The treaty was initiated by the leaders and government of the twenty seven European Union (EU) member states. The treaty was signed on December 13th 2007. The intention of the treaty is to change the operation of the EU according to the two major of enlargements which have occurred since 2004. The enlargements have augmented the membership of European Union from fifteen to twenty seven. The Lisbon Treaty was prepared as a substitution for the Constitutional Treaty which had been abandoned by French and Dutch representative in the past.
The treaty entails major alterations intended to rising the steadiness and consistency of the European Union's external actions. It offers a higher envoy of the union for overseas affairs and protection strategy. The high representative is meant to preside over the union's External Relations Council (ERC) and will act as the vice-president of the commission. It is the responsibility of the representative to coordinate the Commission's external procedures to guarantee steadiness and rationality between all the union’s external procedures. On top to the stated institutional alterations, the treaty also offers various changes to the union's external plans. In the treaty the European Union's development cooperation policy is strengthened and clarified. The treaty gives a provision for humanitarian support as a specific competence of the commission (Maclennan, 2008).
There are other significant alterations included in the treaty that include changing the system of council leadership from its present six month alternation to selection of an all time president of the council for a phase lasting for two and a half years. The number of the commissioners should be reduced as from 2014. In the same time, the weighting of the votes should be revised by the member’s states. Lastly the coverage of the qualified voting majority to new areas should be extended.
Basically the Lisbon Treaty consists of two parts. The first is the Treaty on European Union and the other is Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Treaty on European Union spells out the broad necessities governing the union. On top of that it sets out in general the necessities of the European Union's external associations. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides the precise aims of the European Union's diverse policies. It also contains the explicit regulations leading the union’s external actions. These include the enlargement cooperation of the European Union (Maclennan, 2008).
Presently the European Union is based on two prime treaties, the treaty making the European Community (TEC) and The Treaty on European Union (TEU). It has been agreed that the treaty of Lisbon will not compose an additional treaty. The existing treaties will also not be replaced with one treaty. The two will be amended and renamed. The Lisbon Treaty supersedes all acknowledgments in the TEU and in TEC. It has only seven articles with the first having rectifications to the TEU, and the second has rectifications to the TEC. There exist new instructions to be appended to the treaties and another one to the overall treaty changing the existing treaty protocols (Maclennan, 2008).
The writings of the treaties and protocols have a similar lawful importance. The commission which came up with the Lisbon Treaty also gave a number of rules; that are political acts. These declarations may be pertinent to the interpretation of the treaty. Many necessities of the existing TEU and TEC are untouched by the Lisbon treaty. Others are erased and replacements have been brought in. it was supposed that when the treaty is in force then the amendments to the TEU and TEC will be effected. The Lisbon treaty introduces far-reaching changes to the Euratom treaty. The treaty is a complex and inaccessible agreement. This was conceivably not avoidable but it is unacceptable, and has slowed down public debate (Maclennan, 2008).
Under the current treaties, there exist three pillars of the Lisbon treaty in relation to the EU. The first is the supranational community of the European Union. The next entails foreign and security policy and the third pillar include justice and home affairs. These are places of intergovernmental collaboration with their own resolution making strategies. The union does not have unequivocal lawful individuality. The Lisbon Treaty brings together the first and third pillars. It also does away with the European Community as the characteristic is not important.
The Labor Party of the European parliamentary stated that, by coining the union as a single legal entity and configuration treaty will finish the confusion that existed between the European Union and the European Community. It was assumed that the changes made by the Lisbon Treaty had the benefit of joining the TEU and TEC together. However, the effect is that it finished with a somewhat jumbled outcome due to the circumstances in which the change treaty has been coined (Kuniholm, 2001).
The allotment of the content between the TEU ideology and aims and requirements on the institutional framework, general provisions and the TFEU that contain the details on how the union is going to operate, is apparent. The provisions of both treaties will encompass equal importance. The procedures will possess the same official status as the articles of the treaties. The effect is that the treaty itself is, nevertheless, a composite paper, inaccessible to the people whom it impacts. This will definitely be a barrier to informed debate as to the benefits of the treaty.
