natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the second part of this explanatory statement, we propose to consider the implications and the merits (or drawbacks) of the Treaty of Lisbon, which was officially signed on 13 December 2007 in Lisbon.
In the second part of this explanatory statement, we propose to consider the implications and the merits (or drawbacks) of the Treaty of Lisbon, which was officially signed on 13 December 2007 in Lisbon.
How does the new Treaty represent a step forward by comparison with the Treaties in force?
How does the new Treaty represent a step forward by comparison with the Treaties in force?
The Treaty of Lisbon incorporates a large number of significant reforms and improvements to the current Treaties.
The Treaty of Lisbon incorporates a large number of significant reforms and improvements to the current Treaties.
It is, of course, a compromise and one which, in Parliament’s eyes, regrettably abandons some important provisions of the Constitution, delays the entry into force of other provisions and contains specific measures introduced to satisfy the demands of some Member States.
It is, of course, a compromise and one which, in Parliament’s eyes, regrettably abandons some important provisions of the Constitution, delays the entry into force of other provisions and contains specific measures introduced to satisfy the demands of some Member States.
This was the political price to be paid in order to end the crisis into which the 'no' votes in the French and Dutch referendums had plunged the Union.
This was the political price to be paid in order to end the crisis into which the 'no' votes in the French and Dutch referendums had plunged the Union.
The return to the traditional approach of revising Treaties and the abandonment of the idea of a Constitution
The return to the traditional approach of revising Treaties and the abandonment of the idea of a Constitution
The return to the traditional method of revising the Treaties, through the adoption of a new Treaty amending the current Treaties, which themselves remain in force, implies the abandonment of the Constitution as a single, consolidated Treaty which would replace the current Treaties in their entirety.
The return to the traditional method of revising the Treaties, through the adoption of a new Treaty amending the current Treaties, which themselves remain in force, implies the abandonment of the Constitution as a single, consolidated Treaty which would replace the current Treaties in their entirety.
As a result, the question which has proved so controversial, that of whether the document was really a Constitution or a Treaty, is no longer relevant.
As a result, the question which has proved so controversial, that of whether the document was really a Constitution or a Treaty, is no longer relevant.
A sterile debate on an issue which is nothing more than a red herring has thus been avoided: there was never any doubt that, in formal terms, the document was a Treaty which would have to be adopted and ratified in accordance with the rules in force governing the revision of Treaties.
A sterile debate on an issue which is nothing more than a red herring has thus been avoided: there was never any doubt that, in formal terms, the document was a Treaty which would have to be adopted and ratified in accordance with the rules in force governing the revision of Treaties.
There was no other possible procedure.
There was no other possible procedure.
However, it is also true that, by virtue of its nature and substance, the Constitutional Treaty established a more recognisable ‘constitution’.
However, it is also true that, by virtue of its nature and substance, the Constitutional Treaty established a more recognisable ‘constitution’.
The return to the traditional method involves the abandonment of the very term 'Constitution', so that the controversy has been settled politically.
The return to the traditional method involves the abandonment of the very term 'Constitution', so that the controversy has been settled politically.
This approach also involves a splitting of the text and a rejection of the very idea of a single text of a constitutional nature, one which some regarded as being too close to State practice to be applicable to the Union.
This approach also involves a splitting of the text and a rejection of the very idea of a single text of a constitutional nature, one which some regarded as being too close to State practice to be applicable to the Union.
However, the new Treaty substantially clarifies the definition of the values, principles and objectives which guide the actions of the European Union (EU); it describes the Union’s competences; it lays down what institutions the EU will have, outlines its decision-making procedures, and stipulates what form its acts will take; it defines citizens' rights vis-à-vis the EU; it lays down the rules governing its own revision, etc.
However, the new Treaty substantially clarifies the definition of the values, principles and objectives which guide the actions of the European Union (EU); it describes the Union’s competences; it lays down what institutions the EU will have, outlines its decision-making procedures, and stipulates what form its acts will take; it defines citizens' rights vis-à-vis the EU; it lays down the rules governing its own revision, etc.
In that respect, it could be said that the Treaties on which the Union is founded in some way establish its 'constitution', taking the word 'constitution' in its material sense.
In that respect, it could be said that the Treaties on which the Union is founded in some way establish its 'constitution', taking the word 'constitution' in its material sense.
