EU: The "third pillar" and the 1996 IGC (feature)
01 July 1996
The arguments and alternative outcomes from the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference are beginning to become clearer as the timetable for final decisions get closer. A special meeting of the European Council in Turin in March was followed by another session in Florence in June. Ireland took over the Presidency of the EU from Italy in July and they will be followed by Netherlands (January-June 1997) and Luxembourg (July-December 1997). The Irish government wants to get a draft ready for discussion before Xmas which would be followed by final adoption by June 1997.
Two issues have been on the table from the outset: 1) whether to transfer the "third pillar" to the "first pillar", that is to abandon the intergovernmental approach to justice and home affairs and bring it within the "community methods" - giving the initiative to the European Commission to present draft directives and the European Parliament a say in what is adopted. A compromise would be to transfer some of the areas of Article K of the Maastricht Treaty to the first pillar, like immigration and asylum. 2) reforming the structure - the K4 Committee, the steering groups and their working parties - and instruments - recommendations and declaration, Joint Actions and Conventions - of justice and home affairs.
In the background to the discussions it was, correctly, assumed that the UK government would only accept very limited change - perhaps to simplifying the K4 structure under the Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers - and as any changes have to be unanimous amongst the 15 EU governments the idea of a "twin-track" or "Schengen" approach began to surface early this year. It also became clear that the UK was not the only government with reservations about "communitarianising" all or part of the "third pillar". For quite different reasons France and Spain, Denmark and Sweden have expressed reservations.
The IGC debate over a "twin-track" approach is not of course limited to the "third pillar", the UK opt-out from the Social Chapter is already there and the european monetary union (EMU) raises the same questions - as could a common defence policy though the strengthening of the Western European Union (WEU)/NATO link offer a way out.
"Enhanced cooperation"
The emerging approach, as set out in the Conclusions of the meeting in Florence in June, is that of "enhanced cooperation" - which in layperson's language means the "twin-track" approach across a number of IGC areas. One proposal is to have a "general clause" inserted in the Treaty of European Union, the other is to have "a clause for each pillar". Enhanced cooperation, which allows "flexibility", has a number of problems. How are "the interests of non-participant Member States" to be "safeguarded"? Is "enhanced cooperation" to be undertaken only as "a last resort"? Should there be a minimum number of participant Member States in the "fast-track" so "as to preclude the risk of competing circles developing or loss of the Union's true identity"? Should MEPs who are nationals of "Member States not participating in enhanced cooperation.. retain all their responsibilities on relation to that activity?" Should EU governments who are "not participating in enhanced cooperation.. be entitled to vote in that connection?"
Justice and home affairs
The Florence "progress report" says on the "third pillar", under the Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers, "needs to be made more effective." The options being considered are: a) the "partial incorporation" of some areas, like visas, asylum and immigration, into "the Community sphere" (first pillar). b) the creation of a "new third pillar" by introducing "certain Community methods" such as the "non-exclusive right of initiative for the Commission" to introduce proposals and the "greater involvement of the European Parliament".
On the structure under the Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers the removal of the Steerin