Opt-outs in the European Union#Summary table

{{Politics of the European Union}}

As of 2024, three states have formal opt-outs from a total of four policy areas.

{{main|Denmark and the euro}}

{{Euro accession map}}

All member states other than Denmark have either adopted the euro or are legally bound to do so. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 included protocols on the UK (a member state at the time) and Denmark giving them opt-outs with the right to decide if and when they would join the euro. Denmark subsequently notified the Council of the European Communities of their decision to opt-out of the euro, and this was included as part of the 1992 Edinburgh Agreement, a Decision of Council, reached following the Maastricht Treaty's initial rejection in a 1992 Danish referendum. The purpose of the agreement was to assist in its approval in a second referendum, which it did. The Danish decision to opt-out was subsequently formalized in an amended protocol as part of the Lisbon Treaty.

In 2000, the Danish electorate voted against joining the euro in a referendum by a margin of 53.2% to 46.8% on a turnout of 87.6%.

While the remaining states are all obliged to adopt the euro eventually by the terms of their accession treaties, since membership in the Exchange Rate Mechanism is a prerequisite for euro adoption, and joining ERM is voluntary, these states can ultimately control the timing of their adoption of the euro by deliberately not satisfying the ERM requirement.{{clear}}

Denmark and Ireland have opt-outs from the area of freedom, security and justice in general, while Denmark and Ireland have opt-outs from the Schengen Agreement and Poland has an opt-out from the applicability of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The United Kingdom also had opt-outs from all of these policy areas prior to its withdrawal from the European Union in 2020.

File:Area of freedom, security and justice participation.svg

Ireland has a flexible opt-out from legislation adopted in the area of freedom, security and justice, which includes all matters previously part of the pre-Amsterdam Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) pillar.See Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice (page 295 of the {{CELEX|12012E/TXT|format=PDF|text=Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union}}) This allows it to opt-in or out of legislation and legislative initiatives on a case-by-case basis, which it usually does, except on matters related to the Schengen acquis.{{ cite news |author1=Charter, David |author2=Elliott, Francis |name-list-style=amp | url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2648522.ece | title=Will the British ever be given a chance to vote on their future in Europe? |work=The Times |location=UK | date=13 October 2007 | access-date=13 October 2007 }}{{dead link|date=September 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} The opt-out from the JHA policy area was originally obtained by Ireland and the United Kingdom in a protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997, and was retained by both in the Treaty of Lisbon.{{cite web|url=http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06087.pdf|title=UK Government opt-in decisions in the Area ofFreedom, Security and Justice|date=2011-10-19|access-date=2014-05-26|publisher=Government of the United Kingdom|first=Vaughne|last=Miller|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111123104419/http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=SN06087|archive-date=2011-11-23|url-status=dead}}

In contrast, Denmark has a more rigid opt-out from the area of freedom, security and justice. While the Edinburgh Agreement of 1992 stipulated that "Denmark will participate fully in cooperation on Justice and Home Affairs",{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=X0YlF7X1mlgC&pg=PA85|title=EU Justice and Home Affairs Law|first=Steve|last=Peers|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2011|isbn=9780199604906}} the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997 included a protocol which exempted it, as a matter of EU law, from participating in these policy areas, which are instead conducted on an intergovernmental basis with Denmark. A number of parallel intergovernmental agreements have been concluded between the EU and Denmark to extend to it EU Regulations adopted under the area of freedom, security and justice, which Denmark can't participate in directly due to its opt-out. In the negotiations of the Lisbon Treaty, Denmark obtained an amendment to the protocol to give it the option to convert its opt-out from the Area of freedom, security and justice (which had incorporated the former Justice and Home Affairs pillar) into a flexible opt-in modelled on the Irish and British opt-outs.{{ cite web | author=Europolitics | title=Treaty of Lisbon – Here is what changes! | date=7 November 2007 | work=Europolitics № 3407 | url=http://www.europolitics.info/web/external-file/pdf/gratuit_en/Europolitics_3407_special_treaty.pdf | access-date=22 November 2007 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071127042143/http://www.europolitics.info/web/external-file/pdf/gratuit_en/Europolitics_3407_special_treaty.pdf |archive-date = 27 November 2007}} In a referendum on 3 December 2015, 53.1% rejected exercising this option.{{cite web|url=http://um.dk/en/news/newsdisplaypage/?newsID=DCB9FAA3-37A6-4673-989F-0C771B7CFAFE|title=Denmark to vote on Justice and Home Affairs opt-in model on 3 December|date=2015-08-21|access-date=2015-08-21|publisher=Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark}}

{{See also|Schengen Area#EU member states and former EU member states with opt-outs}}

File:Schengen Area participation.svg

The Schengen Agreement abolished border controls between European Community member states which acceded to it. When the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997 incorporated it into the EU treaties, Ireland and the United Kingdom (a member state at the time) received opt-outs from implementing the Schengen acquis as they were the only EU member states that had not signed the agreement. However, the protocol on the Schengen acquis specified that they could request to opt-in to participating in Schengen measures on a case-by-case basis if they desired, subject to unanimous approval of the other participating states.

