Europe after Maastricht : interim report : report, together with the Proceedings of Committee, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendices : first report [of the] Foreign Affairs Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Foreign Affairs Committee.
Date:
1992
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Europe after Maastricht : interim report : report, together with the Proceedings of Committee, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendices : first report [of the] Foreign Affairs Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    36/96 (page 20)
    29 October 1992] [Sir John Stanley Contd] ation of the Treaty but perhaps I could ask my colleague Mr Eaton if he would like to add any- thing? Chairman 69. Yes, I think it would be interesting to have the legal position. (Mr Eaton) The questions of form and content are obviously pretty well inextricably linked, as Mr Jay has already indicated, but it is possible for a free-standing agreement to be reached which does not modify the Treaty of Maastricht. 70. So it is a free-standing agreement. How does it then become a Community document? What would be the word which would describe such a legal force? (Mr Eaton) It Member States. would be between the 12 71. It would be an agreement between the 12 Member States, just that? (Mr Eaton) Exactly. Sir John Stanley 72. You are effectively saying, Mr Eaton, there would be a supplementary Maastricht Treaty No. 2, in effect? That would not actually touch the first Treaty but would be effectively a small second Treaty, which would be the only way it could be made binding on the 12 member countries? (Mr Jay) I think there are a number of possi- bilities one can envisage. It is very hard to be pre- cise. We have not been in this sort of territory before and these are precisely the sorts of ques- tions which are now going to have to be addressed by the Member States when we get the formal Danish proposals, but is very difficult at this stage to go beyond what Mr Eaton said. Mr Gapes 73. If the Treaty of Maastricht is not subject to renegotiation and is not, therefore, amended in any way, what would happen if a protocol or declara- tion was agreed with Denmark and then there arose some form of dispute and it went to the European Court for a judgment? What would the status of that document, declaration, understand- ing or free-standing agreement with Denmark be in relation to the Maastricht Treaty? (Mr Jay) I think again, Mr Chairman, it is extremely difficult to answer these questions. We are talking here—and it is highly speculative— about the kind of agreement that might emerge at the end of the negotiations which are about to start. It is very difficult indeed to answer these sorts of questions. Chairman: I see that. Obviously we are speculat- ing about an animal the nature of which we do not really know. It is rather hard to describe although we know we will recognise it when we see it. [ Continued Mr Wareing 74. I wonder if perhaps we can have a little elaboration because we do know the Danes are very interested in the question of the single cur- rency and, indeed, any agreement that there may be about a common defence policy. Would I be right in saying that it would require a separate pro- tocol to deal with Denmark in the case of the sin- gle currency, whereas in the case of a common defence policy it would be simply a matter of inter- governmental agreement? (Mr Jay) On the question of the economic and monetary union the Danes already have a protocol which they negotiated during the intergovernmen- tal conference. What is not clear and will need to ~ be for negotiation is the extent to which that pro- tocol meets their needs or some addition to the treaty is needed. Again it is very hard at this stage to know what that extra bit, if anything, would be. As far as defence policy is concerned, there is no equivalent to the EMU protocol. There would need to be some arrangement which met Danish concerns, but again exactly how that would be done will need to be negotiated and will need to be discussed. Mr Shore 75. The present Treaty has a large number of protocols and a large number of declarations in it. As I understand it, both those groups of, as it were, reservations or elaborations of the Treaty are part of the Treaty itself and have legal force. Is it conceivable that one can envisage any new kind of instrument which is not also a legally binding doc- ument and, therefore, part of the total body of the Maastricht Treaty? (Mr Eaton) If I could correct you, Mr Shore, on the question of the protocols and the declara- tions, the protocols are part of the Treaty; the dec- larations are what the parties who _ were represented at the conference agreed in the final act of the conference. They are not actually part of the Treaty, so they do have a different legal effect. 76. They have a different legal effect? (Mr Eaton) The declarations and the protocols do have a different legal effect, yes. 77. But those are interpretable by the European Court? (Mr Eaton) Yes, but obviously they have a dif- ferent status. Chairman 78. Could you elaborate on that a little. It is a fascinating concept to non-legal minds like mine. The protocol is part of the Treaty and, therefore, has to go through the ratification process and so on, but the declarations you could just add on or subtract at will? They are separate, free-standing things, are they? (Mr Eaton) The protocols are stated in the Treaty of Rome to be an integral part of the Treaty and, therefore, they have that status. They