EU Decision Making PDF

How did we get here? Treaties, institutions and policies. The foundation of the Communities and refoundation of the EU (Exam: the students should be able to locate the EU member states and candidate countries on a “blank” map) 1. What is the EU? The EU as a political system Details o...

How did we get here? Treaties, institutions and policies. The foundation of the Communities and refoundation of the EU (Exam: the students should be able to locate the EU member states and candidate countries on a “blank” map) 1. What is the EU? The EU as a political system Details of the schema: - Council (of ministers): 10 main formations. Legislative institution. Presidency for 6 months (now Hungary, previous Belgium and next Poland) - European Commission: legislative role, adopts legislation, elects commission president - Court of auditors: verify that the EU budget is implemented correctly (controls only the validity, not the political dimensions) The competences of the EU Exclusive competences (only EU decides): - Competition policy - Customs union and external trade policies - Monetary policy for the member states whose currency is the euro - Common fishery policy (conservation of marine biological resources) - Conclusion of international agreements under certain conditions Shared competences (EU and M.S. are able to legislate and adopt decisions. M.S. exercise their competences when the EU does not exercise its own): - Internal market, agriculture - Social regulation (health and safety at work, gender equality, and non-discrimination) - Environmental regulation - Consumer protection and common public health concerns such as food safety - Economic, social and territorial cohesion - Area of freedom, security and justice - Free movement of persons (including policies towards third country nationals)  - Transport - Energy Supporting competences (M.S. take decisions and are supported by the EU): - Health - Industry - Culture - Education - Tourism - Youth, sport - Vocational training Coordinated/special competences: - Coordination of economic, social and employment policies Exclusive member states competences: - All other policies - Taxation and public spending – although interdependencies with other policies Europe: 44 countries EU: 27 states, 9 waiting (Albania, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Turkey, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia), 1 potential candidate (Kosovo). EU is not a state, but it has some of its characteristics. It’s not an international organisation either because: - It delegates power to executive, legislative and supranational institutions - The decisions are binding to its citizens Is the EU a federation? There are many debates because: - The M.S. remain sovereign in various policies - It relies on the voluntary compliance of the M.S. for the enforcement of EU law Federation = group of states with a central government but independence in internal affairs The EU is a political system that provides the feeling of belonging to a community and that governs on a continent scale: - More population than in the USA - Linguistic diversity  - Question of identity (only 4% feel European citizen, and less than ½ have a feeling of belonging to the EU) → when people feel like belonging, it gives a sense of legitimacy. EU-polity: the way the power is divided EU-politics: what’s going on between people, ideas… EU-policies: political outcome of a decision Types of policies 2. How did we get there? The context after WWII The EU is a result of ideas, crises, failures, etc. In the 50s: the European integration was not the only option: many discussions on how to reconstruct the states after WWII (reading): 1945-1948: 100 international organisations created. - History matters. Not a linear process. The limitations of chronological approach. - WWII: The European option never represented the only alternative to the nation state (see Patel 2020). o European integration did not begin in an international void - Destruction, nationalism and decline of European global dominance o BUT “by 1945 European powers had not learned that war is bad”  o Member States were involved in colonial wars. It embraces the EU to have new markets and economic developments, because the colonies were costly and the states could not support them. o “European integration allowed imperial nations to paint themselves in a more positive light” - Cold War: fear of communism and the emergence of the soviet bloc - American support to EU integration 3. Building the Union? Delegation of power and intergovernmental conferences Two critical junctures - 1950s: the reconstruction of Europe after the war - 1990s: the collapse of communism - + a series of small and big crises The EU Member States are the Masters of the treaties (adopting treaties = transferring competences) - Member states are different than a government as M.S. also implies societies and other actors - Unanimity - Transfer of power/delegation/pooling, the member states decide which competences to delegate Negotiations and compromises. Win in some areas. Lose in others. Euphoria and apathy and dissatisfaction First critical juncture: the 1950s The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC): How to avoid war? How to make war materially impossible? How to reconstruct the continent? Schuman declaration: 9 May 1950 “Europe will not be made all at one, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity.” The French Government proposed to place the Franco-German production of coal and steel under a common High Authority. The establishment of the 1st supranational institution (independent