The second option was to proceed by arranging a settlement among the 18 ratifying, 2 rejecting member states and the rest which hadn’t signed the Treaty yet. The European Summit which was convened on June 23^rd, 2007 chose this option to move on after a two year reasoning period.

Following this historical decision, an arduous preparation process got under way and the Lisbon Treaty was signed on December 19^th, 2007. At this stage, also an assertive enforcement date was determined for the Lisbon Treaty and it was planned to enter into force in the first half of 2009 or at the latest before the European Parliament elections in June, 2009. Hereby, the majority of the member states explicitly declared that they would not resort to referendum during the ratification process. At last, only Ireland invoked referendum as a ratification method. 

However, the process wasn’t easily carried out as expected. First of all, in Irish referendum on 12 June 2008, the Irish people voted by 53.4% against ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. Participation level, 53,1%, had at least an optimistic face through which there was an option to renew the referendum. This is mainly because Ireland, similarly on June 2001, rejected the Nice Treaty by 54% in a referendum which the participation rate was just 32%; then Ireland approved the treaty on 16 October 2002 after the renewed referendum with a rate of 62%.  Accordingly, a second hope to enliven the Lisbon Treaty has still been preserved.

Additionally, the referendum results in Ireland engendered a negative effect on the other member states. In any case, it paved the way for hard discussions in Poland, Sweden and the Czech Republic.

The Swedish Parliament finally ratified the Lisbon Treaty through a parliamentary decision dated on November 28^th, 2008. In Poland, in spite of the negative attitude of the President Lech Kaczynnski, the Treaty was ratified on April 2^nd, 2008. The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, in its judgment of November 26^th, 2008, concluded that the Lisbon Treaty was compatible with the Czech Constitution and thus removed the legal obstacle before the ratification procedure. For as much as, the Czech Senate which is mostly composed of Euro-skeptics had brought the issue before the Constitutional Court in spring 2008. However, due to contention between the President Vaclav Klaus and the Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek in domestic politics, this issue remains in suspense. Klaus, like the President of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, states that he will not sign the parliamentary decision approving the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty unless the second referendum in Ireland results. 

Due to these arguments, today, all eyes are on the second Irish referendum. The issue was handled in the European Council on December 12^th, 2008 and as a result of some concessions, Ireland accepted to conduct a second referendum before November 2009. At this point, a cooling time was granted for the Irish people to overcome their concerns. Among these concerns, taxation, military neutrality of Ireland and moral issues involving abortion constitute controversial subjects. Moreover, a proposed reduction in the number of commissioners sent to the EU Commission creates another problem for Ireland. In the European Summit held on December 12^th, Ireland was given legal guarantees about all of these subjects.

All of these problems encountered during the ratification process of the Constitution or the Lisbon Treaty should be evaluated as disturbances that the EU has experienced from time to time in its integration history. Consequently, these problems occurred during the ratification process do not mean the end of the EU.

Following these problems, we can reach two consequences. The first one is not to make amendments on the primary sources in the short and medium terms as far as it is not necessary. However, if such a need arises, it shouldn’t be done radically and shouldn’t scare the people who approach the EU integration with suspicion or feel themselves distant from the process. As seen in the example of the Constitution, these types of extreme initiatives are resulted in disappointment. 

The second point is to abandon the unanimity rule for the revision of the primary law or search for different ways for amendments to soften the ratification process. Only by this way, a problem occurred in one member state will not hinder the EU for further integration. At this point, the Lisbon Treaty makes a differentiation like the Constitution and brings two new methods for the revision of the Establishing Treaties. However, it has to be noted that both of these methods maintain the unanimity and the consent rules. This differentiation did not take place in the Establishing Treaties previously. Accordingly, these procedures which are envisaged in the Article 48 of the EU Treaty[2] will function as follows:

Usual revision procedure: Within this procedure, one of the member state governments, the European Parliament or the Commission may present projects to the Council of Ministers with the aim of treaty revisions. These projects, besides the other amendment recommendations, may ask for the increase or the reduction in the competences of the Union. Later on, these projects will be submitted to the European Council and the national parliaments. 

