EU: The European Commission unveiled proposals yesterday that would remove the national veto on sensitive justice matters such as police and judicial co-operation.
The proposals, which are opposed by states such as Ireland, Slovakia and Germany, are an attempt by the commission to speed up decision-making in the justice area. Currently any member state can veto an EU decision on these matters at the Council of Ministers, but under the commission proposal, a qualified majority of states in favour would carry a vote and enable a law to enter into force.
Commission president José Manuel Barroso said decision-making on justice matters at EU level was "slow and cumbersome" and cited several instances where member states had failed to transpose decisions taken at EU level into national law.
Just five EU states - Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands and Spain - have so far transposed the January 2004 framework decision on the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. He said public opinion wanted "more Europe" in these areas and states had also set a goal of achieving more EU co-operation in the fight against organised crime and terrorism.
"Member states should not proclaim some goal without giving us the means to attain those goals. What we are asking for is the means," said Mr Barroso. He didn't expect an early agreement because of opposition from states such as Germany, he added.
Ireland and Germany are opposed to "cherry-picking" bits of the EU constitution before a decision is taken on a new pact.
Most of the justice proposals unveiled yesterday by Mr Barroso and justice commissioner Franco Frattini are contained in the constitution, which remains in limbo following its defeat in referendums in the Netherlands and France last year.
"We have concerns about any developments which could be seen as cherry-picking of the constitutional treaty," said an Irish spokesman.
However, Mr Barroso denied that removing the national veto was "cherry-picking" the constitution. He said article 42 of the Treaty of Amsterdam enabled EU states to decide to give up their veto on these matters. The proposal would be using the existing treaties to their full potential.
If all 25 member states agreed unanimously to give up their national veto over sensitive justice matters, governments would have to ratify the decision.
Some states, such as Germany, have indicated this could be complicated because of their federal structure. It is also possible that some member states would choose to have a referendum on removing the national veto.
However, an Irish spokesman said last night that the Government saw no reason that Ireland would need to hold a referendum.
The Government's legal opinion was backed by Johnny Ryan, a researcher at the Institute of European Affairs in Dublin. He said if the "bridging" clause was applied in article 42 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Ireland would not need to have a referendum because application was foreseen in amendments that have already been made to the Irish Constitution or by our ratification of the treaties. He said application of the "bridging clause" would be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Meanwhile, the commission also proposed extending jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in areas such as asylum, visa policy and family reunions.