BULL 10-8-07.DOC

10/10/07 1:52 PM

THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
HENRIK BULL*

I.

INTRODUCTION

In the spring of 2005, something dramatic happened in the European Union (EU): on May 29, the French voters said “Non” to French ratification of a treaty entitled “Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe” and aimed at providing the EU with a new legal basis (54.9% against on a turnout of 69.7%).1 On June 1, in a consultative referendum, and the first referendum ever in the Netherlands, 61.6% of Dutch voters (on a turnout of 62.8%) also said “No.”2 By that time, Spain and Luxembourg had already held referenda, which had authorized ratification, and Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy, Greece, Slovakia, Austria and Germany had ratified the treaty following parliamentary approval of the same.3 The negative votes in France and the Netherlands immediately threw the EU into turmoil: several states postponed their approval procedures. The United Kingdom, Denmark, Ireland, Portugal, and Poland postponed their referenda indefinitely.4 The Czech Republic cancelled its referendum and opted for a purely parliamentary procedure instead, and that procedure has been put on hold.5 Sweden postponed its parliamentary procedure indefinitely.6

Judge Henrik Bull is Norwegian. He presently sits as a Judge on the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Court in Luxembourg, serving a six-year term which began in January of 2006. Prior to his time on the bench, Judge Bull served in several positions of responsibility in the Norwegian Ministry of Justice. Additionally, he served as the Director of the University of Oslo Faculty of Law Center for European Law from 2002 to 2005. 1. Vaughne Miller, The Future of the European Constitution 7 (Int’l Affairs & Def. Section, Research Paper No. 05/45, 2005), available at http://www/parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/ rp2005/rp05-045.pdf. 2. Id. 3. Id. Whether the treaty can be ratified after a parliamentary