After consulting to the European Parliament and the Commission, if the European Council takes a decision with simple majority for the examination of the proposed amendments, the President of the European Council will call for a Convention. This Convention will be composed of the representatives of national parliaments, heads of states and governments, the European Parliament and the Commission. Institutional amendments relating to monetary issues will be handled after consulting to the European Central Bank. The Convention will examine the projects and, with consensus, will admit a recommendation to the attention of Intergovernmental Conference convening representatives of the member states.

On the contrary, the European Council after receiving the consent of the European Parliament may decide not to convene the Convention if not necessary. In such case, the European Council may only convene the meeting for the representatives of the member states to discuss the issue and defines the scope of their task. As can be seen, the Constitutional and the Lisbon Treaties clearly separate the Convention process and the Intergovernmental Conference process in the usual revision procedure and designate that there is no need for a compulsory Convention process for every amendments. 

At the further stage, assembling Intergovernmental Conference is regulated. According to the Article 48 (4), the President of the Council convokes the Conference which is composed of the representatives of the member states in order to determine a consensus for the proposed amendments on the treaties. The amendments made to the Establishing Treaties enter into force after approved by the member states in accordance with their constitutional rules.  

If ever 4/5 of the member states approve the text although two years pass over the signature of the Treaty amending the Establishing Treaties and however one or more member states face with ratification problems, then Heads of States and Governments will discuss the issue.

Simplified revision procedure: In the context of this procedure, any of the member state governments, the European Parliament or the Commission may present projects to the European Council in relation to the whole or partial revision of the third section of the treaty which is about the internal politics of the Union. The European Council will adopt a decision for the whole or the partial changes in this section. In this context, the European Council will decide unanimously after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission. It is compulsory to consult the European Central Bank in cases of institutional amendments related to monetary issues. This decision will enter into force after approved[3] by the member states in accordance with their constitutional rules. However, these types of decisions can not lead to any increase or reduction in the powers of the Union.

The Lisbon Treaty, in the same article, lays down the exceptions of the usual and simplified revision procedures (Article 48 (7) TEU). According to this, both procedures do not cover the Council decisions on the Common Foreign and Security Policy or decisions taken by qualified majority instead of unanimity relating to the functions of the EU. In such case, The European Council may take a decision which enables the Council of Ministers to adopt a decision in that direction. The same is valid for the transition from special legislative procedures to usual legislative procedure. In addition, these regulations do not apply to the military issues and decisions in the field of defense. But, the European Council will inform the national parliaments about any initiative taken in this context. If any of these national parliaments contravenes such decision within 6 months, this decision can not be adopted. The European Council may adopt the decision if only there is no opposition. The European Council will act unanimously after receiving the consent of the European Parliament. The European Parliament will give its consent by simple majority.

To sum up, if the Lisbon Treaty survives after the referendum conducted in Ireland in autumn 2009, the abovementioned regulation will enter into force. Otherwise, the EU will face with two options which are 1) to proceed with the Nice Treaty or 2) to move on with the Lisbon Treaty but without Ireland.  
  
 
 1] Prof. Dr., Galatasaray University

  College of Administrative Sciences and Economics

  Ciragan Street No:36 34357 Ortakoy/ISTANBUL

  Telephone: (+90) 0212 227 44 81/585

  Fax: (+90) 0212 258 22 83

  E-mail: etezcan@gsu.edu.tr

[2] For the constitutional regulations of these procedures, Article IV-443 and IV-444.

      [3] In the Lisbon Treaty, the term “approbation” is used instead of “ratification” which is generally accepted in the international law. However, the ratification by the member states in accordance with their constitutional rules reveals that there would be no changes on the normal procedure of the ratification process.