| Treaty of Nice amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts | |
|---|---|
| Type | Amender of previous treaties |
| Drafted | 11 December 2000 |
| Signed | 26 February 2001 |
| Location | Nice,France |
| Effective | 1 February 2003 |
| Signatories | |
| Citations | Prior amendment treaty: Amsterdam Treaty (1997) Subsequent amendment treaty:Lisbon Treaty (2007) |
| Languages | |
| Full text | |
 Treaty of Nice atWikisource | |
After amendments made by the Nice Treaty: Consolidated version of EURATOM treaty (2001) Consolidated version of TECSC (2001)-expired 2002 Consolidated version of TEC and TEU (2001) | |
TheTreaty of Nice was signed by European leaders on 26 February 2001 and came into force on 1 February 2003.
It amended theMaastricht Treaty (or the Treaty onEuropean Union) and theTreaty of Rome (or the Treaty establishing the European Community which, before the Maastricht Treaty, was the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community). The Treaty of Nice reformed the institutional structure of the European Union to withstand eastward expansion, a task which was originally intended to have been done by theAmsterdam Treaty, but failed to be addressed at the time.
The entry into force of the treaty was in doubt for a time, after its initialrejection by Irish voters in a referendum in June 2001. This referendum result was reversed in a subsequent referendum held a little over a year later.
The Nice Treaty was attacked by many people as a flawed compromise.Germany had demanded that its greater population be reflected in a higher vote weighting in the Council; this was opposed byFrance, who insisted that the symbolic parity between France and Germany be maintained. The Commission had proposed to replace the oldweighted voting system with a double majority system which would require those voting in favour to represent a majority of both member states and population for a proposal to be approved.[1] This was also rejected by France for similar reasons. A compromise was reached, which provided for a double majority of Member States and votes cast, and in which a Member State could optionally request verification that the countries voting in favour represented a sufficient proportion of the EU's population.
| Country | Voting weight | Pop. (Mio.) | Rel.[5] weight |
| Germany | 29 | 82.0 | 1.00 |
| United Kingdom | 29 | 59.4 | 1.38 |
| France | 29 | 59.1 | 1.39 |
| Italy | 29 | 57.7 | 1.42 |
| Spain | 27 | 39.4 | 1.94 |
| Poland | 27 | 38.6 | 1.98 |
| Romania | 14 | 22.3 | 1.78 |
| Netherlands | 13 | 15.8 | 2.33 |
| Greece | 12 | 10.6 | 3.20 |
| Czech Republic | 12 | 10.3 | 3.29 |
| Belgium | 12 | 10.2 | 3.33 |
| Hungary | 12 | 10.0 | 3.39 |
| Portugal | 12 | 9.9 | 3.42 |
| Sweden | 10 | 8.9 | 3.18 |
| Austria | 10 | 8.1 | 3.49 |
| Bulgaria | 10 | 7.7 | 3.67 |
| Slovakia | 7 | 5.4 | 3.67 |
| Denmark | 7 | 5.3 | 3.73 |
| Finland | 7 | 5.2 | 3.81 |
| Lithuania | 7 | 3.7 | 5.35 |
| Ireland | 7 | 3.7 | 5.35 |
| Latvia | 4 | 2.4 | 4.71 |
| Slovenia | 4 | 2.0 | 5.67 |
| Estonia | 4 | 1.4 | 8.08 |
| Cyprus | 4 | 0.8 | 14.14 |
| Luxembourg | 4 | 0.4 | 28.28 |
| Malta | 3 | 0.4 | 21.26 |
| Total | 345 | 490 | |
The Treaty provided for an increase after enlargement of the number of seats in theEuropean Parliament to 732, which exceeded the cap established by the Treaty of Amsterdam.
The question of a reduction in the size of theEuropean Commission after enlargement was resolved to a degree — the Treaty providing that once the number of Member States reached 27, the number of Commissioners appointed in the subsequent Commission would be reduced by the Council to below 27, but without actually specifying the target of that reduction. As a transitional measure it specified that after 1 January 2005, Germany, France, theUnited Kingdom,Italy andSpain would each give up their second Commissioner.
