Among the most far-reaching treaty changes brought about by Amsterdam are those relating to free movement of people, decisions about which are to be taken collectively in the supra-national decision-making structures of the Union.
The treaty also extends police and judicial co-operation, although using traditional inter-governmental structures.
After a five-year programme of work, internal border controls in the Union are to be abolished. Moreover, policies on asylum, immigration, visas, and the control of external frontiers will then be determined collectively but, for the most part, unanimously, and with the Commission alone allowed to initiate changes.
MEPs will also be given a say in an area that has traditionally been the prerogative alone of memberstates.
Both Britain and Ireland, however, have been allowed to opt out of these provisions. The exception has been caused by their desire to maintain a common travel area and Britain's refusal to abandon its own border controls. The common travel area between Ireland and Britain is specifically acknowledged in the treaty. Thus the two will continue to co-ordinate a joint approach to immigration and asylum policies.
Should either state wish to opt in to all or some of the new treaty provisions in this area they are allowed to do so, and Ireland expresses its hope to do so one day in a special declaration.
The creation of a European zone without internal frontiers was initially pioneered outside the Union structure in the context of the Schengen Treaty and involving 13 EU member-states plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. In order to make it possible to abolish borders they have already agreed on some 1,200 pages of regulations and procedures covering such issues as control of external borders and the creation of a computer information system. The Amsterdam Treaty now brings Schengen and all its procedures, many of them overlapping with existing provisions, into the Union, and makes special provision for the non-EU members' participation in decisions.
"Under a special protocol. . .decisions already taken in Schengen," the White Paper explains, "will apply to 13 member-states and may be built on further. Ireland and the UK, on certain conditions, will be able to opt in to all or part of these decisions, taken initially outside the treaties but now brought within them; and will be able to join, if they wish, in building on them."
A special protocol proposed by Spain seeks to restrict the right of member-states to grant asylum to political refugees from another member-state - the logic is that, all being democracies in which the rule of law is safeguarded, the question should not arise. The agreed wording provides that member-states shall regard each other as "safe countries" and asylum can only be granted in stated exceptional circumstances.
The protocol is opposed by some human rights groups which claim it undermines the rights of asylum guaranteed by the 1951 Geneva convention on refugees. The White Paper denies this, asserting that "the terms of the asylum protocol will allow member-states to meet their obligations under the 1951 convention".
Yet while free movement issues are moved into supra-national Community structures, closer coordination and co-operation in police, customs and judicial matters remain firmly on an intergovernmental basis in the Third Pillar, with member-states determined to maintain their vetos.
The sort of co-operation expected was broadly agreed during the Irish presidency and ranges from sharing intelligence to training exchanges. The treaty extends Maastricht's listing of areas of cooperation - drugs, terrorism and organised crime - by specifically adding trafficking in people, children and arms.
Europol, the Union's criminal intelligence arm, is to be strengthened over five years to include an ability to co-ordinate joint operations by member-states' police forces, expanding its liaison with prosecuting authorities, and establishing a research database on cross-border crime.
Judicial review of such activities, however, remains firmly based in the national courts.
Judicial co-operation will be enhanced with common work on extradition and the compatibility of legal rules in member-states and moves to set common minimum rules about penalties. But a declaration will make clear that countries which do not have provision for minimum sentences will not be forced to adopt them.
