Introduction
With the enlargement of the EU by 12 new Member States, we now have a new, united EU. The divided Europe of the Cold War has been replaced by a democratic community of nations and peoples of Europe. The enlargement marks the achievement of the primary objective of Danish EU policy since the fall of the Berlin Wall. A democratic, cooperating and strong EU is in Denmark’s interest.

The enlarged EU must be open, effective and capable of taking decisions. This is a precondition for our ability to fully exploit the benefits that the EU offers us. Consequently, it is necessary and proper that the new Treaty modernises the foundation for the enlarged EU. In this way, the EU will be prepared for the next great challenge – the global challenge.

The EU constitutes the framework for future European cooperation; a cooperation where results are achieved not only in the interplay between national interests, but also in the interplay between political views across borders. The EU is not an ideological project, but a common framework for political efforts.

Denmark’s position in the EU is determined by a national political process. The parties to the Agreement hold different views in this process and different positions when they act in the European Parliament. This Agreement does not change that, but sets out certain overall goals regarding the way in which the new framework for EU cooperation is to be used.

The Treaty of Lisbon
The Treaty of Lisbon completes the work that was initiated with the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Treaty of Nice. The result is a good treaty that clarifies the EU’s goals and structure as well as powers. The Treaty of Lisbon is a traditional reform treaty that revises and adds provisions to the founding Treaties of the European Union that remain in force.

The Treaty of Lisbon must be approved by all Member States in accordance with each Member State’s own national constitution, which in the case of Denmark is the Constitution.

We agree that the Treaty of Lisbon contains a number of significant improvements for Denmark and for Europe:

• It is stipulated that EU legislation must be adopted in accordance with the principles of full openness and transparency – in both the European Parliament and the Council. The democratic process in the EU is enhanced also by the role and the opportunities afforded to national Parliaments (particularly by means of the so-called yellow and orange cards), by greater co-influence given to the European Parliament, and by the introduction of the European Citizen’s Initiative, whereby one million EU citizens can petition the Commission to present an EU proposal in a specific area.

• The Treaty ensures that the enlarged EU can function more effectively. The decision-making procedures are simplified and streamlined, thus enhancing the ability of the EU to deliver the necessary results, even with 27 or more Member States.

• The EU will be better prepared to tackle globalisation. The ability of the EU to present our common views on the international scene is strengthened, as is the EU’s ability to undertake crisis management tasks based on voluntary contributions from the Member States. The EU will have the status of a legal person, thus allowing the EU to act as one entity in relation to the surrounding world, including when the EU concludes international agreements. Globalisation requires a system of global agreements to protect poor countries’ development opportunities as well as a system of climate, environmental, health, consumer and workers’ rights. Therefore, it is positive that the EU’s opportunities to act as a driving force in global negotiations are enhanced. Similarly, the EU can to a greater degree assume a leading role in the global fight against terrorism, cross-border crime and epidemics.

• It is firmly stated that the EU is a cooperation between independent states. It is also made clear that each Member State has the freedom to withdraw from the cooperation.

• The division of labour between the EU and the Member States is clarified and clearly described.

• The EU’s objectives and values are clarified and given far more prominence in the new consolidating provisions in the Treaty. The Treaty underlines that the EU is based on democracy, freedom, the rule of law and equality, as well as on respect for human rights, including the rights of minorities, and human dignity. The EU seeks to promote, among other things, social progress, a high level of environmental protection and consumer protection as well as an internal market based on, among other things, a social market economy characterised by strong competitiveness.

A new, proactive Danish EU policy
The Treaty of Lisbon is a tool. The concrete results benefiting the peoples and nations of Europe are generated in the political and democratic process that takes place in the Member States and in the EU’s institutions within the framework laid down in the Treaty.

The Treaty offers a good foundation for Denmark’s active and equal participation in the European cooperation. The Treaty offers Denmark good opportunities to continue the efforts to achieve the overall EU policy objectives that the parties to this Agreement share.

• We note that globalisation is fundamentally changing the conditions for the international market economy and its players. Goods, technology and jobs are moving across borders more quickly than ever before. This places demands on Europe’s competitiveness, which we will endeavour to strengthen. The EU must continue to play a role in fostering economic growth, promoting equal opportunities, developing a well-educated and highly-skilled workforce, and creating more jobs. We therefore wish to see increased focus on research, development, innovation, education and training that promote areas such as green technology. The EU internal market will constitute the main platform for the EU’s continued integration in, and influence on, a free and global market economy. The internal market benefits consumers, and we will therefore seek to ensure that the common framework of rules is shaped in a way that ensures a genuine internal market with a level playing field without artificial cross-border price differences, and where the environment, health and consumer protection are given greater priority.