The protocol on the Schengen acquis and protocol on Denmark of the Treaty of Amsterdam stipulate that Denmark, which had signed an accession protocol the Schengen Agreement, would continue to be bound by the provisions and would have the option to participate in future developments of the Schengen acquis, but would do so on an intergovernmental basis rather than under EU law for the provisions that fell under the Justice and Home Affairs pillar, from which Denmark obtained an opt-out. When a measure is adopted which builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark has six months to decide whether to implement it. If Denmark decides to implement the measure, it takes the force of an international agreement between Denmark and the Schengen states. However, the protocol stipulates that if Denmark chooses not to implement future developments of the Schengen acquis, the EU and its member states "will consider appropriate measures to be taken".Article 4(2) in Protocol (No 22) annexed to the {{CELEX|12012E/TXT|format=PDF|text=(Consolidated version of) the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union}}) A failure by Denmark to implement a Schengen measure could result in it being excluded from the Schengen Area.{{cite book |last=Papagianni |first=Georgia |title=Institutional and policy dynamics of EU migration law |url=https://archive.org/details/institutionalpol00papa |url-access=limited |year=2006 |publisher=Nijhoff |location=Leiden |isbn=9004152792 |page=[https://archive.org/details/institutionalpol00papa/page/n59 33]}} The Protocol on Denmark's general opt-out from the AFSJ stipulates that if Denmark exercises its option to convert its opt-out into a flexible opt-in, then it will be become bound by the Schengen acquis under EU law rather than on an intergovernmental basis.

Ireland submitted a request to participate in the Schengen acquis in 2002, which was approved by the Council of the European Union.{{CELEX|32002D0192|text=Council Decision (2002/192/EC) of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland's request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis}} A Council decision in 2020 approved the implementation of the provisions on data protection and Schengen Information System to Ireland.{{CELEX|32020D1745|text=Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1745 of 18 November 2020 on the putting into effect of the provisions of the Schengen acquis on data protection and on the provisional putting into effect of certain provisions of the Schengen acquis in Ireland}}

Ireland joined the UK in adopting this opt-out to keep their border with Northern Ireland open via the Common Travel Area (CTA).{{ cite web | author=Parliament of the United Kingdom | author-link=Parliament of the United Kingdom | title=Volume: 587, Part: 120 (12 Mar 1998: Column 391, Baroness Williams of Crosby) | date=12 March 1998 | work=House of Lords Hansard | url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo980312/text/80312-21.htm | access-date=13 October 2007 }}{{CELEX|11997D/AFI/DCL/55|format=HTML|text=Declaration by Ireland on Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland}} (Protocol on the application of certain aspects of Article 7a of the Treaty establishing the European Community to the United Kingdom and to Ireland, attached to the Treaty of Amsterdam){{cite web|url=http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/expanding-schengen-outside-the-union/58995.aspx|title=Expanding Schengen outside the Union|date=2008-01-10|access-date=2014-02-27}} Prior to the renewal of the CTA in 2011, when the British government was proposing that passports be required for Irish citizens to enter the UK,{{ cite news | first=Stephen | last=Collins | url=http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2007/1024/1193158824220.html | title=Irish will need passports to visit Britain from 2009 |newspaper=The Irish Times | date=24 October 2007 | access-date=24 October 2007 }} there were calls for Ireland to join the Schengen Area. However, in response to a question on the issue, Bertie Ahern, the then-incumbent Taoiseach, stated: "On the question of whether this is the end of the common travel area and should we join Schengen, the answer is 'no'."{{ cite web | author=Dáil Éireann | author-link=Dáil Éireann | title=Vol. 640 No. 2 | date=24 October 2007 | work=Dáil Debate | url=http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=DAL20071024.xml&Page=1&Ex=116#N116 | access-date=25 October 2007 }}

File:EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.svg

{{Further|LGBT ideology-free zone|Poland and the European Union}}

Although Poland participates in the area of freedom, security and justice, it secured — along with another then-member state the United Kingdom — a protocol that clarified how the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, a part of the Treaty of Lisbon, would interact with national law in their countries limiting the extent that European courts would be able to rule on issues related to the Charter if they were brought to national courts.{{ cite web | author=European Parliament | author-link=European Parliament | title=MEP debate forthcoming crucial Lisbon summit and new Treaty of Lisbon | date=10 October 2007 | work=Press Service | url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/008-11448-283-10-41-901-20071008IPR11352-10-10-2007-2007-false/default_en.htm | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071012045029/http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/008-11448-283-10-41-901-20071008IPR11352-10-10-2007-2007-false/default_en.htm | url-status=dead | archive-date=12 October 2007 | access-date=13 October 2007 }} Poland's then ruling party, Law and Justice, mainly noted concerns that the Charter might force Poland to grant homosexual couples the same kind of benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy.{{cite news | author=Staff writer | url=http://newsroom.finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=16900&group=Politics | title=Finland's Thors blasts Poland over EU rights charter | publisher=NewsRoom Finland | date=5 October 2007 | access-date=13 October 2007 }}{{Dead link|date=April 2020 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} The European Scrutiny Committee of the British House of Commons, including members of both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, cast doubts on the protocol's text, asserting that the clarification might not have been worded strongly and clearly enough to achieve the government's aims.{{ cite news | first=Tania | last=Branigan | url=http://politics.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,,2187321,00.html | title=MPs point to flaws in Brown's 'red line' EU treaty safeguards |work=The Guardian|location=UK | date=10 October 2007 | access-date=13 October 2007 }}{{ cite news | first=Patrick | last=Wintour | url=http://politics.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,,2189444,00.html | title=Opt-outs may cause problems, MPs warn Brown |work=The Guardian|location=UK | date=12 October 2007 | access-date=13 October 2007 }}{{ cite web | author=European Scrutiny Committee | author-link=European Scrutiny Committee | title=European Union Intergovernmental Conference | date=2 October 2007 | work=European Scrutiny – Thirty-Fifth Report | url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmeuleg/1014/101403.htm | publisher=British House of Commons | access-date=14 October 2007 }}