experts) is being represented by: “The common High Authority (…) will be composed of independent persons appointed by the governments. A chairman (here Jean Monet is the 1st president of the High Authority) will be chosen by common agreement between the governments. The authority’s decision will be enforceable in France, Germany, and other member countries.” The task of the common High Authority will be that of securing: - The supply of coal and steel on identical terms to the French and German markets, as well as to the markets f other member countries; - The modernisation of production and the improvement of its quality; - The development in common of exports to other countries; - The equalisation and improvement of the living condition of workers in these industries.” Treaty of Paris (signed on 18th of April 1951, entry into force on the 24th of July 1952) ➔ Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, France They proposed to add other institutions (see below): There are 100 articles in the treaty of Paris. It defined not only the functioning and the composition of the High Authority but also the modalities for its action and intervention. The ECSC Treaty expires on 23 July 2002 at the end of the 50-year validity period. The European Defence Community (EDC) – signed in 1952, not ratified Jean Monnet: - Organise the European defence on a supranational basis - An European army, with the eventual involvement of German units  - Support from several Western countries - Support from the USA Prime Minister René Pleven presented the EDC plan in Octobre 1950: - Present a new set of institutions: European Defence Minister and European Defence Council - Signed in May 1952 (BE, FR, IT, NL, WG) - Rejected (August 1954) by the French National Assembly 1954 : - 1st crisis? - The end of the European project. Not the end. Relaunching the integration process 1955 : Messina Conference : - Extend the ECSC model to new domains: atomic, energy, transport, agriculture - Ambitious aims: o Re-launch European integration through wider economic integration o The creation of a common market Spaak Committee = 2 new treaties : 1. European Economic Community (EEC): - A common market - Based on 4 freedoms of movement 2. European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom) The European Economic Community (EEC) – Institutions and policies: - The Council of Ministers: main legislative body and key institution They proposed the same institutions as for the ECSC BUT this time, the 1 st institution was the council of ministers, and not the High Authority anymore. Why? Because the 1st community was limited at something technical (coal and steel). This time, it is a new market, movements, etc. so the community is more intergovernmental. - The Commission: quasi executive, independent, with almost exclusive right to initiate legislation - The Parliament Assembly: advisory role (one to cover the EEC, and Euratom) + 142 appointed members by national parliaments - The Court of Justice: single Court of Justice’ of the three Communities - European Economic and Social Committee (EESC): consultative body representing socio-eco actors - European Investment Bank It created: - Common Agricultural Policy: interventionist policy → national subsidies and the principles of market unity and community preference - The relationship between some member states and their colonies: the creation of the European Development Fund - Common market: based on four freedoms of movement (essential principles) = free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital - Customs union: (progressive) elimination of customs duty among MS - Common commercial policy: common external tariff - Common transport policy - Competition policy Treaties of Rome: signed 25 March 1957 and came into force on 1 January 1958 Social dimension: the development of a European Social Fund = a support instrument for the unemployed Economic dimension: close economies would form a common market Political dimension: the development of closer relations between the Member States “Germany/France: Standard of Living”. On 29th March 1957, the day after the signing in Rome of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (EEC), the French Communist daily newspaper L’Humanité portrays social harmonisation within the Common Market as a measure which will bring down the standard of living of the French working class to the lowest common level. Small but important treaties: 21st April 1970, Council decision 70/243: set up a system of the Communities’ own resources, replacing financial contribution by Member States 22nd April 1970, Treaty of Luxembourg: granted the European Parliament certain budgetary powers. 22nd July 1975, Treaty of Brussels: The Parliament has the right to reject the budget and to grant the Commission a discharge for implementing the budget. The same Treaty set up the Court of Auditors, a body responsible for scrutinising the Community’s accounts and financial management. Act of 20 September 1976 gives the European Parliament new legitimacy and authority by introducing its election by direct universal vote. The Single European Act: 1986-1987 - 1st substantial change to the Treaty of Rome - Designed by Jacques Delors to launch the single market program o Lower prices o Create jobs o New business opportunities - The result of a complex bargain to improve decision-making, strengthen democracy, achieve liberalisation, and promote economic and social cohesion. 