The European Union (EU) is an economic and political partnership that is unique in history. Built upon a series of treaties and embodied in a set of governing institutions, the EU represents a voluntary pooling of sovereignty among 27 countries. These countries have committed to a process of integration by harmonizing laws and adopting common policies on an extensive range of issues. Notable areas of shared sovereignty include a customs union; a common trade policy; a single market in which goods, people, and capital move freely; a common currency (the euro) that is used by 17 member states; and many aspects of social and environmental policy. EU member states have also taken significant steps in the development of a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and closer police and judicial cooperation. A group of leaders from six countries—Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands—began the process of integration after World War II in an effort to ensure peace and promote economic prosperity in Europe. As cooperation between these countries deepened, new members were added to the group: Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom joined in 1973; Greece in 1981; Portugal and Spain in 1986; and Austria, Finland, and Sweden in 1995. In 2004, eight formerly communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe—the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia—plus Cyprus and Malta joined the EU. Bulgaria and Romania joined in 2007, bringing the number of member countries to 27. With enlargement and a progressively wider policy scope came the need to reform the EU's institutional arrangements and procedures to reflect the heightened complexity of decision-making. The landmark Maastricht Treaty of 1993 set out the blueprint for an EU of 12 members and the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999) refined arrangements for a Union at 15. The Treaty of Nice (2003) further amended the workings of the EU to prepare for eastward enlargement. The Nice Treaty was also supposed to streamline EU decision-making to allow an enlarged Union to function more effectively. However, critics charged that Nice set up an even more complex and less efficient decision-making process that was too prone to confusion and gridlock. Some also lamented that Nice did not provide sufficient mechanisms and arrangements that would allow the EU to assert a stronger global role. In addition, Nice did little to stem charges that EU institutions and decision-making lack transparency and democratic accountability and are unintelligible to the average European citizen. As the scope of EU policy continues to grow, future enlargement beyond 27 members is likely: Iceland, Turkey, and the countries of the Western Balkans are in line for admission. In this context, as well as in the context of perceived institutional shortcomings, many leaders and analysts advocated the adoption of a new EU treaty that enacts what they have considered to be necessary internal reforms. The Lisbon Treaty is the result of these efforts. The Lisbon Treaty grew out of the so-called constitutional treaty, an earlier failed attempt to merge the EU's existing treaties into a single document while enacting institutional reforms. Already in December 2001—before ratification of the Treaty of Nice and the EU's eastward enlargement—EU leaders announced they would convene a Convention on the Future of Europe to examine the EU's institutional arrangements and make proposals that would increase democratic legitimacy and encourage the development of the EU as a stronger global actor. The Convention began work in March 2002 under the leadership of former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and finalized a 240-page "Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" in July 2003. After a period of discussion and negotiation among the member state governments, EU leaders signed the treaty in October 2004 and set November 2006 as the target date for its adoption. However, in order to come into effect the treaty had to be ratified individually by all 27 member states through either parliamentary approval or public referendums. In May 2005, French voters rejected the document in a national referendum, and in June 2005 Dutch voters followed suit. Although a number of EU members had already approved the treaty by this point, these setbacks effectively ended its prospects. In both France and the Netherlands, some arguments against the constitutional treaty reflected concerns that it would entrench liberal economic ideas that could undermine social protections. In addition, many French and Dutch voters viewed a "no" vote as a way to express dissatisfaction with their unpopular national governments, EU bureaucracy, and Turkey's prospective EU membership. In January 2007, as Germany took over the six-month EU presidency, Europe remained in what some analysts called a "period of reflection"—a condition of stasis born in the uncertainty that followed the rejection of the constitutional treaty. German Chancellor Angela Merkel made reviving the stalled reform process one of her key priorities, seeking a new treaty deal that would institute crucial reforms. Analysts say that Merkel received a key assist with