After all, the role of a constitution is precisely that of laying down the conditions governing, and the limits to, the exercise of power in the context of a political entity and safeguarding citizens’ rights, something which the new Treaty does.
After all, the role of a constitution is precisely that of laying down the conditions governing, and the limits to, the exercise of power in the context of a political entity and safeguarding citizens’ rights, something which the new Treaty does.
However, the very fact that the attempt to give that material concept practical form was rejected signifies that there was no desire to endow the Union with a ‘Constitution’ in the formal sense, i.e. the most commonly used political sense, of the term.
However, the very fact that the attempt to give that material concept practical form was rejected signifies that there was no desire to endow the Union with a ‘Constitution’ in the formal sense, i.e. the most commonly used political sense, of the term.
This represents a difference by comparison with the Constitutional Treaty.
This represents a difference by comparison with the Constitutional Treaty.
In fact, in the existing Treaties the Union effectively already has its 'Constitution', deriving from the Treaties which brought it into being, just like any other political entity.
In fact, in the existing Treaties the Union effectively already has its 'Constitution', deriving from the Treaties which brought it into being, just like any other political entity.
By simplifying those Treaties, by giving them a more readily comprehensible structure, a vital step has been taken towards clarifying the system and making it more transparent and understandable for the public.
By simplifying those Treaties, by giving them a more readily comprehensible structure, a vital step has been taken towards clarifying the system and making it more transparent and understandable for the public.
However, the method chosen – a Treaty containing amendments to the two Treaties in force – makes the text unreadable for ordinary citizens.
However, the method chosen – a Treaty containing amendments to the two Treaties in force – makes the text unreadable for ordinary citizens.
A consolidated version is now a necessity.
A consolidated version is now a necessity.
It is clear, therefore, that the Member States wanted to dispel any fear, however unfounded, that endowing the Union with a Constitution would represent the first step towards the creation of a centralised 'superstate' which would inevitably sound the death knell for national States and change the nature of the European Union.
It is clear, therefore, that the Member States wanted to dispel any fear, however unfounded, that endowing the Union with a Constitution would represent the first step towards the creation of a centralised 'superstate' which would inevitably sound the death knell for national States and change the nature of the European Union.
Parliament, which has been campaigning from the start of the process for the 'constitutionalisation' of the Union, is aware of the fact that this fear fails to take proper account of the significance of a constitution as a fundamental act governing the exercise of power in a political entity (unless the aim is to deny the 'political' nature of the Union).
Parliament, which has been campaigning from the start of the process for the 'constitutionalisation' of the Union, is aware of the fact that this fear fails to take proper account of the significance of a constitution as a fundamental act governing the exercise of power in a political entity (unless the aim is to deny the 'political' nature of the Union).
Moreover, there are many examples of international organisations whose constituent act is rightly termed a constitution, including the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the World Health Organisation (WHO), or the Universal Postal Union (UPU).
Moreover, there are many examples of international organisations whose constituent act is rightly termed a constitution, including the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the World Health Organisation (WHO), or the Universal Postal Union (UPU).
Seen in this way, a 'constitution' could even be said to offer the Member States and Union citizens formal safeguards against unwelcome Union action.
Seen in this way, a 'constitution' could even be said to offer the Member States and Union citizens formal safeguards against unwelcome Union action.
On that basis, whilst acknowledging that the political situation in the Member States made such a step the only way out of the institutional impasse which had been reached, the EP can only regret the abandonment of the constitutional approach.
On that basis, whilst acknowledging that the political situation in the Member States made such a step the only way out of the institutional impasse which had been reached, the EP can only regret the abandonment of the constitutional approach.
By the same token, your co-rapporteurs can only deplore the fact that the new Treaty makes no reference to symbols of the Union – the flag, the anthem, the motto, the euro, and Europe Day – as the Constitutional Treaty did.
By the same token, your co-rapporteurs can only deplore the fact that the new Treaty makes no reference to symbols of the Union – the flag, the anthem, the motto, the euro, and Europe Day – as the Constitutional Treaty did.
Although this does not mean that these symbols no longer exist – they had already existed for a long time without ever being mentioned as such in the Treaties and will continue to exist in the same way – it would only be logical for texts which define the legal and political status of the Union to refer to them.
Although this does not mean that these symbols no longer exist – they had already existed for a long time without ever being mentioned as such in the Treaties and will continue to exist in the same way – it would only be logical for texts which define the legal and political status of the Union to refer to them.
