office. So let’s go to check a little these powers.

They say in the Annex 1 […] In particular, national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State. (The Presidency Conclusions of the European Council - 21/22 June 2007, p. 25). So it seems no common army.

However few lines later they say 1. The Union’s competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union’s security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence […] (The Presidency Conclusions of the European Council - 21/22 June 2007, p. 26). So it seems we will have a common army.

So we have a contradiction. It is clear here that there are two trends in the EU, someone want a common foreign policy and a common army, someone not. This contradiction emerges here, but the federalist soul emerges in these words: Union’s competence […] shall cover […] all questions relating to the Union’s security. So this means that if the security threaded is the Union’s one the Union will be competent not the Member States, and this means federal union, not just common market!

I like this point but eurosceptics don’t so let’s read that whole paragraph in order to see how they replied: 1. The Union’s competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union’s security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence. The common foreign and security policy is subject to specific procedures. It shall be defined and implemented by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously, except where the Treaties provide otherwise. The adoption of legislative acts shall be excluded. The common foreign and security policy shall be put into effect by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and by Member States, in accordance with the Treaties. The specific role of the European Parliament and of the Commission in this area is defined by the Treaties. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall not have jurisdiction with respect to these provisions, with the exception of its jurisdiction to monitor the compliance with Article [III-308] and to review the legality of certain decisions as provided for by Article [III-376, second subparagraph].

The key points are:

1. unanimity in the Council and some role to the Commission and the Parliament
2. no adoption of legislative acts
3. foreign policy putted into effect both by the High Representative and the Member States
4. no jurisdiction of the Court of Justice on the whole matter
5. the treaties are the only source of right in this field

I think point 5 is a little redundant, but the aim of this redundancy is to link it to point 4 in order to be sure the Court will not have power on the matter. Why this? Because in a past sentence the Court established that the right of the Union overcome that of Member States. There is an underground red line that links many pieces of this Reform Treaty and it is the aim to confine that sentence of the Court in a juridical limbo following this idea “the right of the Union overcome that of the Member States only where the Treaties allows it”. I find it quite ridiculous. The Court sentence was aimed to create certainty in the right through out the Union, stating where the right of a State and that of the Union were conflicting each other, that of the Union was the prevailing one. This didn’t mean the Union legislating about everything. The Court has also to guaranty that the treaties are not betrayed! What does it mean that the Court has no jurisdiction but this and that is defined by the treaties? If there are different interpretations of the treaties who will decide? I think here lays the real problem of this Reform Treaty, they created a hole in the legislation, and I guess they know it.