After the Civic Platform won the 2007 parliamentary election in Poland, it announced that it would not opt-out from the Charter, leaving the United Kingdom as the only state not to adopt it.{{ cite news | author=Staff writer | url=http://www.eubusiness.com/news_live/1193005021.93 | title=Poland's new government will adopt EU rights charter: official | publisher=EUbusiness | date=22 October 2007 | access-date=22 October 2007 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071217093946/http://www.eubusiness.com/news_live/1193005021.93 |archive-date = 17 December 2007}} However, Donald Tusk, the new Prime Minister and leader of the Civic Platform, later qualified that pledge, stating he would consider the risks before abolishing the opt-out,{{ cite news | author=Staff writer | url=http://www.eubusiness.com/Poland/1193329923.44 | title=Poland will ponder before signing EU rights deal | publisher=EUbusiness | date=25 October 2007 | access-date=25 October 2007 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080205232517/http://www.eubusiness.com/Poland/1193329923.44 |archive-date = 5 February 2008}} and on 23 November 2007, he announced that he would not eliminate the Charter opt-out after all (despite the fact that both his party and their coalition partner, the Polish People's Party, were in favour of eliminating it), stating that he wanted to honour the deals negotiated by the previous government and that he needed the support of Law and Justice to gain the two-thirds majority in the Parliament of Poland required to approve ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon.{{ cite news | author=Staff writer | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7109528.stm | title=No EU rights charter for Poland |publisher=BBC News | date=23 November 2007 | access-date=23 November 2007 }} Shortly after the signature of the treaty, the Polish Sejm passed a resolution that expressed its desire to be able to withdraw from the Protocol.{{cite web|url=http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/proc6.nsf/uchwaly/86_u.htm|title=UCHWAŁA – Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z dnia 20 grudnia 2007 r. w sprawie traktatu reformującego UE podpisanego w Lizbonie 13 grudnia 2007 r.|date=2007-12-20|access-date=2014-02-09|publisher=Sejm}} Tusk later clarified that he may sign up to the Charter after successful ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon has taken place.{{ cite news | author=Staff writer | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7126239.stm | title=Russia poll vexes EU and Poland |publisher=BBC News | date=4 December 2007 | access-date=4 December 2007 }} However, after the treaty entered into force a spokesperson for the Polish President argued that the Charter already applied in Poland and thus it was not necessary to withdraw from the protocol. He also stated that the government was not actively attempting to withdraw from the protocol.{{cite web|url=http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,114873,10289183,Karta_Praw_Podstawowych_nie_musi_byc_ratyfikowana_.html|title=Karta Praw Podstawowych nie musi być ratyfikowana. 'Bo obowiązuje'|language=pl|date=14 September 2011|access-date=2013-02-09}} Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Radosław Sikorski, of Civic Platform, argued that the protocol only narrowly modified the charter's application in Poland, and that formally renouncing the opt-out would require a treaty amendment that would need to be ratified by all EU member states.{{cite web|url=http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,114873,10263596,Siwiec_pyta_Sikorskiego_o_Karte_Praw_Podstawowych.html|title=Siwiec pyta Sikorskiego o Kartę Praw Podstawowych|language=pl|date=9 September 2011|access-date=2013-02-09}} In April 2012, Leszek Miller, leader of the Democratic Left Alliance, stated that he would sign the charter if he comes to power.{{cite web|url=http://fakty.interia.pl/news/kongres-sld-wybor-nowych-wladz-partii,1791003|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130416084449/http://fakty.interia.pl/news/kongres-sld-wybor-nowych-wladz-partii,1791003|url-status=dead|archive-date=16 April 2013|title=Kongres SLD. Wybór nowych władz partii|language=pl|date=28 April 2012|access-date=2013-02-09}} According to Andrew Duff, British Member of the European Parliament, "A Polish constitutional mechanism has since been devised whereby Poland can decide to amend or to withdraw from the Protocol, and such a possibility remains under review."{{cite web|url=http://andrewduff.eu/en/document/andrew-duff-mep-written-evidence-to-the-house-of-commons-inquiry-into-the-charter-of-fundamental-rights.docx|title=WRITTEN EVIDENCE FROM ANDREW DUFF MEP|date=2014-01-06|access-date=2014-02-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140224003841/http://andrewduff.eu/en/document/andrew-duff-mep-written-evidence-to-the-house-of-commons-inquiry-into-the-charter-of-fundamental-rights.docx|archive-date=24 February 2014|url-status=dead}}