This abandonment of the symbols was forced through by certain Member States on the pretext that recognising them in the Treaties would enable people to claim erroneously that the Union was in fact a 'State-like' structure.
This abandonment of the symbols was forced through by certain Member States on the pretext that recognising them in the Treaties would enable people to claim erroneously that the Union was in fact a 'State-like' structure.
That this viewpoint is by no means unanimously held seems to be borne out by the declaration on the symbols of the Union which 16 Member States have annexed to the Treaty (Declaration No 52 on the symbols of the Union) reiterating that in their view the symbols mentioned continue 'to express the sense of community of the people in the European Union and their allegiance to it'.
That this viewpoint is by no means unanimously held seems to be borne out by the declaration on the symbols of the Union which 16 Member States have annexed to the Treaty (Declaration No 52 on the symbols of the Union) reiterating that in their view the symbols mentioned continue 'to express the sense of community of the people in the European Union and their allegiance to it'.
Accordingly, your co-rapporteurs can only welcome with enthusiasm the initiative taken by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which is in the process of preparing a report on the use of the Union's symbols which will propose changes to Parliament's Rules of Procedure designed to ensure that Parliament makes more systematic use of those symbols
Accordingly, your co-rapporteurs can only welcome with enthusiasm the initiative taken by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which is in the process of preparing a report on the use of the Union's symbols which will propose changes to Parliament's Rules of Procedure designed to ensure that Parliament makes more systematic use of those symbols
Draft report by Carlos Carnero González on the insertion in Parliament's Rules of Procedure of a Rule 202a concerning the use by Parliament of the symbols of the European Union, PE 398.505v3-00. .
Draft report by Carlos Carnero González on the insertion in Parliament's Rules of Procedure of a Rule 202a concerning the use by Parliament of the symbols of the European Union, PE 398.505v3-00. .
One single entity: the European Union
One single entity: the European Union
Despite the retention of two separate Treaties, a crucial step forward, in terms of transparency and understanding by citizens of the nature of the European project, has been taken by merging several overlapping entities (European Union, European Community) into a single entity, the European Union
Despite the retention of two separate Treaties, a crucial step forward, in terms of transparency and understanding by citizens of the nature of the European project, has been taken by merging several overlapping entities (European Union, European Community) into a single entity, the European Union
The Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC/Euratom) will not be affected by the new Treaty, however, and will thus remain in force in parallel, although some of its provisions are altered by the Protocol amending the Euratom Treaty in order to bring them into line with the new text.
The Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC/Euratom) will not be affected by the new Treaty, however, and will thus remain in force in parallel, although some of its provisions are altered by the Protocol amending the Euratom Treaty in order to bring them into line with the new text.
However, Germany, Ireland and Austria have expressed the wish, in Declaration No 54 annexed to the Final Act of the IGC, that an Intergovernmental Conference should be convened as quickly as possible to revise the Euratom Treaty.
However, Germany, Ireland and Austria have expressed the wish, in Declaration No 54 annexed to the Final Act of the IGC, that an Intergovernmental Conference should be convened as quickly as possible to revise the Euratom Treaty.
Moreover, it should be pointed out that the new Treaty incorporates an excessive number of protocols, annexes and declarations: 12 protocols (most of those annexed to the Treaties in force have simply been brought into line with the constitutional text), amongst which could be cited those on the Schengen acquis, the role of the national parliaments, the subsidiarity and proportionality principles, the transitional provisions concerning the institutions, permanent structured cooperation in the area of defence, etc.), two annexes (already in existence, setting out the list of agricultural products and the list of overseas countries and territories) and 65 declarations.
Moreover, it should be pointed out that the new Treaty incorporates an excessive number of protocols, annexes and declarations: 12 protocols (most of those annexed to the Treaties in force have simply been brought into line with the constitutional text), amongst which could be cited those on the Schengen acquis, the role of the national parliaments, the subsidiarity and proportionality principles, the transitional provisions concerning the institutions, permanent structured cooperation in the area of defence, etc.), two annexes (already in existence, setting out the list of agricultural products and the list of overseas countries and territories) and 65 declarations.
Since they have the same legal force as the Treaty, these protocols must also be ratified by all the Member States.
Since they have the same legal force as the Treaty, these protocols must also be ratified by all the Member States.
