Barroso wants Member States to give up vetoes on justice and security 

• Implementation: The Commission has found that one of the biggest obstacles to creating an area of freedom, security and justice is the lack of implementation of EU policies by Member States and the failure to transpose EU laws into national systems. Applying the “Community method” to this area, as the Commission is proposing, would mean that, when a Member State fails to implement Community law within a specified deadline, the Commission will be able to launch infringement procedures against the Member State, and if necessary, refer the case to the Court of Justice. 
• Bridging clause: Decisions in sensitive areas such as police and judicial cooperation, combating cross-border terrorism and introducing a common asylum regime are currently taken by unanimity. The Commission is proposing to use an existing clause in the EU Treaties, known as the bridging clause (article 42 TEU and article 62(2) TEC), to enable the Council to take decisions in this area by qualified majority voting. 
• Role of the Court of Justice: For the time being, the Court of Justice only has limited competences for settling legal disputes relating to visa, asylum, and immigration policy. According to article 68 of the EC Treaty, EU citizens may only refer to the Court of Justice once they have exhausted all legal remedies in their home country. The Commission is proposing to extend the Court’s role so that any national Court may request the Court of Justice to give a ruling on a matter relating to the interpretation of EU asylum and immigration legislation. Furthermore, the Court of Justice does not currently have jurisdiction to rule on the legality of measures taken by Member States relating to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security. The Commission wants to change this too. 

Finland, which will take over the rotating EU presidency next month, is said to view the proposals "positively" and will put them to EU home and interior ministers at a meeting in September. 

However, Günter Gloser, Germany's Europe minister, has rejected Mr Barroso's suggestion that member states should give up their vetoes to make EU lawmaking easier in the area of justice and home affairs, saying that such a move amounted to “cherry picking” parts of the EU's constitutional treaty, which Germany wants to revive when it takes over the EU’s Presidency in 2008. 

Sweden, Holland, Denmark and Ireland are said to have concerns about the proposals, while Britain is said to be more open to the idea following the London bombings of July 2005. 

Commission President Barroso tried to stress that his proposal was not a power-grab by the commission, saying he was aware of “the political sensitivities and the specific situation of certain countries”, but that “we cannot continue to justify the lack of accountability and use of unanimity. He insisted that the proposals “should not be seen as the anticipation or selection of parts of the Constitution” but as an overview of possible ways of using the existing treaties to improve the way decisions are taken at European level in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice. 

Socialist Group leader Martin Schulz welcomed the Commission’s proposals saying: "National vetoes are out of date. They are a barrier to success in bringing terrorists and international criminals to justice.” 

ALDE leader, Graham Watson, said “As the first assessment of the Hague Programme, this represents a rap on the knuckles for both the Council and Member States who are first and foremost responsible for blocking the adoption and transposition of laws relating to judicial and criminal cooperation.”