• We must use the EU to promote an economically and socially sustainable development. The EU must be used to secure the framework for the European welfare states. Through this framework, the EU must strengthen the opportunities for us to preserve the Danish welfare model. The organisation of the welfare state will remain a national responsibility. The parties to the Agreement place emphasis on maintaining the basis for financing the welfare state, including by fighting tax evasion.

• Globalisation brings with it a requirement for an efficient international agreement system in the trade area. We will strive to ensure that the Folketing (Danish Parliament) is involved early in the opening of negotiations regarding new trade agreements.

• Global climate change is taking place and there is a need for a global effort to counter this development. It is therefore positive that the Treaty of Lisbon emphasises that combating climate change, as part of the environmental policy, should be mainstreamed in all EU policies. Denmark will pursue an ambitious climate and energy policy. The EU has set for itself ambitious political targets within the climate and energy sphere. We find it important that the EU maintains the 2-degree target and the decision by the EU Member States to reduce their CO2 emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 – or by 30 per cent as part of a global agreement. We will actively strive to ensure that these targets are translated into binding agreements on climate, on energy efficiency improvement, and on the wider adoption of renewable energy forms. In particular, we will make a concerted effort to ensure that the EU takes the lead in the work to achieve consensus regarding an ambitious, binding and global agreement on the reduction of greenhouse gases and that this is done in good time before the first phase of the Kyoto Agreement expires in 2012 and preferably at the UN Summit in Copenhagen in 2009. We will work for the development of a sustainable European energy policy which, besides contributing to the achievement of the EU climate targets, effectively challenges our dependence on oil and gas from unstable and undemocratic regimes. We must also use the EU to promote environmentally sustainable development through targeted efforts to raise the level of protection throughout the EU and to continually improve the level of environmental quality.

• In the wake of globalisation, we have witnessed growth in cross-border organised crime, particularly trafficking in women, drugs, fraud and international terrorism. An effective European counter-response is needed. We will endeavour to strengthen efforts in the EU to combat cross-border crime and terrorism – with due respect for the protection of the individual’s civil rights – in order to benefit the individual’s security and safety.

• We also wish to see the EU play a greater role in the efforts to solve refugee problems as well as fight illegal immigration.

• In the single financial market, it is necessary in order to ensure a level playing field that the EU lays down requirements regarding the transparency of private equity groups and hedge funds that correspond to the requirements that apply to other corporate legal forms and investment associations.

• We note with satisfaction that the Treaty of Lisbon equips the EU with a number of new instruments that promote the coherence and effectiveness of the EU’s external action. This applies, for example, to the strengthening of the position of the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who is assisted by a common foreign service. We will endeavour to ensure that the EU utilises these instruments and assumes a greater global responsibility as well as a more active profile in international affairs. We will work actively for a multi-pronged approach, where we use the EU in the efforts to promote peace, disarmament and stability; in the efforts to strengthen democracy, human rights and international rule of law; in the efforts to prevent and fight terrorism; and in the efforts to foster development and fight hardship and poverty in the world. The EU must also strengthen its civilian crisis management capacity. We wish Denmark to play a constructive and active role in this development.

• We must actively support the wish of EU neighbouring countries for closer cooperation, for example by incorporating them in EU programmes and by offering access to EU markets in tandem with the progress in these countries’ reform efforts. The enlargement process will continue within the agreed framework, which in this connection also offers a clear membership perspective for the Western Balkans. At the same time, we note with satisfaction that the EU security and defence dimension is developing in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter and on the basis of the Treaty’s stipulations.

• The Treaty lays down the framework for civilian and military operations outside the EU. This includes disarmament actions, humanitarian and rescue tasks, advisory tasks and development assistance in the military sphere, conflict prevention and peacekeeping tasks, and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking and stabilisation operations. The Treaty stipulates that for Denmark and the other states which are members of NATO, NATO will remain the foundation of their collective defence. The Treaty does not entail the creation of a European army, nor does it infringe upon the exclusive right of the Government and the Folketing to deploy Danish troops as laid down in the Constitution. The Treaty’s obligation to improve military capacities does not entail that this must be achieved through an increase in military expenditure. The goal can be reached by other means. It will continue to be the Member States themselves that draw up their own national defence budgets. In this regard, it should be borne in mind that the Danish defence opt-out is preserved in the new Treaty.