The amended article three of the TEU contains information such as; the Union’s objective is to encourage peace. Its other objective is to promote its values and the welfare of its people. It states that the union shall provide its citizens an area of liberty, sanctuary and justice without internal boundaries. The free movement of persons will be ensured together with suitable measures with respect to external boundary controls, refuge, movement between boundaries and the hindrance and combating of crime. The Union shall create an internal bazaar or market. It shall work for the continuous enlargement of Europe. This will be based on balanced economic expansion and price firmness. A highly aggressive social market economy with an objective of full employment and community advancement will be put in place. There shall be and an elevated of fortification and improvement of the environment quality. This shall support scientific and technological progress (Kuniholm, 2001).
Social exclusion and discrimination shall be stopped and social impartiality and protection shall be encouraged. Equality between women and men shall be realized. Other objectives include promotion of harmony in all generations and safeguarding of the rights of the children. It shall uphold economic, territorial cohesion and social solidarity among the states involved. Its rich cultural and linguistic assortment shall be respected. Europe’s cultural heritage shall be safeguarded and improved.
An economic and financial unification whose currency is the euro shall be put in place. In its associations with the wider globe, the union shall maintain and encourage its values and give a contribution to the fortification of its citizens. It shall take part in promoting peace, security; the continuous growth in the whole world. It shall also encourage cohesion and mutual respect among peoples. Freedom and fairness in trade, poverty eradication and the safeguarding of human rights shall be encouraged. This is particularly the children’s rights. There will be stringent observance of international law. Respect for the ideology of the United Nations Charter will be observed. The Union shall follow its objectives by all suitable means match with the competences which are agreed upon it in the treaties.
The effects of the Lisbon treaty on European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) include both unknowns and opportunities. It also includes almost the same necessities as the unfortunate European Union constitution. Both in the frenzied discussions that came before and accompanied the 2007 European Council and in the succeeding international conference are considered. The major fundamentals of the political deal constituted in the Constitutional Treaty of 2004 have been protected. These include one or two terminological details and protocols apart considered as interpretive. It has been noted that to a certain degree, the understanding made with and the issues brought up by ESDP have been the major contributors for the kind of institutional changes now sainted in the Lisbon Treaty. In general, it can be stated that the new-fangled treaty gives a range of opportunities for greater policy consistency, efficiency and visibility. However, this is coupled with various unknowns coming with its realization.
The new treaty keeps almost all the relevant provisions of the ESDP of the constitutional treaty. Only two slight changes are observed in that the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs is now called the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Two introduced declarations with the treaty emphasized in that the new requirements do not impact on the tasks of the member states. Currently there exists a room for the planning and conduct of their policy and their national depiction in third world countries. In addition, neither do they prejudice the definite nature of the security policy of the contributing members (Biscop & Algieri, 2008).
The second pronouncement affects the current authorized basis, tasks, and powers of each member state in accordance to the planning and behavior of its foreign policy, its national diplomatic service. It also affects collaboration with third world countries and participation in international corporations. It also states that no new abilities in this realm are thereby given to either the commission or even the European Parliament (Kuniholm, 2001).
The alteration in the designation of the previous minister is entirely ornamental. It can also be said to be in particular, symbolic. This is because it aims at dispelling the uncertainties that could be triggered by the term. The other alteration is even less important, legally. This is because it states the apparent and restates existing averages. If brought together, the two alterations in the document seem to indicate a trivial change in the context and meaning. They are put chiefly at the appeal of the United Kingdom. They may cause the possible pour out impacts of the overloading of the latest High Representative and keeping the traditional division between the old European Union pillars.
For others the new text repeats the main alterations already protected in the constitutional treaty. This follows that the conclusion of the revolving administration in foreign collaboration, possessing a responsibility for the President of the European Council. The president is appointed for two and half years and this period is only renewable once in both protocol matters and in predicament matters. The making of the two hatted high representative, also chosen by the council in agreement with the President of the commission. The high representative acts if obligatory, by qualified greater part. It is also subject to a vote of approval by the European parliament (Biscop & Algieri, 2008).