The Treaty provided for the creation of subsidiary courts below theEuropean Court of Justice and theCourt of First Instance (now the General Court) to deal with special areas of law such as patents.
The Treaty of Nice provides for new rules on closer co-operation, the rules introduced in the Treaty of Amsterdam being viewed as unworkable, and hence these rules have not yet been used.
In response to the failed sanctions againstAustria following a coalition includingJörg Haider's party having come to power, and fears about possible future threats to the stability of the new member states to be admitted in enlargement, the Treaty of Nice added a preventive mechanism to sanctions against a Member State that was created by the Amsterdam Treaty.[6]
The Treaty also contained provisions to deal with the financial consequences of the expiry of theEuropean Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) treaty (Treaty of Paris (1951)).
Under the current rules for the amendment of the Treaties, the Treaties can only be amended by a new Treaty, which must be ratified by each of the Member States to enter into force.
In all the EU member states the Treaty of Nice was ratified by parliamentary procedure, except inIreland where, following the decision of the Irish supreme court inCrotty v An Taoiseach, any amendments that result in a transfer of sovereignty to the European Union require a constitutional amendment. Ireland's Constitution can only be amended by a referendum.
To the surprise of the Irish government and the other EU member states, Irish votersrejected the Treaty of Nice in June 2001. The turnout itself was low (34%), partly a result of the failure of the major Irish political parties to mount a strong campaign on the issue, presuming that the Irish electorate would pass the Treaty as all previous such Treaties had been passed by big majorities.However, many Irish voters were critical of the Treaty contents, believing that it marginalised smaller states. Others questioned the impact of the Treaty onIrish neutrality. Other sections viewed the leadership of the Union as out of touch and arrogant, with the Treaty offering a perceived chance to 'shock' the European leadership into a greater willingness to listen to its critics. (A similar argument was made whenDenmark initiallyvoted down theTreaty of Maastricht.)
The Irish government, having obtained theSeville Declaration on Ireland's policy of military neutrality from the European Council, decided to haveanother referendum on the Treaty of Nice on Saturday, 19 October 2002. Two significant qualifications were included in the second proposed amendment, one requiring the consent of theDáil forenhanced cooperation under the treaty, and another preventing Ireland from joining any EU common defence policy. A 'Yes' vote was urged by a massive campaign by the main parties and by civil society and the social partners, including campaigning through canvassing and all forms of media by respectedpro-European figures like thenEP presidentPat Cox, formerCzech presidentVáclav Havel, formerPresident of IrelandPatrick Hillery and formerTaoiseach (prime minister)Dr. Garret FitzGerald. Prominent civil society campaigns on the Yes side includedFianna Fáil,Fine Gael, theLabour Party, theProgressive Democrats, theIrish Alliance for Europe led by Professor Brigid Laffan and Adrian Langan, andIreland for Europe led by Ciarán Toland. On the No Side, the principal campaigns were those of theGreen Party,Sinn Féin,Anthony Coughlan'sNational Platform,Justin Barrett's No to Nice campaign, andRoger Cole'sPeace and Neutrality Alliance. The result was a 60% "Yes" vote on a near-50% turn-out.
By then all other EU member states had ratified the Treaty. Ratification by all parties was required by the end of the year, or else the Treaty would have expired.
Proponents of the Treaty claimed it was a utilitarian adjustment to cumbersomeEU governing mechanisms and a required streamlining of the decision-making process, necessary to facilitate enlargement of theEU into Central andEastern Europe. They claim that, consequently, the treaty was vitally important for the integration and future progress of these formerEastern Bloc countries. Many people who were in favour of greater scope and power of theEU project felt that it did not go far enough and that it would in any case be superseded by future treaties. Proponents differed in the extent to which enlargement may have proceeded without the Treaty: some claimed that the very future of the Union's growth—if not existence—was at stake, while others said that enlargement could have legally proceeded—albeit at a slower pace—without it.