Several times an EU member state has faced domestic public opposition to the ratification of an EU treaty leading to its rejection in a referendum. To help address the concerns raised, the EU has offered to make a "legal guarantee" to the rejecting state. These guarantees did not purport to exempt the state from any treaty provisions, as an opt-out does. Instead they offered a clarification or interpretation of the provisions to allay fears of alternative interpretations.

As part of the 1992 Edinburgh Agreement, Denmark obtained a clarification on the nature of citizenship of the European Union which was proposed in the then yet-to-come-into-force Maastricht Treaty.{{cite book|title=The European Union and the Nordic Countries|first=Lee|last=Miles|date=28 June 2005|publisher=Routledge|isbn=9781134804061|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8p-HAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA90}} The Agreement was in the form of a Decision of Council.{{CELEX|41992X1231|text=Denmark and the Treaty on European Union}} The part of the agreement, which only applied to Denmark, relating to citizenship was as follows:

{{blockquote|The provisions of Part Two of the Treaty establishing the European Community relating to citizenship of the Union give nationals of the Member States additional rights and protection as specified in that Part. They do not in any way take the place of national citizenship. The question whether an individual possesses the nationality of a Member State will be settled solely by reference to the national law of the Member State concerned.}}

The guarantee to Denmark on citizenship was never incorporated into the treaties, but the substance of this statement was subsequently added to the Amsterdam Treaty and applies to all member states. Article 2 states that:

{{blockquote|Citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship.}}

Following the rejection of the Treaty of Lisbon by the Irish electorate in 2008, a number of guarantees (on security and defence, ethical issues and taxation) were given to the Irish in return for holding a second referendum. On the second attempt in 2009 the treaty was approved. Rather than repeat the ratification procedure, the guarantees were merely declarations with a promise to append them to the next treaty.Crosbie, Judith (12 May 2009) [http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2009/05/ireland-seeks-sign-off-on-lisbon-treaty-guarantees/64852.aspx Ireland seeks sign-off on Lisbon treaty guarantees], European VoiceSmyth, Jamie (2 April 2009) [http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0402/1224243854498.html MEP queries legal basis for Ireland's Lisbon guarantees], The Irish Times

The member states ultimately decided not to sign the protocol alongside the Croatian accession treaty, but rather as a single document. A draft protocol to this effect{{cite web|url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/summary.do?id=1173982&t=e&l=en|work=European Parliament|access-date=3 March 2012|date=6 October 2011|title=2011/0815(NLE) – 06/10/2011 Legislative proposal}} was proposed by the European Council and adopted by the European Parliament in April 2012.{{cite news|url=http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0418/breaking41.html|newspaper=The Irish Times|access-date=7 July 2012|date=18 April 2012|title=Irish Lisbon guarantees approved}} An Intergovernmental Conference followed on 16 May,{{cite web|url=https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2012-05-17a.40WS.1|publisher=TheyWorkForYou.com|access-date=7 July 2012|date=17 May 2012|title=Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Irish Protocol) – Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs}} and the protocol was signed by all states of the European Union between that date and 13 June 2012.{{cite web|work=Council of the European Union|url=https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/treaties-agreements/agreement/?id=2011053&DocLanguage=en|title=Protocol on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon details|access-date=2 March 2013}} The protocol was planned to take effect from 1 July 2013, provided that all member states had ratified the agreement by then,{{cite web|url=http://www.noodls.com/viewNoodl/13598664/fianna-f225il/mep-gallagher-welcomes-ep-support-for-ireland8217s-protoc|publisher=noodls.com|access-date=7 July 2012|date=21 March 2012|title=MEP Gallagher welcomes EP support for Ireland's protocol to the Lisbon Treaty}} but it only entered into force on 1 December 2014.{{cite web|work=Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (Ministero degli Affari Esteri e della cooperazione internazionale)|url=http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/atto/serie_generale/caricaDettaglioAtto/originario?atto.dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=2014-12-17&atto.codiceRedazionale=14A09644&elenco30giorni=false|title=COMUNICATO: Entrata in vigore del Protocollo concernente le preoccupazioni del popolo irlandese al Trattato di Lisbona, fatto a Bruxelles il 13 giugno 2012. (14A09644) (GU Serie Generale n.292 del 17-12-2014)|access-date=17 December 2014}}

{{main|United Kingdom opt-outs from EU legislation}}

{{see also|UK rebate}}

During its membership of the European Union, the United Kingdom had five opt-outs from EU legislation (from the Economic and Monetary Union, the area of freedom, security and justice, the Schengen Agreement, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the Social Chapter), four of them remained in force when it left the EU, the most of any member state.

