tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post7955692600219917003..comments2023-10-26T00:08:26.205+01:00Comments on The Boiling Frog: More Cast Iron Promises Go AWOLTheBoilingFroghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00791961503315586243noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-2161861063219722332010-10-26T16:13:33.503+01:002010-10-26T16:13:33.503+01:00Sensible? I'm sure my wife will disagree! But ...Sensible? I'm sure my wife will disagree! But thanks anyway.TheBoilingFroghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00791961503315586243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-48884187125096104792010-10-26T14:23:10.702+01:002010-10-26T14:23:10.702+01:00No problem. Happy to try and sort this issue out w...No problem. Happy to try and sort this issue out with a sensible, critical eurosceptic (have just added you to my blogroll and feedreader, btw).Eurogoblinhttp://eurogoblin.eu/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-63897361088168861512010-10-26T13:44:21.161+01:002010-10-26T13:44:21.161+01:00Thanks Eurogoblin that was all most helpful. But a...Thanks Eurogoblin that was all most helpful. But as you say not seeing the ETA makes the job a little harder - I've been trying to find it for some time.<br /><br />Unanimity is the most likely option, though not certain (you could be putting money on a Devon Loch), from the texts you've highlighted. <br /><br />Anyway Mr Cameron is already preparing to renege on a promise regardless of whether he can do anything or not.TheBoilingFroghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00791961503315586243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-86670144376951135152010-10-26T13:23:19.430+01:002010-10-26T13:23:19.430+01:00Here's a good summary (PDF - scroll down to th...Here's a <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftrade.ec.europa.eu%2Fdoclib%2Fhtml%2F146719.htm&rct=j&q=ftas%20%22mixed%20agreements%22%20political%20trade%20eu&ei=AsbGTJfvB46T4gbBz9n7Dw&usg=AFQjCNFSjUWGQKMEUga3LizNdjTlWj2sSA&cad=rja" rel="nofollow">good summary</a> (PDF - scroll down to the end). I'll just quote the most relevant bit:<br /><br /><i>"Legally, qualified majority has been the rule since the beginning of the common commercial policy. This was an important leverage for the Commission even if, in practice, the Council has practically always acted by consensus. Under the Lisbon Treaty, qualified majority remains as a rule. However, agreements covering the new issues mentioned before (services, intellectual property rights, investment <b>[EG: These are issues which fall under FTAs]</b>) fall under unanimity in three cases (domestic implementation by unanimity, audiovisual services that affect cultural or linguistic diversity, services in the social, education or health sector). This again shows that every Member State in the Council will be needed to advance EU trade policy, in particular in the services sector, which is so important for economic growth.<br /><br />Moreover, even post-Lisbon the practice of so-called mixed agreements has<br />continued. These are agreements which are concluded both by the EU and by all of its member States on the one side, and by the third country, on the other side.<br /><br />The EU-Korea free trade agreement is a case in point.<br /><br />It might have been possible to design this agreement as an EU-only agreement.<br />However, certain issues, such as cultural cooperation, triggered the need to conclude it together with all our Member states. Some say that this was a good choice to make sure that a landmark deal with major political and commercial significance for the whole of the European Union is supported by everyone. However, it also means the FTA must be ratified by national parliaments in all 27 Member States. In some countries, like Belgium, it means up to 7 parliamentary assemblies."</i><br /><br />I think this suggests it'll be unanimity. The service sector is more complicated in single market law than other things (it might be the most complicated part), but I'm pretty sure whatever is in the FTA is going to run up against this snag.<br /><br />Not being able to read the India FTA doesn't help, though.Eurogoblinhttp://eurogoblin.eu/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-42232527872288594952010-10-26T13:12:18.132+01:002010-10-26T13:12:18.132+01:00Hold it... I'm about to contradict myself (and...Hold it... I'm about to contradict myself (and you, mind!). ;-)<br /><br />I think you were right the first time - EU FTAs are unanimity when they're "mixed" political agreements - i.e. when they include provisions outside of trade. That much is definite.<br /><br />Services are part of the common commercial policy (and hence decided by QMV). The exception is if "agreements include provisions for which <b>unanimity is required for the adoption of internal rules.</b>" Not having seen the FTA, I can't comment on whether or not that's the case.<br /><br />The thing is - the scope of FTAs are generally very large. Essentially, they're giving a third country access to the Single Market. With such a broad scope, there's usually something which justifies unanimity voting (such as with the South Korea agreement). That's why I say FTAs are normally agreed by unanimity.<br /><br />However - because the draft of the FTA is essentially negotiated in secret (as Bruno confirmed on my blog), we can't know for sure. I'd put money on the FTA coming under unanimity voting - that's how strongly I feel about it. But I wouldn't put a great deal of money.Eurogoblinhttp://eurogoblin.eu/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-36028102429018080332010-10-26T12:46:13.633+01:002010-10-26T12:46:13.633+01:00I think we're both referring to the same thing...I think we're both referring to the same thing Eurogoblin.<br /><br />Basically the EU has exclusive competence on trade agreements (QMV) unless it contains the single topics which you highlight which trigger the unanimity clause. These FTAs which fall outside of QMV (i.e. exclusive competence) are known as 'mixed' agreements and are as you say typical. (my phrase 'political stuff' was probably a little misleading).<br /><br />Anyway the outcome is Cameron has a vetoTheBoilingFroghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00791961503315586243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-21552981514889863772010-10-26T12:23:13.563+01:002010-10-26T12:23:13.563+01:00Not exactly. Within the treaty article you mention...Not exactly. Within the treaty article you mentioned (paragraph 4) there is provision for unanimity voting:<br /><br /><b>"For the negotiation and conclusion of agreements in the fields of trade in services and the commercial aspects of intellectual property, as well as foreign direct investment, the Council shall act unanimously where such agreements include provisions for which unanimity is required for the adoption of internal rules."</b><br /><br />And also:<br /><br /><b>"(a) in the field of trade in cultural and audiovisual services, where these agreements risk prejudicing the Union's cultural and linguistic diversity;<br /><br />(b) in the field of trade in social, education and health services, where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them."</b><br /><br />FTAs typically include agreements on services, intellectual property, etc. - so they generally fall outside of QMV.Eurogoblinhttp://eurogoblin.eu/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-74421764614936278362010-10-26T12:16:39.546+01:002010-10-26T12:16:39.546+01:00Thanks Eurogoblin. Basically you're confirming...Thanks Eurogoblin. Basically you're confirming that India is a 'mixed' agreement?TheBoilingFroghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00791961503315586243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-60067549853087385412010-10-26T12:09:44.364+01:002010-10-26T12:09:44.364+01:00You're right, the Commission has competence ov...You're right, the Commission has competence over trade negotiations. However, FTAs fall outside the realm of normal trade negotiations and rarely fall exclusively under the competence of the Commission. The EU-India FTA, for example, includes service liberalisation (see <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/countries/india/" rel="nofollow">here</a>), which means it falls under unanimity voting in the Council.Eurogoblinhttp://eurogoblin.eu/noreply@blogger.com