As the UK takes on the European Union's presidency, Tony Blair finds himself mired in controversy. Andrew Laidlaw and Julia Bateman examine the chances of effective legislative reform

On the eve of the UK taking up the presidency of the EU's Council of Ministers, Prime Minister Tony Blair faced the European Parliament, upbeat but well aware that any notion of a low-key presidency was fast fading.


Given the events of the past few months, it may have been inevitable that the UK's stint in Europe's hot-seat was going to generate controversy and media interest.


The fact that Mr Blair himself acknowledged that 'Europe is in the midst of a profound debate about its future' and that it faced 'failure on a grand strategic scale' reconfirmed fears of the troubled times ahead.


While the EU's system of six-month rotating presidencies gives each member state the chance to take the helm, it is doubtful that any of Mr Blair's counterparts are envious of the position in which he now finds himself.


What with having to manage the future of the Constitutional Treaty, chairing a council divided over the future budget and Common Agricultural Policy reform, while advocating an overhaul of the EU's economic agenda that is deeply unpopular in France and Germany, not to mention winning over a disenchanted European electorate, has the idea that the UK presidency would be working conscientiously on an inherited agenda gone right out of the window? Is the UK going to preside over the EU grinding to a halt?


Despite an upbeat declaration from Mr Blair that in every crisis there is an opportunity, it is certain that any conclusion as to what that opportunity is will by no means be unanimous. The last 'crisis' was caused by the insufficient reforms agreed in the Treaty of Nice. This led to the process of drafting a Constitutional Treaty, and yet another crisis. The British response may be more pragmatic and more focused on kick-starting (again) Europe's economic reform agenda.


The freeze on the ratification process will have implications for ongoing legislative work, as the Constitutional Treaty provided legal bases for action.


Areas that were due to undergo a radical overhaul, principally justice and home affairs matters, will no longer be upgraded to a core part of the EU's competence but will instead languish in the realms of inter-governmental co-operation with limited democratic oversight and judicial scrutiny.


The question now is how the EU can push ahead with a project that is as ambitious as the Hague Programme on justice and home affairs, where its proposals are founded on the premise of a legal basis provided by the Constitutional Treaty.


Can the bold strategic agenda for an area of freedom, security and justice that includes family law, wills and succession, and approximation of procedural rules sit comfortably with the constitutional and legal realities of the status quo?


Legislative proposals are foreseen, indeed already drafted, that do not sit comfortably within the current legal framework. A proposal for criminal sanctions for breach of intellectual property rights overlaps internal market and judicial co-operation provisions. No problem under the Constitutional Treaty, but two very different legislative regimes in the current system.


Those pre-empting the legislative opportunities presented by the constitution may now have to rein in their ambitions.


Beyond that, it remains to be seen whether the 'crisis' at the political level will have an effect on the day-to-day work of the presidency - the bread-and-butter issues.


The UK presidency agenda is dominated by external and foreign affairs considerations, predominantly owing to the concurrent G8 presidency, and more specifically with issues of development in Africa, World Trade Organisation negotiations, climate change, and relations with Russia, Ukraine, the US and Turkey, whose first spate of accession negotiations are scheduled to take place in October.


Domestically, the UK has put better regulation at the top of its agenda and will be working to ensure the implementation of a series of reforms to the legislative process that have already been agreed. These include commitments undertaken by the EU institutions on consultation and conducting impact assessments, as well as simplifying and consolidating existing legislation - a process that is going nowhere fast.


A commission action plan on financial services, expected in November, will see a welcome emphasis on improved implementation and enforcement, as well as a commitment to regulate only when necessary and to explore alternatives to regulation.


As reported previously (see [2005] Gazette, 9 June, 15), other moves to cut red tape are already well under way in the form of the proposed Services Directive. Although this proposal is much vilified in some quarters and is credited (to an extent) with the opposition in France to the Constitutional Treaty, the UK is pushing this dossier forward. However, we may not see much movement by the UK before the European Parliament's first reading in the autumn.


The proposal would liberalise the provision of services in the EU, across the board but would also apply generally to legal services. The Law Society will continue to support the proposal's application to solicitors, provided certain of its key concerns are reflected in the final text.


Another problem to land on the UK's lap will be the revision of the working time rules. Does any one of us expect the UK to chair the meeting that signs the death certificate of the opt-out from the 48-hour working week? No, and it will be a credit to its skills of diplomacy if an agreement on this does emerge under its presidency.


The logo of the UK's presidency of the EU is geese flying in a 'V' formation (presumably southward). One wonders how many members of the British government are wishing they could do the same.


Andrew Laidlaw and Julia Bateman are European policy executives in the Law Society's Brussels office. For more information, e-mail: brussels@lawsociety.org.uk