In addition the division of such a responsibility and purpose from that of secretary general of the Council; the introduction of the latest Foreign Affairs Council, disconnected from the General Affairs Council. The introductions of the European peripheral exploit service to work in conjunction with the ambassadorial services of the contributing members. This is made up of the officials from pertinent departments of the General Secretariat of the Council. It also includes the commission with people from national ambassadorial services of the members. The implementation of a one governmental process of the council’s decision aimed at fighting the dissimilarity between universal positions, mutual actions, and common procedures is in place. This is implemented without visible amend to the current consensual regulation (Shaw, 1997).
The development of the coverage of ESDP, now named Common Security and Defence Policy(CSDP) and of its delegacies including a cohesion clause and a shared protection obligation. There is the likelihood for the council to delegate the achievement of a task to a group of states involved and which have the required capability and willing for commitment. There are plans for formation of a new establishment for ESDP processes and the constitution of a single legal personality for the union (Biscop & Algieri, 2008).
It has been observed that for those who are anticipating the compromise of intensifying and expanding the Lisbon treaty is perhaps not offering the most favorable solution. CSDP will remain policy fields leading to contentious debates regarding to the extent to which they can be named. Though the EU and the Functioning of the European Union treaties are legally similar and though the earlier pillar configuration will finally be defeated. The dissimilarity between the community’s part and the CSDP part can still be renowned. For the contributing states it was and will be no easy mission to solidly develop towards the allocation of dominion with other states in these policy fields. Improved collaboration and enduring structured cooperation gives a chance for more litheness, nevertheless, it will be influential to see under which state of affairs and with which dedication European Union member states will utilize it. It is not clear what will ensue if the member states do not use everlasting structured collaboration (Biscop & Algieri, 2008).
The effects of the treaty on the European council can be felt as the European Council brought together the heads of Government of the contributing member countries and the commission’s president. Under the treaty the European Council will posses a similar symphony. In addition the contribution of the high representative of the union will be expected for foreign associations. A full time president whose function is mentioned in the present TEU as that of giving the union an impetus that is necessary for its growth. The council is ideally supposed to meet only twice annually but Lisbon treaty requires it to meet four times a year. The European Council takes its conclusions by consensus except where the treaties present otherwise (Kubosova, 2007) .
One of the chief arguments presented for a full time president of the council is that such a position will increase rationality to the grounding of council meetings and the strategies that they define. Application to grant Turkey to the EU was made in 1987. Previously Turkey had been a colligate member of the EU and its precursors since 1963. Turkey was one of the first countries to become a member of the EU after the first ten member states. In 1961, It was also a founding member Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the. Since 1992, Turkey has also been a correlate associate of the Western European Union. Turkey accepted to sign an agreement with the European Union back in 1995. It was later documented officially as a contender for full association in 1999. Discussions were then commenced in 2005 and expectations are that in a decade’s time, Turkey will succeed to join the union (Kuniholm, 2001).
Definite concerns given by the commission were Turkey’s size and population. There are concerns that the country had a larger area and ultimately would posses a better population than any member state in the union. The fact that Turkey had a considerably lesser level of growth than the other European members also raised considerable concerns. According to an evaluation of purchasing power in Turkey, it was found to be a third of an average EC member. The country suffered from high inflation rates coupled with rates of unemployment. It was found that over half the labor force was working in agriculture and this raised concerns about the entry of Turkish labor to the European Union labor market. Other concerns entailed human rights in Turkey and disputes with Greece (Kubosova, 2007).
The commission however recommended several measures that would make Turkey and the European Union to improve enlarged dependence and combination. The country generally was disappointed since the postponement was not expected. Some analyst has argued that the foreign offices of the larger European Unions states, under the supposition that Turkey could not be considered at the same time as Central and Eastern Europe but trusting that a Customs Union would be for the betterment of Europe (Kuniholm, 2001).
Turkey’s accession to the European Union has ultimately been made difficult by geopolitics and its changing relations with the US and European Union. Some questions have been raise about how Turkey will acquire the leadership to get rid of its corrupt benefaction system. How the country will deal with the secular, democratic parties who are the majority. Other questions with no definite answers are the way Turkey will address a growing inequality in revenue distribution, introduce tax changes, ensure privatization working and address the many economic tribulations which have the risk of destroying the countries credibility. Another significant issue for is how it will find a way to contain rightful Kurdish cultural aspirations while keeping its integrity as a state and a working democracy. The role played by Islam is another issue that needs to be checked (Kuniholm, 2001).