300 legislative measures were imagined, but to implement them, there was the need to revise the treaties. ➔ Single act to clarify competences and powers of the union. Important for 3 reasons: 1. Extension of the Union’s powers in new fields: - Economic and social cohesion - Social policy, research and technological development, environment - Monetary policy - Cooperation in the field of foreign policy 2. Changes to the institutional set-up: - Improvement in the decision-making capacity of the Council - Extension of the (Qualified Majority Voting) QMV to new areas (internal market, social policy, economic and social cohesion, research and technological development, and environmental policy 3. Established cooperation and assent procedure: - The EP increased its legislative powers (notably for most single market measures). At first, the Parlement was created with a consultative role, but with the single act, there’s a step up to empowerment. - EP’s assent necessary for Community agreements on enlargement and association agreements  3.1 Second critical juncture 1990s From the European Communities to the European Union Maastricht Treaty – Treaty on European Union – 1992-1993: The EU justifies the exercise of its power when the member states are unable to take actions at their level. Maastricht criteria for the Euro = number of rules/condition that states must follow in order to become a member of the EuroZone. - Price stability - Lack of deficit - Long-term interest rates Maastricht – a Milestone of the Delors era? - Delors was ambivalent about the Treaty - The Treaty was supported by Mitterrand and Kohl for different reasons According to the President of the Commission, the Maastricht Treaty is an achievement, however the French President and the German Chancellor had different political ambitions. Before the implementation of the euro, France was facing challenges and wanted to defend its citizens against speculation. One idea was to impose the Franc Français as the single currency within the EU. Germany was a united country and its market was powerful. Germany was a symbol. The condition of Germany was the following: Euro (or single currency) should follow the German’s model. That led to the birth of Maastricht. The end of the “permissive consensus” 1991 Eurobarometer: 72% respondents – EU membership is a “good thing” Denmark: 2 referendums: 2nd of June 1992: - Rejection 50,7% (a margin of less than 50.000) - 83% record turnout 18th of May 1993 : 56,7% in favour Denmark received four opt-outs from portions of the treaty: - Economic and Monetary Union - Union Citizenship - Justice and Home Affairs - Common Defence Treaty ratified with oupt-outs. France: Litte “OUI” (50,8%) in September 1992. Entry into force on 1st of November without ceremony. ATTENTION: When a new treaty come in order, the text must be ratified by ALL member states either by their parlement, by a referendum or by both. The treaty comes into force when the 27 member states ratify the treaty. Treaty of Amsterdam: 1997-1999: mixed results (failure) Three key objectives: - Reform decision-making procedures – enlargement - Tackle the “democratic deficit” - Making the EU more relevant to its citizens  - Improving the EU’s ability to act internationally Limited outcomes and difficult negotiations: Member states were divided over institutional questions: - Re-weighting Council votes: o Unanimity o Majorité qualifiée (QMV) Some states, big with a lot of citizens, were under-represented. - The size and composition of the Commission: the 5 biggest members had 2 chairs, while the other had 1. - Extension of QMV to additional policy areas No agreement → another intergovernmental conference Some important achievements Article 2 TEU: “The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rules of law, principles which are common to the member states.” Article 7 TEU: A provision to sanction any member state that deviated from the EU’s core values Enhanced/closer cooperation procedure Employment → a mechanism to coordinate Member States’ policies on employment was created The agreement on social policy was incorporated into the EC Treaty. Justice and Home affairs – some policy areas moved to the 1st pillar. The Treaty of Nice: 2001 – 2003 The Commission: reduction in the size of the European Commission The Council: - Re-weighting votes in the Council (while the EP and Commission proposed the principle of dual majority of votes and population) - Germany under-represented in relation to its population - Small states over-represented - The definition of QMV (255 out of 345) The European Parliament: the composition and the powers of the EP (732) Enhanced cooperation: - Possible in all three pillars - Reduced the number of states allowed to initiate the procedure (from majority to 8) Laeken Declaration on the future of Europe: 2001 ‘(…) The unification of Europe is near. The Union is about to expand to bring in more than ten new Member States, predominantly Central and Eastern European, thereby finally closing one of the darkest chapters in European history: the Second World War and the ensuing artificial division of Europe. At long last, Europe is on its way to becoming one big family, without bloodshed, a real transformation clearly calling for a different approach from fifty years ago, when six countries first took the lead. (…)’ - How to bring the citizens closer to the European design and European institutions? - How to organise politics and the European political area in an enlarged Union? - How to develop the Union into a stabilising factor and a model in the new world order? Convention method to prepare the Intergovernmental conference (IGC): Chair: Valéry Giscard D’Estaing Two vice-chairs: Giuliano Amato and Jean-Luc Dehaene - 15 representatives of Member States’ heads o