In the United Kingdom, the Labour government of Tony Blair argued that the country should revoke its EMU opt-out and join the euro, contingent on approval in a referendum, if five economic tests were met. However, the assessment of those tests in June 2003 concluded that not all were met.{{ cite news | author=Staff writer | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3307487.stm | title=Euro poll question revealed |publisher=BBC News | date=11 December 2003 | access-date=17 October 2007 }} The policy of the 2010s coalition government, elected in 2010, was against introducing the euro prior to the 2015 general election.{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8676607.stm|title=David Cameron and Nick Clegg pledge 'united' coalition|publisher=BBC|date=12 May 2010 }}

Under Protocol 36 of the Lisbon Treaty, the United Kingdom had the option to opt-out of all police and criminal justice legislation adopted prior to the treaty's entry into force which had not been subsequently amended. The decision to opt-out had to be made at least six months prior to the aforementioned measures coming under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice on 1 December 2014. The UK informed the European Council of their decision to exercise their opt-out in July 2013,{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/326698/41670_Cm_8897_Accessible.pdf|title=Decision pursuant to Article 10(5) of Protocol 36 to The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union|date=July 2014|access-date=2014-11-20|publisher=Government of the United Kingdom|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141112230057/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/326698/41670_Cm_8897_Accessible.pdf|archive-date=2014-11-12|url-status=live}} and as such, the aforementioned legislation ceased to apply to the UK as of 1 December 2014.{{CELEX|32014Y1201(03)|text=List of Union acts adopted before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters which cease to apply to the United Kingdom as from 1 December 2014 pursuant to Article 10(4), second sentence, of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions}}{{CELEX|32014Y1201(04)|text=List of Union acts adopted before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters which have been amended by an act applicable to the United Kingdom adopted after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and which therefore remain applicable to the United Kingdom as amended or replaced}} While the protocol only permitted the UK to either opt-out from all the legislation or none of it, they subsequently opted back into some measures.{{CELEX|32014D0858|text=2014/858/EU: Commission Decision of 1 December 2014 on the notification by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of its wish to participate in acts of the Union in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters adopted before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and which are not part of the Schengen acquis}}{{CELEX|32014D0857|text=2014/857/EU: Council Decision of 1 December 2014 concerning the notification of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of its wish to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis which are contained in acts of the Union in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and amending Decisions 2000/365/EC and 2004/926/EC}}{{cite web|url=http://www.europarl.org.uk/ressource/static/files/sn06268--1-.pdf|title=The UK's 2014 Jurisdiction Decision in EU Police and Criminal Justice Proposals|last=Miller|first=Vaughne|date=20 March 2012|access-date=2013-02-09|publisher=European Parliament Information Office in the United Kingdom}}{{Dead link|date=April 2020 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}

The UK formally requested to participate in certain provisions of the Schengen acquis – Title III relating to Police Security and Judicial Cooperation – in 1999, and this was approved by the Council of the European Union on 29 May 2000.{{CELEX|32000D0365|text=2000/365/EC: Council Decision of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis}} The implementation of some of the previously approved areas of cooperation to the United Kingdom was approved in a 2004 Council decision that came into effect on 1 January 2005.{{CELEX|32004D0926|text=2004/926/EC: Council Decision of 22 December 2004 on the putting into effect of parts of the Schengen acquis by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland}} A subsequent Council decision in 2015 approved the implementation of the provisions on data protection and Schengen Information System to the UK.{{CELEX|32015D0215|text=Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/215 of 10 February 2015 on the putting into effect of the provisions of the Schengen acquis on data protection and on the provisional putting into effect of parts of the provisions of the Schengen acquis on the Schengen Information System for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland}} The opt-out was criticised in the United Kingdom for hampering the country's capabilities to stop transnational crime as a result of the inability to access the Schengen Information System.{{ cite web | author=Parliament of the United Kingdom | author-link=Parliament of the United Kingdom | title=9th Report of 2006/07, HL Paper 49 | date=2 March 2007 | work=Schengen Information System II (SIS II), House of Lords European Union Committee (Sub-Committee F) | url=http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_press_notices/pn020207euf.cfm | access-date=24 October 2007 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071109150418/http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_press_notices/pn020207euf.cfm | archive-date=9 November 2007 | df=dmy-all }}

The United Kingdom secured its opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU because it was worried that it might be used to alter British labour law, especially as relates to allowing more strikes.{{ cite news | first=Liza | last=Williams | url=http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/views/liverpool-debate/2007/10/09/should-a-referendum-be-held-on-eu-treaty-64375-19922428/ | title=Should a referendum be held on EU treaty? | work=Liverpool Daily Post | date=9 October 2007 | access-date=13 October 2007 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071020052848/http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/views/liverpool-debate/2007/10/09/should-a-referendum-be-held-on-eu-treaty-64375-19922428/ |archive-date = 20 October 2007}}

