The Treaty of Nice: Are you for or against?

12.00.00am BST (GMT +0100) Mon 2nd Jul 2001

In light of the Irish "No Vote" here are some views from both sides of the argument to help you make up your mind on whether the UK should Ratify the Nice Treaty.

Why Support the Treaty of Nice?

1) The Treaty of Nice paves the way for Europe to be united once again after a half century of division.

Up to twelve countries from central and Eastern Europe can qualify within the next 3-10 years for membership of European Union. The EU has been instrumental in building peace and prosperity over the last fifty years and we have a moral and political responsibility to enable them to join at the first realistic opportunity.

2) The Treaty of Nice will help the EU to prepare for enlargement by reforming it's internal procedures.

Firstly, the most proportional form of voting with votes allocated to Member States according to population size, will be extended to certain new areas of legislation in the Council of Ministers in order to speed up the decision-making process. For example, when national government ministers vote in the Council on judicial matters such as the sexual exploitation of children or international trade agreements, a qualified majority will pass laws which could previously have been blocked by one single member, against the interests of the majority.

Such reforms will improve the EU's efficiency as it often comes under fire as a slow legislator. This will be vital in a Union of up to 27 member states that could suffer greatly from a single member state's veto blocking all areas of legislation, effectively holding the union to hostage.

Second, voting in the Council of Ministers has been re-balanced to ensure the percentage of the vote allocated to each country is more directly in proportion with its population. For instance, the largest states such as the UK, France, Italy and Germany will each have 29 votes. The threshold for a qualified majority will be 169 votes out of a total 237.

3) The treaty helps groups of states to develop policy in specific areas through "Enhanced Co-operation."

Where at least eight countries wish to cooperate in order to develop policy in a specific area-for example co-operation in criminal matters or defence they can go ahead. The only proviso is that those who are involved cannot exclude the other seven from future participation

4) The treaty makes way for greater security in Europe.

By incorporating the former Western European Union and its security capabilities into the EU there will be even greater scope for cooperation between member states in defence matters. In order to deal with Europe's security issues- such as those seen in the Balkans- the EU would be able to deploy a Rapid Reaction Force. This would work in cooperation with, and not against, security organisations such as NATO.

5) Enlargement would benefit Europe's relations with the USA

Many US corporations are showing an interest in central and Eastern Europe in terms of foreign direct investment. If these countries become members of the EU' s internal market, any direct investment would benefit the European Union as a whole, and as a consequence, the UK.

Why oppose the Treaty of Nice?

1) The treaty does not further European integration or deal with the future of the EU effectively.

The treaty was negotiated in an intergovernmental way with little vision for the Union itself. Some heads of state did not demonstrate the ambition or the mutual trust that is required for keeping the European project moving forward. Many members of the European parliament nearly voted against it's adoption in the chamber. Nice does not sufficiently extend the influence of the European parliament when passing legislation in relation to the council of ministers.

2) The treaty's institutional reforms have weakened democracy within the European Union.

The re-weighting of votes in the Council of Ministers has worked in favour of the larger member states, leaving the smaller ones in a weaker position than before. Even when they wish to co-operate, smaller countries could be effectively blocked by just three of the largest states plus one other forming a minority of 88 votes. Smaller states will become increasingly frustrated by their lack of influence and hostilities will grow within the EU.

3) Many of the candidate countries that will make up the EU's enlargement are relatively new democracies, having spent forty years under communist dictatorships.

They may not yet have undergone the necessary reforms to their systems and political culture in order to be admitted to the EU. For example Poland could comprise as much as 40% of the common agricultural policy budget. In addition, the structural funds, currently being allocated in order to develop poor region would be severely over stretched by poorer member states. This could jeopardise the development of poor regions and the performance of the common market.

4) The reforms made to the institutions are taking European integration too far and compromising the individual autonomy of the member states.

The introduction of qualified majority voting to certain areas of legislation in the Council takes influence away from the member states. By increasingly taking away the veto rights of member states, the decisions are indirectly being taken away from the electorate concerning new legislation from Brussels. Therefore some legislation would go through without the last word form the national governments.

5) The EU should not have it's own defence competence as it could interfere with the Atlantic alliance which should remain Europe's only form of common defence.

This kind of development shows that the EU is becoming more than a collection of countries and is showing too many characteristics of a state itself. Defence co-operation does not need to become an EU competence as this could cause tension within the Atlantic alliance.

So are you for or against? Let me know by email: [email protected]