state or government (1 per Member State) - 13 representatives of candidate countries’ heads of state or government but without a decision-making role (1 per candidate country) - 30 members of the national parliaments of member states (2 per Member State) - 26 members of the national parliaments of candidate countries (2 per candidate countries) - 16 members of the European Parliament - 2 members of the Commission Observers : - European Economic and Social Committee (3) - Committee of the Regions (6) - European Social Partners (3) - European Ombudsman + candidate countries The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe signed on 29 October in 2004 in Rome. Key provisions - EU symbols: the European flag, the European anthem, motto, the Euro and its symbol, and Europe Day (9 May) - The Union is accorded a single legal personality - the pillar structure is abolished - the instruments of action available to the Union are simplified, as is the terminology, with the introduction of European laws and European framework laws (instead of directives, regulations, and decisions) - incorporation into the Constitution of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights - The European Council, headed by a President elected for two and a half years, is formally institutionalised  - A Minister for Foreign Affairs is to be appointed, taking over the tasks of the External Relations Commissioner and the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy - The size of the Commission to be reduced from 2014, making the number of Commissioners equal to two-thirds of the number of Member States. - QMV in the Council is being extended - The competences (exclusive, shared and supporting) and their distribution between the Member States and the Union are defined clearly and permanently. - A voluntary withdrawal clause! - What happens if the Treaty if not ratified? The ratification process: rejected in France and the Netherlands in 2005 Europe in ‘crisis’ - ‘Saying no to the Constitution means blocking the progress of the EU, it's a no to Europe. There is no plan B.’ (Delors) - ‘There is no plan B’ (French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier) - ‘c’est une décision politique majeure grave pour l'Europe’ (F. Hollande) - ‘la mort de l’union politique’ (Dehousse 2005) - A period of reflection (national leaders were short of ideas) Renegotiation – Lisbon Treaty – signed on 13 December 2007, entered into force the 1st of December 2009 Irish referendum – “no” in June 2008, “yes” in October 2009 Two Treaties: - The Treaty on European Union (TEU) - The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) Revision: - Abolition of EU’s pillar structure - Gives the EU full legal personality - No reference to ‘constitution’ - old terminology (directives, regulations…) is maintained - No article formally enshrining the supremacy of Union law over national legislation, but a declaration attached to the Treaty to this effect, referring to the case law of the Court of Justice - The Charter of Fundamental Rights is not incorporated directly into the Lisbon Treaty but acquires a legally binding character through Art 6(1)TEU, giving it the same legal value as the Treaties. The Conference on the Future of Europe & new method & new reforms 9 May 2022: - 49 proposals - Climate change & environment - Health - Economy, social justice and jobs - EU in the world - Values and rights - European democracy - Digital transformation - Migration - Education, culture, sport and youth - 300 measures 4. How to explain outcomes? The treaties are the results of careful bargaining & agreements between member states governments (Moravcsik) The development of EU treaties – an act of delegation of power - Unintended consequences - Spill-overs - Policy-drifts 4 possible explanations: 1. All Member States have equal power - Unanimity => “lowest common denominator” 2. Only big member states matter - Governments “lose” in some issues to ”win” on others - “package deals” 3. Domestic politics – how difficulties in the ratification process binds the hands of some gvts 4. Spatial distribution of preferences - actors whose preference is closer to the status quo tend to win more often than actors who would like a more radical change. 5. Past and current challenges & key controversies in EU integration The EU as a succession of crises. The “crisis” & “relaunch” dynamic - 1952: non ratification of the EDC - 1962: Algeria leaves the Communities. First « exit » before Brexit. - 1965: the “empty chair crisis” and the confrontation between intergovernmental (de Gaulle) & supranational (Hallstein) view ➔ What happened? During the beginning of the community (with 6 member states), Hallstein wished for the PAC and for the development of a supranational vision. It was voted by a majority, but De Gaulle didn’t agree to the supranational vision. France then stopped to go to the reunions (committee-council) for 6 months. In 1966 in Luxemburg, it was decided that when the vital interest of the States was in stakes an unanimity decision was in order. - 1970s: economic crisis - 1980s: “I want my money back” - The Iron Lady - 1990s: the end of the permissive consensus & collapse of communism & wars in the Balkans - 2000s: from enlargement euphoria to enlargement fatigue The limits of the crisis narrative of EU integration (see Warlouzet 2014) “the politics of inevitability” = overuse of the word “crisis” in political debates The perception of crises is subjective and depend on the context AND often, after the crises, the dynamics starts again by itself. Difference between past crises and current crises? The past crises