The Major ministry secured the United Kingdom an opt-out from the protocol on the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty before it was signed in 1992.{{ cite news | first=Reginald | last=Dale | url=https://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/06/business/worldbusiness/06iht-think.t_0.html | title=THINKING AHEAD/Commentary : Is Blair Leading a Continental Drift? |work=The New York Times | date=6 May 1997 | access-date=13 October 2007 }} The Blair ministry abolished this opt-out after coming to power in the 1997 general election as part of the text of the Treaty of Amsterdam.{{ cite web | first=Ailish | last=Johnson | title=Vol. 8 Memo Series (Page 6) | year=2005 | work=Social Policy: State of the European Union | url=http://www.princeton.edu/~smeunier/Johnson%20Memo.pdf | access-date=13 October 2007 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080227172557/http://www.princeton.edu/~smeunier/Johnson%20Memo.pdf | archive-date=27 February 2008 }}{{cite web|url=http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/definitions/agreementonsocialpolicy.htm|title=Agreement on Social Policy|access-date=2014-05-26|publisher= Eurofound}}

{{main|2022 Danish European Union opt-out referendum}}

The Edinburgh Agreement of 1992 included a guarantee to Denmark that they would not be obliged to join the Western European Union, which was responsible for defence. Additionally, the agreement stipulated that Denmark would not take part in discussions or be bound by decisions of the EU with defence implications. The Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997 included a protocol that formalised this opt-out from the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). As a consequence, Denmark was excluded from foreign policy discussions with defence implications and did not participate in foreign missions with a defence component.{{cite web|title=EU – The Danish Defence Opt-Out|url=http://www.fmn.dk/eng/allabout/Pages/TheDanishDefenceOpt-Out.aspx|publisher=Danish Ministry of Defence|access-date=12 April 2014}}

Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Danish government announced that a referendum would be held on 1 June on abolishing its opt-out from this policy area.{{cite web|title=Yes or no? Now Danes must decide whether they want to fully integrate into the EU's defense policy|date=7 March 2022 |url=https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/udland/ja-eller-nej-nu-skal-danskerne-afgoere-om-de-vil-traede-helt-ind-i-eus|publisher=Danmarks Radio|language=da|access-date=7 March 2022}} The political parties Venstre, the Danish Social Liberal Party and the Conservative Party had historically supported ending the opt-out, with the Socialist People's Party and the leading Social Democrats changing their position to be in favour in the aftermath of the crisis. Right-wing parties the Danish People's Party and the New Right, as well as the left-wing Unity List, continued to oppose the move. The result of the referendum was a vote of 66.9% in favour of abolishing the defence opt-out. Following the referendum Denmark formally notified the EU of its renunciation of its opt-out on defence matters on June 20, which became effective from 1 July.{{CELEX|52022XG0708(02)|text=List of Union acts adopted pursuant to Article 26(1), Article 42 and Articles 43 to 46 of the Treaty on European Union, to be applied to Denmark as from 1 July 2022 2022/C 263/05}}{{cite web|url=https://via.ritzau.dk/pressemeddelelse/danes-vote-yes-to-abolish-eu-defence-opt-out-here-are-the-next-steps?publisherId=13560888&releaseId=13652552&lang=da|title=Danes vote yes to abolish EU defence opt-out – here are the next steps|date=2022-06-02|accessdate=2022-06-05|publisher=Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Denmark)}}

{{main|United Kingdom renegotiation of European Union membership, 2015–16}}

Following the announcement by the government of the United Kingdom that it would hold a referendum on withdrawing from the European Union, an agreement was reached between it and the EU on renegotiated membership terms should the state vote to remain a member. In addition to a number of amendments to EU Regulations which would apply to all states, a legal guarantee would be granted to the UK that would explicitly exempt it from the treaty-stated symbolic goal of creating an "ever closer union" by deepening integration.{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/britain-should-stay-in-the-european-union/2016/02/22/a19da056-d995-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html|title=Britain should stay in the European Union|date=2016-02-22|access-date=2016-03-15|newspaper=The Washington Post}} This guarantee was included in a Decision by the European Council, with the promise that it would be incorporated into the treaties during their next revision.{{cite web|url=http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/european-council/2016/02/EUCO-Conclusions_pdf/|title=European Council meeting (18 and 19 February 2016) – Conclusions|date=2016-02-19|access-date=2016-03-15|publisher=European Council}} However, following the referendum, in which the UK voted to leave the EU, per the terms of the Decision the provisions lapsed.

{{main|Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union#Proposed Czech protocol}}

