Berlin and Dublin prepare for EU justice veto fight
MARK BEUNDERMAN
20.09.2006 @ 15:02 CET
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Germany and Ireland are gearing up for a collision with the European Commission and the Finnish EU presidency over plans to abolish the national veto on justice and policing at a justice ministers meeting on Friday.
At an informal gathering of justice ministers in the Finnish town of Tampere on Friday (22 September), both the commission and the Finnish presidency will strongly push for scrapping the national veto in decisions related to crime, the judiciary and immigration in order to boost effective EU policy-making in this area.
The meeting represents the first occasion when member states officially discuss proposals - presented by Brussels in May - to trigger the so-called "passerelle" or "bridge" clause in the current EU treaty, which provides for the possibility of lifting the national veto in the area without actually changing the treaty itself.
But EU diplomats said ahead of the Tampere meeting that Germany and Ireland will resist the passerelle, with the UK expected to offer tacit support to these two states.
Both Berlin and Dublin view the passerelle as "cherry-picking" from the shelved EU constitution, which also provided for justice-related decisions to be taken by majority decision rather than by unanimity.
When signing up to the constitution, Berlin and Dublin only agreed to give up their veto in the sensitive area of criminal matters because they got "other things in return," according to diplomats.
Peer pressure
Berlin in particular fears that the passerelle will "undermine" efforts to revive the constitution as a whole – one of the prime objectives of the German EU presidency starting next January.
Germany is set to point out at the Finland meeting that agreeing on this voting change and having it ratified would take two to three years - about as much as time as it believes is needed for resuscitating the constitution.
Ireland is expected to question the usefulness of eliminating the justice veto - an idea which it disliked anyway when signing up to the constitution.
London meanwhile has chosen not to stage high-profile opposition to the passerelle, with some sources saying it wants to avoid to be seen as "soft" on terrorism.
But one UK diplomat said "our internal analysis has so far revealed that there would not be that many benefits in moving to majority voting," adding that London "has not finalised its position yet."
The contact said a lot of efficiency gains on justice decisions could also come about through better lawmaking by the commission as well as a more rapid implementation of decisions by national governments.
Brussels however expects "peer pressure" to be exerted on the sceptics, arguing that recent events – such as alleged terror plots in the UK involving transatlantic airplanes and immigration flows from Africa – have only highlighted the need for the EU to take justice and criminal decisions more swiftly.
A commission spokesman said on Wednesday that "there is resistance," but that Brussels should "not relent in its efforts to bring the bridge clause ahead."
Emergency brake
One compromise solution would be to lift the veto only for some justice-related decisions, but a Finnish presidency official made clear that Helsinki is not yet ready for any second-best solution, saying "we want the whole passerelle, we are really pushing this."
However, both Finland and the commission remain open to additional measures which would soothe the fears of some member states - such as the Netherlands and Slovakia - that they could end up giving away too much control over justice matters.
One tool under discussion is the so-called "emergency brake" which was enshrined in the EU constitution.
The emergency brake mechanism would allow member states to block decisions in this sensitive area in exceptional circumstances, where they feel their sovereignty is really at stake.
The current EU treaty does not legally allow for such a mechanism, but the emergency break could be adopted in the form of a political declaration in case member states would agree to lift the justice veto.