• We will actively follow the work of the Court of Justice of the European Union and make use of the opportunities available to voice Danish views in test cases and thus influence developments in EU legislation. This applies also in cases of particular relevance for Denmark. The Folketing should be kept regularly informed about the Court’s activities, partly in order to ensure that the Folketing is given opportunity to discuss the handling of new test cases and judgments with relevant Ministers in the Folketing’s European Affairs Committee.

• We consider it important that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is made legally binding with the Treaty of Lisbon. This contributes to making it clear that EU institutions are obliged to respect and protect the rights of citizens and may only act with due regard for human rights, without this in any way widening the EU’s competence, including that of the Court of Justice.

• The Treaty of Lisbon has created the framework for a more open, democratic EU that is close to the citizen. All EU institutions are subject to the requirement of transparency; the European Parliament’s powers are widened; control exercised by national Parliaments is strengthened; and EU citizens are afforded greater opportunity to participate more directly in democratic life. We will seek to promote and support initiatives that contribute to ensuring that this improved framework is exploited to the full.

• We will continue efforts to ensure that the EU policy is integrated systematically in the Folketing’s work, thus affording the Folketing better opportunities to influence Denmark’s EU policy at an early stage.

A treaty with new adjustment possibilities
We find that the Treaty offers a foundation that can provide an effective, democratic and transparent framework for the future development of the EU for many years to come. In the years ahead, we must focus on strengthening EU cooperation to achieve concrete results, and we must ensure that the EU is prepared in the best possible way to tackle the opportunities and challenges presented by globalisation. We are therefore pleased that the Treaty of Lisbon in several areas holds new adjustment possibilities.

Treaty amendments
After the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon, the two founding treaties will be, respectively, the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The Treaty of Lisbon introduces into Article 48 (6) (Art. 48 (6))[1] of the TEU a new provision which stipulates that amendments may be made in the Treaty provisions regarding EU internal policies without convening an intergovernmental conference or a convention. The amendments cannot give the EU more competence, and a decision demands unanimity in the European Council and subsequent ratification in accordance with the constitutional provisions of each individual Member State. Consequently, a double Danish right of veto has been secured in the same way as with the ordinary Treaty amendment procedure.

Majority decisions
In an EU with 27 or more Member States, the point of departure must be that decisions are taken by qualified majority voting. However, in certain areas, it has been important for several Member States to uphold the principle of unanimity.

In this respect, the common foreign and security policy constitutes a special area. The EU must assume greater responsibility internationally. We are therefore satisfied that the Treaty of Lisbon allows for more decisions to be taken by qualified majority voting. However, the principal rule will continue to be unanimity; a rule that applies also to the overall guidelines for the common foreign and security policy, which must be adopted by unanimity without any possibility of transition to qualified majority. In areas where decisions may be taken by qualified majority, the Treaty makes it possible for a specific country for vital reasons ultimately to secure unanimity voting. The EU cannot impose a particular foreign policy on a country. Similarly, a single country should not prevent the others from pursuing a particular foreign policy.

We find it proper that the Treaty allows for the possibility that Member States at a later time through unanimity can decide to move from unanimous voting to qualified majority voting in certain areas or give up a special legislative procedure for the Council in favour of the ordinary legislative procedure, where both the Council and the European Parliament are co-legislators.[2] We would like to see majority decisions extended to several areas, including:

• Minimum rates for environmental taxes, Article 175 (2) (Art. 192) TFEU

• Minimum rates for energy taxes, Article 176A (3) (Art. 194) TFEU

• Combat of various forms of discrimination, Article 16E (1) (Art. 19) TFEU

• Decisions regarding the EU’s multi-annual financial framework, Article 270a (2) (Art. 312) TFEU

We are agreed that the Act on Denmark’s ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon must hold a provision to the effect that the possibility of a transition to qualified majority voting or the ordinary legislative procedure is subject to the consent of the Folketing. We are also agreed that we will hold close consultations among the parties in each individual case.

