Consolidated version of Lisbon Treaty (Reform Treaty)

Lisbon Treaty logo CouncilEventually some people made the effort to work on the proposed changes as adopted at the October summit and prepare the complete Treaties. The new Lisbon Treaty is now available in a consolidated version. – Even on the websits of the French parliament. At the same time, the Council still only provides for lengthy documents spelling out the changes. Let us see if they think that they can keep it like that until the British parliament takes a decision.

Now, you can find an English version on the website of the Irish Institute of European Affairs.
A French version is provided for by the Assamblee Nationale’s website.
A German version is so far only available as book.

I have written and commented repeatedly in spring about the most intransparent Treaty revision procedure (“Sherpa method”) leading up to the Lisbon Treaty. One of the outstanding features in this game was the absence of a consolidated version of the new Treaty until after even signing the new Treaty in the middle of December 2007.

The rationale behind it was typical Council: If we do not publish a consolidated version, the sceptics cannot go out with one document to show how “evil” the new Treaty is (either being the same as Constitutional Treaty or quoting aspects of the new superstate monster). Having an explicit Council understanding for such a method makes you sick, when you are one of those people potentially willing to defend the new Treaty in debates.

6 thoughts on “Consolidated version of Lisbon Treaty (Reform Treaty)

  1. Ralf Grahn

    In addition, you can find a second English consolidated Treaty of Lisbon (with differences highlighted) on the Statewatch web pages, a Spanish updated version on the Real Instituto Elcano web site, a Swedish consolidation by Sieps and a German consolidation compiled by a student, Markus Walther, on his web page.

    More exact information on the quest for consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty can be found on my blogs since mid-October.

    Yes, the Council’s refusal to publish is disgraceful.

  2. Ralf Grahn

    In addition, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (14 December 2007, C 303/1) and likewise the Treaty of Lisbon, in its reader-unfriendly version (17 December 2007, C 306/1).

  3. Pingback: Jon Worth » Blog Archive » Reform Treaty: a little more honesty and less smoke and mirrors please

  4. Sers

    Also bei vielen Dingen im Vertrag weiß ich nicht, was ich von ihnen halten soll. Nimm den Präsidenten des Rates: undemokratisch oder Integrationsfigur?
    Käme wohl auf die Besetzung an. Schon von gehört?

  5. Jan Seifert

    Jens-Peter Bonde made a valid point today in his email/letter to Parliament president Pöttering. He is rightly argueing that he cannot vote on the Lisbon Treaty report by Mendez de Vigo/Corbett this week because no consolidated and officially translated version has been made available.

    This is his email of today to President Pöttering:

    Hans-Gert Pöttering
    Dear Mr. President,
    Lieber Hans-Gert,

    On behalf of the IND/DEM group I ask you to postpone the vote on the Corbett/de Vigo Report on the Lisbon Treaty until we have had the possibility of studying the proposed Lisbon Treaty.

    The deadline for amendments to the report was set before members of the European Parliament had officially received a copy of the treaty.

    A consolidated version has still not been made available even if we unanimously agreed we wanted that in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs.

    In the Conference of Presidents you promised a consolidated version as well.

    The president of the Council, the Slovenian Foreign Minister Rupel also promised us a consolidated version when he was in AFCO in January.

    Still, we have no official readable version.

    It is not acceptable to work on the basis of a treaty version no one cannot understand fully. I have found serious mistakes in the Danish translation. They have to be clarified.

    I have started the process of reading the unofficial and private consolidated versions and putting questions to the interpretation of the different articles. On behalf of my group, I have tabled a limited number of amendments to the Corbett/ Mendez de Vigo report. The amendments are based on hundreds of questions that will have to be answered one day. Some are also already raised by other colleagues, in the different committees and in the Working Party on Parliamentary Reform and by ourselves in the Conference of Presidents. We can’t decently take a position with so many question marks.

    If a debate on the content of the Lisbon Treaty is very welcomed and highly necessary to start receiving answers and should as such be on our agenda, the AFCO committee report as it stands now did not meet the condition to be a proper and serious parliamentary scrutiny and I would therefore prefer to have the report sent back to the Committee. If this is not a decision for the Conference of President, I ask for a formal modification of the agenda on Monday with a roll call vote request to see who takes the responsibility for a treaty they cannot explain in the important details.

    My intentions are not to disturb the parliamentary procedure. I simply do the job I am elected for: to scrutinise and I do believe that if you do as well think that the Lisbon Treaty is an important step the consequences must be clear for the European Parliament and the institutions but also explainable to citizens not only because of the 2009 elections.

    Kind regards,

    Jens-Peter Bonde
    President IND/DEM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.