the May 2007 election of Nicolas Sarkozy as President of France: Sarkozy shared Merkel's goal of reviving the constitutional treaty in some form, at least in part to restore France's role as a leader in Europe following its 2005 "no" vote. Germany and others that had ratified the constitutional treaty wanted to preserve as much of the original document as possible. However, some changes were considered necessary in order to address concerns raised by French and Dutch voters, as well as to satisfy countries such as the UK, which sought to protect its national sovereignty in some areas, and Poland, which wanted more voting weight in the Council of Ministers. After contentious negotiations at the June 2007 EU Summit, EU leaders announced the outlines of a new "reform treaty" that would amend, rather than replace, the existing EU treaties. EU leaders also dropped the term "constitution," given that it had become negatively associated in some countries with creating an EU "superstate." After working out the text at a July 2007 Intergovernmental Conference, EU leaders met in Lisbon and signed the new treaty in December 2007. Analysts assessed that over 90% of the substance of the constitutional treaty had been preserved in the Lisbon Treaty. As an amendment to existing treaties, EU leaders sought to present the new document as one that would be ratified by parliaments, thereby avoiding the risks of public referendums. However, Ireland is required by its national law to hold a public vote on any major change to the EU rules. EU officials initially hoped that the Lisbon Treaty would be ratified by all 27 member states and enter into force before the June 2009 European Parliament elections, but rejection of the treaty in Ireland's June 2008 referendum threw the timetable for adoption into disarray. Influenced by an active "no" campaign, Irish voters feared the treaty would hurt their economy, strip their sovereignty on tax policy and sensitive issues such as abortion, and impinge on their stance of neutrality in security and defense issues. Irish leaders agreed to hold a second referendum, and following the negotiation of EU concessions and "guarantees" in areas of concern to Ireland, as well as a stronger "yes" campaign that sought to convince the public of the treaty's benefits, Irish voters decisively approved the treaty on October 2, 2009. The Czech Republic completed the final national ratification on November 3, allowing the treaty to come into effect on December 1, 2009. Major changes under the Lisbon Treaty aim to achieve three broad goals: ( 1) A stronger and more coherent EU v oice. The Lisbon Treaty creates the new position of President of the European Council to chair the meetings of the 27 EU heads of state or government. The President of the European Council is elected by the member states for a term of two and one-half years, renewable once. Some had envisioned this position as a driver of EU policy, a heavyweight presidential figure who would play a highly visible international role. In choosing former Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, however, EU leaders have initially defined this position as more of a manager who will coordinate the activities of the Council, help ensure policy continuity, and work to facilitate consensus. Van Rompuy's experience in negotiating and holding together coalitions in the often fractious arena of Belgian national politics was considered by many as an asset that fit well with the job description. According to some analysts, this choice confirms that even as its members pursue a stronger and more integrated EU, considerations of national influence and prestige remain key: leaders from both large and small countries sought to avoid establishing a powerful President who might overshadow or marginalize their own roles. The Lisbon Treaty also creates another important new position to boost the EU's international visibility: High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The position was originally called the EU "foreign minister" in the constitutional treaty, but this term was dropped due to British objections. Nevertheless, this individual is the EU's chief diplomat, exercising the former responsibilities of the Council of Ministers' High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (formerly Javier Solana) and the Commissioner for External Relations (formerly Benita Ferrero-Waldner), who oversaw the EU's foreign aid and development policies. The new High Representative is therefore an agent of the Council of Ministers (representing the member states) and holds the title of a Vice-President of the European Commission, an institutional adjustment intended to impart greater coherence by marrying the EU's political and economic clout in one powerful new office. The High Representative is to have extensive staff support with the creation of a European External Action Service, in effect a new EU diplomatic corps. The desired nature of the "foreign minister" produced a debate similar to that over the President—whether the position should act as a strong, independent-minded leader who both drives and oversees EU foreign policy, or as more of a facilitator who advances the members' consensus. At this time, the answer remains inconclusive.