Opponents of the Treaty claimed that it was a "technocratic" rather than "democratic" treaty, which would further diminish the sovereignty of national and regional parliaments, and would further concentrate power into a centralised and unaccountable bureaucracy. They also claimed that five applicant countries could have joined theEU without changing theEU's rules, and that others could have negotiated on an individual basis, something opponents to the treaty argued would have been to the applicants' advantage. They also claimed that the Treaty of Nice would create a two-tier EU, which might marginalise Ireland.[citation needed] Opponents pointed out that leading pro-treaty politicians had admitted that if referendums had been held in countries other thanIreland, it would probably have been defeated there as well.
The Commission and theEuropean Parliament were disappointed that the NiceIntergovernmental Conference (IGC) did not adopt many of their proposals for reform of the institutional structure or introduction of new Community powers, such as the appointment of a European Public Prosecutor. The European Parliament threatened to pass a resolution against the Treaty; theItalian Parliament threatened it would not ratify it without the former's support. However, in the end this did not come to pass and the European Parliament approved the Treaty.
Many argue that thepillar structure, which was maintained by the Treaty, is overcomplicated; that the separate Treaties should be merged into one Treaty; that the three (now two) separate legal personalities of the Communities should be merged; and that the European Community and the European Union should be merged, with the European Union being endowed withlegal personality. The German regions were also demanding a clearer separation of the powers of the Union from the Member States.
Nor did the Treaty of Nice deal with the question of the incorporation of theCharter of Fundamental Rights into the Treaty; that was also left for the 2004 IGC after the opposition of the United Kingdom.
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | .png) |
 Belgium |  Denmark |  Finland |  France |  Greece |  Ireland |  Italy |  Luxembourg |  Netherlands |
 |  |  |  |  |  | |||
 Portugal |  Spain |  United Kingdom |  Sweden |  Germany |  Austria |
At the end of January 2020 (GMT), theUK left the EU and so withdrew from this Treaty.
Since the end ofWorld War II,sovereignEuropean countries have entered into treaties and thereby co-operated and harmonised policies (orpooled sovereignty) in an increasing number of areas, in theEuropean integration project or theconstruction of Europe (French:la construction européenne). The following timeline outlines the legal inception of theEuropean Union (EU)—the principal framework for this unification. The EU inherited many of its present responsibilities from theEuropean Communities (EC), which were founded in the 1950s in the spirit of theSchuman Declaration.
| Legend: S: signing F: entry into force T: termination E: expiry de facto supersession Rel. w/ EC/EU framework: de facto inside outside |  European Union(EU) | [Cont.] | ||||||||||||||||
| European Communities(EC) | (Pillar I) | |||||||||||||||||
| European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom) | [Cont.] | |||||||||||||||||
 / / / European Coal and Steel Community(ECSC) | ||||||||||||||||||
| European Economic Community(EEC) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Schengen Rules | European Community (EC) | |||||||||||||||||
| TREVI | Justice and Home Affairs(JHA,pillar II) | |||||||||||||||||
 / North Atlantic Treaty Organisation(NATO) | [Cont.] | Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters(PJCC,pillar II) | ||||||||||||||||
 Anglo-French alliance | [Defence armhanded toNATO] | European Political Co-operation (EPC) | Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP,pillar III) | |||||||||||||||
 Western Union (WU) |  / Western European Union (WEU) | [Tasks defined following the WEU's 1984reactivationhanded to theEU] | ||||||||||||||||
| [Social, cultural taskshanded toCoE] | [Cont.] | |||||||||||||||||
| Council of Europe(CoE) | ||||||||||||||||||
Entente Cordiale S: 8 April 1904 | Davignon report S: 27 October 1970 | European Council conclusions S: 2 December 1975 | ||||||||||||||||
 | This article includes a list ofgeneral references, butit lacks sufficient correspondinginline citations. Please help toimprove this article byintroducing more precise citations.(February 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Authority control databases: National |
|---|