In 2009, Czech President Václav Klaus refused to complete ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon unless the Czech Republic was given an opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as Poland and the United Kingdom had been with a Protocol to the treaty. He stated that he was concerned that the Charter would allow the families of ethnic Germans who were expelled from territory in modern-day Czech Republic after the Second World War to challenge the expulsion before the EU's courts.{{cite news |title=I will not sign Lisbon Treaty, says Czech President |author=David Charter |newspaper=The Times |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6871365.ece |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100106010054/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6871365.ece |url-status=dead |archive-date=6 January 2010 |access-date=28 January 2010 | location=London | date=13 October 2009}} However, legal experts have argued that the laws under which the Germans were expelled, the Beneš decrees, did not fall under the jurisdiction of EU law as the Charter can not be applied retroactively.{{cite web |title=The Lisbon Treaty: ratification by the Czech Republic |date=9 November 2009 |author=Vaughne Miller |publisher=The House of Commons Library |page=10 |url=http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/SNIA-05214.pdf |access-date=28 January 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101109005824/http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/SNIA-05214.pdf |archive-date=9 November 2010 }}
{{cite web |title=The Beneš Decrees and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights |author=Steve Peers |publisher=Statewatch |date=12 October 2009 |page=9 |url=http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/oct/lisbon-benes-decree.pdf |access-date=28 January 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091128050734/http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/oct/lisbon-benes-decree.pdf |archive-date=28 November 2009 |url-status=live }} In October 2009, EU leaders agreed to amend the protocol on Poland and the United Kingdom's opt-out to include the Czech Republic at the time of the next accession treaty.{{citation |title=Brussels European Council 29/30 October 2009: Presidency Conclusions |author=Council of the European Union |url=http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/110889.pdf |id=15265/1/09 REV 1 |date=1 December 2009 |access-date=23 January 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091105041710/http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/110889.pdf |archive-date=5 November 2009 |url-status=live }}{{cite news |title=Klaus gets opt-out |author=Andrew Gardner |newspaper=European Voice |date=29 October 2009 |url=http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2009/10/klaus-gets-opt-out/66305.aspx |access-date=28 January 2010}}

In September 2011, the Czech government formally submitted a request to the Council that the promised treaty revisions be made to extend the protocol to the Czech Republic, and a draft amendment to this effect was proposed by the European Council.{{cite web|url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&procnum=NLE/2011/0817|title=Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to the Czech Republic. Protocol (amend.)|work=European Parliament|access-date=3 March 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130510235208/http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&procnum=NLE%2F2011%2F0817|archive-date=10 May 2013}} However, the Czech Senate passed a resolution in October 2011 opposing their accession to the protocol.{{cite web|url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-474.039%2b04%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN|title=SECOND DRAFT REPORT on the draft protocol on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to the Czech Republic (Article 48(3) of the Treaty on European Union)|work=European Parliament Committee on Constitutional Affairs|access-date=7 July 2012|date=4 April 2012}} When Croatia's Treaty of Accession 2011 was signed in late 2011, the Czech protocol amendment was not included. In October 2012, the European Parliament Constitutional Affairs Committee approved a report that recommended against the Czech Republic's accession to the Protocol.{{cite web|url=http://www.alde.eu/press/press-and-release-news/press-release/article/duff-welcomes-vote-against-czech-attack-on-charter-39860/|title=Duff welcomes vote against Czech attack on Charter|date=9 October 2012|access-date=2013-01-31|publisher=Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130103153611/http://www.alde.eu/press/press-and-release-news/press-release/article/duff-welcomes-vote-against-czech-attack-on-charter-39860/|archive-date=3 January 2013}} On 11 December 2012, a third draft of the European Parliament's committee report was published,{{cite web|url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-474.039+06+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN|title=Third draft report – on the draft protocol on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to the Czech Republic (2011/0817 NLE)|work=European Parliament|date=11 December 2012|access-date=19 December 2012}} and on 22 May 2013 the Parliament voted in favour of calling on the European Council "not to examine the proposed amendment of the Treaties".{{cite web|url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2013-0209&language=EN&ring=A7-2013-0174|title=European Parliament resolution of 22 May 2013 on the draft protocol on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to the Czech Republic (Article 48(3) of the Treaty on European Union) (00091/2011 – C7-0385/2011 – 2011/0817(NLE))|date=22 May 2013}}{{cite web|url=http://www.alde.eu/press/press-and-release-news/press-release/article/european-parliament-rejects-czech-opt-out-on-charter-of-fundamental-rights-41493/|title=Press Release|date=27 January 2014|work=alde.eu|access-date=18 September 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131109224150/http://www.alde.eu/press/press-and-release-news/press-release/article/european-parliament-rejects-czech-opt-out-on-charter-of-fundamental-rights-41493/|archive-date=9 November 2013|url-status=dead}} The Parliament did, however, give its consent in advance that a treaty revision to add the Czech Republic to the Protocol would not require a new convention.{{CELEX|52013DP0208|text=European Parliament decision of 22 May 2013 on the European Council's proposal not to convene a Convention for the addition of a Protocol on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to the Czech Republic, to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (00091/2011 — C7-0386/2011 — 2011/0818(NLE))}} In January 2014, following legislative elections the prior October that led to a change in government, the new Czech Human Rights Minister Jiří Dienstbier Jr. said that he would attempt to have his country's request for an opt-out withdrawn.{{cite web|url=http://praguemonitor.com/2014/01/27/dienstbier-minister-wants-scrapping-eu-pacts-czech-opt-out|title=Dienstbier as minister wants scrapping of EU pact's Czech opt-out|date=2014-01-27|access-date=2014-02-09|newspaper=Prague Daily Monitor|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140325192108/http://praguemonitor.com/2014/01/27/dienstbier-minister-wants-scrapping-eu-pacts-czech-opt-out|archive-date=25 March 2014}}{{cite web|url=http://www.rozhlas.cz/zpravy/politika/_zprava/jiri-dienstbier-chce-aby-cesko-pozadalo-o-zruseni-vyjimky-v-lisabonske-smlouve--1309447|title=Jiří Dienstbier chce, aby Česko požádalo o zrušení výjimky v Lisabonské smlouvě|lang=cs|date=2014-01-29|access-date=2014-02-09}} This was confirmed on 20 February 2014 by the new Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka, who withdrew the request for an opt-out during a meeting with President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso{{cite web|url=http://euobserver.com/news/123211|title=Czech government to give up EU Charter opt-out|date=2014-02-20|access-date=2014-02-21|last=Fox|first=Benjamin}}{{cite web|url=http://www.vlada.cz/cz/media-centrum/aktualne/premier-sobotka-se-v-bruselu-setkal-s-predsedou-evropske-komise-barrosem-i-predsedou-evropskeho-parlamentu-schulzem-116128/|title=Premiér Sobotka se v Bruselu setkal s předsedou Evropské komise Barrosem i předsedou Evropského parlamentu Schulzem|date=2014-02-20|access-date=2024-10-09|publisher=Government of the Czech Republic|lang=cs}}{{cite web|url=https://www.euroskop.cz/46/23620/clanek/barroso-cr-resetovala-vztahy-s-eu-na-mnoha-frontach/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140228195854/https://www.euroskop.cz/46/23620/clanek/barroso-cr-resetovala-vztahy-s-eu-na-mnoha-frontach/|url-status=dead|archive-date=28 February 2014|title=Barroso: ČR "resetovala" vztahy s EU|date=2014-02-20|access-date=2014-02-21|last=Bydžovská|first=Maria|lang=cs}}{{cite web|url=http://www.radio.cz/en/section/news/news-2014-02-20|archive-url=https://archive.today/20140221234026/http://www.radio.cz/en/section/news/news-2014-02-20|url-status=dead|archive-date=2014-02-21|title=Czech prime minister in Brussels|date=2014-02-20|access-date=2014-02-21|publisher=Radio Prague}} shortly after his newly elected government won the confidence of Parliament.{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-czech-eu-idUSBREA1I1A520140219|title=Czechs give up EU rights charter opt-out, plan joining fiscal pact|date=2014-02-19|access-date=2014-02-21|work=Reuters}} In May 2014, the Council of the European Union formally withdrew their recommendation to hold an Intergovernmental Conference of member states to consider the proposed amendments to the treaties.{{cite web|url=http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/142581.pdf|title=Press release – 3313th Council meeting|date=2014-05-13|access-date=2014-05-17|publisher=Council of the European Union|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140517152908/http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/142581.pdf|archive-date=2014-05-17|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%209693%202014%20INIT|title=List of "A" items|date=2014-05-12|access-date=2014-05-17|publisher=Council of the European Union}}{{cite web|url=http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/EU/XXV/EU/02/08/EU_20839/imfname_10457081.pdf|title="I/A" item note|date=2014-04-08|access-date=2014-05-17|publisher=Council of the European Union|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140517152332/http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/EU/XXV/EU/02/08/EU_20839/imfname_10457081.pdf|archive-date=2014-05-17|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0817%28NLE%29|title= Procedure file – 2011/0817(NLE)|access-date=2014-05-17|publisher=European Parliament}}