The possibility of a transition to qualified majority voting or to the ordinary legislative procedure exists also in areas where special conditions require that such a decision be carefully considered. This applies, for example, to the possibility laid down in Article 105 (6) (Art. 127) of the TFEU for, at a later time, conferring the supervision of certain financial institutions to the European Central Bank, on whose Governing Council Denmark is not represented, as long as Denmark remains outside the euro cooperation. This applies also to key parts of the social and employment policy, to certain parts of the common commercial policy and to parts of the taxation area, where the implications of the Danish welfare model require that Denmark should exercise special care.

With regard to the social and employment policy, we are therefore pleased that Article 137 (Art. 153) of the TFEU maintains unanimity in connection with decisions regarding the protection of workers through:

• Social security and social protection of workers (1(c)),

• Protection of workers where their employment contract is terminated (1(d)),

• Representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers (1(f)),

• Conditions of employment for third-country nationals (1(g)).

We are agreed that we will not support a transition to qualified majority voting or ordinary legislative procedure in these areas if one of the parties to this Agreement continues to be opposed to the proposal concerned following consultations among the parties. We are agreed that the same arrangement must apply to the regulation of issues under Article 18 (3) of the TFEU concerning social security or social protection. Provided one party is opposed to a proposal, we are agreed that we will hold fresh consultations if significant changes arise with respect to the preconditions for rejecting the proposal in question.

We are also pleased that the Treaty underlines the role of management and labour at EU level with due regard for the diverse nature of national systems. As part of this, Article 138 (Art. 154) and Article 139 (Art. 155) of the TFEU maintain the possibility of management and labour entering into voluntary collective agreements at EU level on the social and employment policy as well as their possibility of freely deciding whether the agreements are to be implemented by the EU. In this connection, we consider it of great importance that, as has been the case so far, it is left to the Member States themselves to choose the form and means for the implementation, and that the Danish collective bargaining system in the labour market is maintained. In this connection, the parties find it of great importance to maintain the right to take collective industrial action, which is an important part of the Danish labour market model. The parties will, therefore, be opposed to any EU measures that are in contravention of the right to take industrial action.

With respect to services, we are pleased that the Treaty of Lisbon does not change the competence of the EU regarding services within the internal market. Similarly, the Treaty upholds the definition of what according to the Treaties is understood as a service, cf. the provisions laid down in the TFEU chapter on services. Similarly, we are pleased that the Treaty of Lisbon maintains, without changes, that the Member States themselves decide their systems of property ownership, cf. Article 295 (Art. 345) of the TFEU.

With respect to trade in services, Article 188C (Art. 207) of the TFEU on the common commercial policy underlines that the EU must not through the commercial policy change the distribution of competence between the EU and the Member States. This also applies to the negotiation and conclusion of agreements in the field of trade in cultural and audiovisual services, as well as in the field of trade in social, education and health services. We are pleased that the external competence of the EU regarding services pursuant to Article 188C (Art. 207) of the TFEU does not exceed the internal competence of the EU in the field of cultural and audiovisual services as well as in the field of social, education and health services.

In this connection, we are agreed that we, if necessary, will use the possibility of Article 188N (11) (Art. 218 (11)) of the TFEU to obtain an opinion from the Court of Justice if we find that a trade agreement will imply harmonisation in an area in which the Treaty precludes harmonisation. If the Court of Justice shares this view, the agreement envisaged may not enter into force unless it is amended.

As an innovation under the Treaty of Lisbon, the Commission must in each single case carefully consider whether national planning and delivery of social, health and education services may be seriously disrupted, and whether the Member States’ responsibility for the delivery of these might be jeopardised. Similarly, the Commission must also, as an innovation, in connection with agreements in the field of trade in cultural and audiovisual services, carefully consider whether the cultural and linguistic diversity in the EU might be jeopardised. We are agreed that we will reject any proposals for a transition to majority voting in these areas, provided merely one of the parties to this Agreement is opposed to the proposal in question following consultation among the parties.

We find that strengthening the EU cooperation in certain areas of taxation is in Denmark’s interest. This applies among other things to:

• The establishment and harmonisation of minimum rates for indirect taxes, cf. Article 93 (Art. 113) TFEU, and

• Cooperation concerning direct and indirect tax fraud and evasion as well as administrative cooperation, cf. Articles III-171 and III-173 93 and 95 (Art. 113 and 115) TFEU.

In these areas, we are therefore prepared to support any proposals for a transition to majority voting or ordinary legislative procedure.