The same is not true of the declarations, which are not legally binding, but which may be used as aids to interpreting the Treaties. , endowed with legal personality.
The same is not true of the declarations, which are not legally binding, but which may be used as aids to interpreting the Treaties. , endowed with legal personality.
This will also increase the effectiveness and visibility of Union action in the international arena, bringing an end to a confusing situation in which the European Union is universally recognised as the common entity, whereas it is the European Community, which covers only some of the Union's functions, which has explicit legal personality
This will also increase the effectiveness and visibility of Union action in the international arena, bringing an end to a confusing situation in which the European Union is universally recognised as the common entity, whereas it is the European Community, which covers only some of the Union's functions, which has explicit legal personality
Although it could be argued that the European Union as such has international legal personality, even though this is not conferred on it by the Treaties. .
Although it could be argued that the European Union as such has international legal personality, even though this is not conferred on it by the Treaties. .
A further result is that the Treaty establishing the European Community now becomes the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
A further result is that the Treaty establishing the European Community now becomes the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
The two Treaties thus now serve the same political entity: the European Union.
The two Treaties thus now serve the same political entity: the European Union.
The first focuses on the principles, values and fundamental organisational aspects of the Union.
The first focuses on the principles, values and fundamental organisational aspects of the Union.
The second deals with the nuts and bolts of organisation and functioning of the Union and the definition of the principles and objectives which guide Union action in the area of each of its sectoral policies, specifying in detail the scope of and limits to the Union's competences in each of its areas of action.
The second deals with the nuts and bolts of organisation and functioning of the Union and the definition of the principles and objectives which guide Union action in the area of each of its sectoral policies, specifying in detail the scope of and limits to the Union's competences in each of its areas of action.
The exception, which represents a major break with the logic of the separation between the two Treaties, stems from the fact that the TEU contains an entire title dealing with the Union's external action, which deals in detail with every aspect of the common foreign and security policy.
The exception, which represents a major break with the logic of the separation between the two Treaties, stems from the fact that the TEU contains an entire title dealing with the Union's external action, which deals in detail with every aspect of the common foreign and security policy.
This merger into a single entity has been accompanied by the abolition of the three-pillar structure [common foreign and security policy (CFSP), justice and home affairs (JHA) and European Community]; all three have been merged into the single corpus of the Union, with a single institutional framework and the across-the-board application of the Community method, the sole exception being the area of the CFSP (including defence), where specific decision-making procedures remain in force, as warranted by the particular nature of that policy area.
This merger into a single entity has been accompanied by the abolition of the three-pillar structure [common foreign and security policy (CFSP), justice and home affairs (JHA) and European Community]; all three have been merged into the single corpus of the Union, with a single institutional framework and the across-the-board application of the Community method, the sole exception being the area of the CFSP (including defence), where specific decision-making procedures remain in force, as warranted by the particular nature of that policy area.
A clear definition of the Union’s values, principles and objectives
A clear definition of the Union ’s values, principles and objectives
The new Treaty provides that the TEU will open with articles defining the nature of the Union and the values and principles on which it is founded and the objectives which it is supposed to pursue by means of its action.
The new Treaty provides that the TEU will open with articles defining the nature of the Union and the values and principles on which it is founded and the objectives which it is supposed to pursue by means of its action.
The very first article of the amended TEU lays down the basis on which the European integration process is founded: it defines the EU as a Union established by the Member States ‘on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common’.
The very first article of the amended TEU lays down the basis on which the European integration process is founded: it defines the EU as a Union established by the Member States ‘on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common’.
This definition departs from that set out in the Constitution, which enshrined the dual legitimacy of the Union reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe.
This definition departs from that set out in the Constitution, which enshrined the dual legitimacy of the Union reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe.
However, although that formal recognition of the Union’s dual legitimacy has disappeared, practical expressions of that legitimacy appear at various points in the text of the Treaties, in keeping with a development which has been continuing at least since the election of the European Parliament by universal suffrage.
However, although that formal recognition of the Union’s dual legitimacy has disappeared, practical expressions of that legitimacy appear at various points in the text of the Treaties, in keeping with a development which has been continuing at least since the election of the European Parliament by universal suffrage.
This European Union must be firmly anchored to the values on which it is founded and which guide every action taken by its institutions.
This European Union must be firmly anchored to the values on which it is founded and which guide every action taken by its institutions.