• Freedom of movement for workers
• Mechanism for Cooperation and Verification in the European Union
• Multi-speed Europe
• Nullification (U.S. Constitution), a related concept in United States politics
• Opting out, a similar concept in Canadian politics
• Special member state territories and the European Union
• Brexit
• United Kingdom opt-outs from EU legislation
• Differentiated integration

{{notes}}

{{Reflist}}

• {{cite journal

| first =David

| last =Howarth

| date=1994

| title =The Compromise on Denmark and the Treaty on European Union: A Legal and Political Analysis

| journal =Common Market Law Review

| volume =34

| issue =1

| pages =765–805

| doi =10.54648/COLA1994039

| s2cid =151521949

}}

• {{cite journal

| first =Graham

| last =Butler

|date=2020

| title =The European Defence Union and Denmark's Defence Opt-out: A Legal Appraisal

| journal =European Foreign Affairs Review

| volume =25

| issue =1

| pages =117–150

| doi =10.54648/EERR2020008

| s2cid =216432180

| url =https://pure.au.dk/ws/files/210783649/The_European_Defence_Union_and_Denmarks_defence_opt_out_Published_version_2020.pdf

}}

{{wikisource|Treaty of Amsterdam/Protocol on the position of Denmark}}

• [http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/definitions/optout.htm Eurofound – Opt-out]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20040828034032/http://www.um.dk/Publikationer/UM/English/FactsheetDenmark/DenmarkAndTheEuropeanUnion/html/chapter01.htm Denmark and the European Union] – Danish Ministry for Foreign Affairs

{{European Union topics}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Opt-Outs in the European Union}}

Category:European Union law

*