In certain other areas of taxation, however, we will refuse any proposals for a transition to majority voting or ordinary legislative procedure within Article 93 (Art. 113) of the TFEU and Article 95 (Art. 115) of the TFEU, provided merely one of the parties behind this agreement is opposed to the proposals following consultation among the parties. This applies also to proposals for a transition to majority voting or ordinary legislative procedure that may relate to:

• Direct personal taxes, Article 95 (Art. 115) TFEU, and

• Harmonisation of indirect taxes, except for minimum harmonisation, Article 93 (Art. 113) TFEU.

The same applies to proposals for a transition to majority voting or ordinary legislative procedure which concerns approximation of legislation that impacts directly on the establishment or function of the Common Market under Article 95 (Art. 115) of the TFEU. This does not apply, however, to a transition to majority voting or ordinary legislative procedure concerning the updating of Partnership and Cooperation Agreements with third countries as well as taxation issues that do not relate to direct personal taxes.

Provided one party is opposed to a proposal, we are agreed that we will hold fresh consultations if significant changes arise with respect to the preconditions for rejecting the proposal in question.

Migrant workers
We are agreed that in the internal market there is a need for the possibility to coordinate the social and security arrangements for migrant workers. At the same time, we are of the firm conviction that the organisation and financing of individual Member States’ welfare systems is primarily a national responsibility.

The provision laid down in Article 42 (Art. 48) of the TFEU on social security makes it possible through qualified majority voting to adopt arrangements for the calculation and payment of benefits to migrant workers in the EU. The provision contains at the same time an effective emergency brake mechanism that makes it possible to refer a proposal that affects fundamental aspects of the social security system or the financial balance of that system to the European Council, which will decide on the matter by consensus. Before Denmark’s position on a proposal in this area is decided upon, the Government, as has been the case up to now, will naturally have to assess the consequences of the proposal and obtain a mandate for negotiation from the European Affairs Committee of the Folketing. We are agreed that we will conduct close consultations among the parties to the Agreement with regard to each proposal under the authority of Article 42 (Art. 48) of the TFEU with a view to ensuring that the proposal does not affect fundamental aspects of Denmark’s social security system or the financial balance of that system.

If a proposal, according to expert assessment, if necessary with the involvement of external expertise, is found to affect fundamental aspects of Denmark’s social security system or the financial balance of that system, we are agreed on insisting that the proposal should be referred to the European Council and that Denmark should oppose the adoption of the proposal. Provided it is deemed necessary to involve external expertise for the purpose of the expert assessment, the relevant specialists are to be appointed subject to agreement among the parties. In cases where the expert assessment gives reason to doubt whether a proposal constitutes a risk of affecting fundamental aspects of the social security system or the financial balance of that system, any one of the parties to this Agreement may require that the emergency brake mechanism be applied. If changes arise to significant preconditions for the assessments, including if the Commission amends its proposal, we are agreed that we will reconsider the issue. Any one of the parties to this Agreement is entitled to require a reassessment of the issue if it finds that the political preconditions have changed significantly.

Denmark’s special position
The Danish opt-outs are laid down in the Edinburgh Agreement and supplemented by a special Protocol attached to the Treaty of Amsterdam. Denmark’s special arrangements cannot be changed without Danish consent and will, therefore, be maintained as long as Denmark so wishes. In Edinburgh, Denmark indicated that we will not prevent the other Member States from developing cooperation in the areas on which we have opt-outs.

The opt-outs are maintained with the new Treaty. At the same time, the Treaty of Lisbon has opened the possibility that Denmark’s opt-out regarding the cooperation on justice and home affairs in the EU can be changed, subject to approval by referendum. If so, it means that Denmark, on a case-by-case basis, will decide on participation in the cooperation regarding this area.

It is altogether crucial that Danish EU policy, also in these areas, rests on the necessary popular foundation. A change in Denmark’s special position is only possible through subsequent, separate referendum.

Status of the Agreement
This Agreement is a reflection of a fundamental political understanding between the participating parties regarding the areas covered by the Agreement. The Agreement is included in the European Affairs Committee’s report on the Parliamentary Bill regarding the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon.

The Agreement shall remain in force for as long as the Treaty that was signed in Lisbon on 13 December 2007. Any amendment to the Agreement requires consensus among the parties to the Agreement.

_______

[1] Treaty provisions are specified first as they appear in the Treaty of Lisbon, and thereafter in brackets as they appear in the Treaty of Lisbon’s table of equivalences. The bracketed article numbers will be the ones used in consolidated versions of the EU’s Treaty.