were related to the supranational integration and the spectral dimension. However, today’s crises are multidimensional and unprecedented. Could it put the future of the EU at risk? 6. The widening of the EU. The motivations of the Member States. Why is the EU willing to enlarge? Deepening = refers to the intensity of the relationship between the states and the institutions. Widening = horizontal integration: geographical spread of the EU by the new member states. Member States engagement with the EU. Motivations. Liberal intergovernmentalism: If the member states have preferences, then they can create instrument in order to implement their preferences. - European integration reflects the will of member states - To secure their national preferences, governments “delegated and pooled sovereignty” at the supranational level by establishing common supranational institutions - EU integration is shaped by the pursuit of economic preferences - Rational choice - Commercial interests & macroeconomic preferences Stage 1: competition between different actors to know what is important to the state Stage 2: negotiations We can say that EU integration is a modern form of power politics. It is a common response to common challenges to the MS. It is not the results of political motivation ideas but on economic preferences and changes in the global economy.  1. 1960-1970s: Member States engagement with the EU. Motivations. 1950-1960: UK - reluctance Declaration of Labour’s leader Hugh Gaitskell October 1962: “Are we forced to go into Europe? The answer to that is, No. Would we necessarily, inevitably, be economically stronger if we go in, and weaker if we stay out? My answer to that is also, No. Is it true to say that by going in we shall become all that more prosperous so that, because of our prosperity, the Commonwealth automatically gains, whatever the terms may be? Again, my answer to that must be No » We can see that the UK is reluctant to join the EU for 2 reasons: - Political side: the UK government was reluctant about limiting sovereignty (control of the High Authority in the EU), fear of seeing restrictions. It is a question of pride for the UK government because it is the only country that was never invaded. - Economical side: supranational. The UK was engaged in another process, the Commonwealth. However, there was a change in domestic and international context. The UK was no longer a power of the 1st range in the 60s. It was dissatisfied because the trade in the Commonwealth was limited and the trade with EFTA was slow. EFTA = European Free Trade Association: its members joined the EU so there are less members today. UK requested to join in 1961 and 1967.  2. 1960-1970s: Member States engagement with the EU. Motivations. France opposed. France saw the UK as a « Cheval de Troie ». At that time, the main interest of France was the CAP. France was fearing that, with the UK joining, this policy would be weakened. The fear was to see the Community as a new EFTA. De Gaulle, 1963: “If Britain joined at this stage, the EC ‘would not endure for long [but] instead would become a colossal Atlantic community under American domination and direction” - The incompatibilities between continental European and British economic interests. - UK might jeopardise the common agricultural policy (CAP) and - UK might transform the European Economic Community (EEC) into a huge free trade area. - Veto 1969 The Hague Summit (with the heads of States of the 6 member states)– relaunch – Georges Pompidou Deepening & Widening: Completion CAP: - a budget agreement for financing the - “own resources” – a significant step forward The idea here is the following: when the communities were established, contribution and money would be lent to the states. However, the budget should be finance by the states’ own resources = financial autonomy. But how do we collect these resources? All resources mean money collected via common policies, so the budget of the community brings together agriculture resources, VIT, cross-national incomes and contributions. Deepening: the Community is about agriculture, transport and the market. Here, the discussion is about economic and monetary union and about political union (decision concerning foreign policy). It is a step forward to a federation. - Economic and monetary union - Political union Enlargement – popular support - France: referendum – 72% in favour of enlarging the Communities  - G. Pompidou elected on a pro-European program – 72% in favour of enlarging the Communities. The new French president wanted to see the UK as a counterweight to the development of Germany. - W. Brandt (chancellor in Germany) was a committed European federalist. He offered to the Commission to come to the Summit, but Pompidou didn’t agree at first. - + France accepts that the Commission leads the negotiations with the future candidates Today: Council = heads of states + the commission. A new supranational dynamic Ireland was not interested in joining the EU because it had relationship with the UK and had no interest in the ECSC. BUT it had an economic crisis, so they joined the Community. 1980s: Member States engagement with the EU. Motivations. In 1962, Greece was in an economical relation with the Community. After coup, we wonder if we should cooperate with non-democratic countries? Commission: “Greece is not ready to join”. It shows tensions between the Council and the Commission. Spain: after the civil war in Spain, there was a dictatorship (1936-1975). The demand was well-received by the Council but was rejected by the Parlement. At that time, its power was really limited. Spain applied in 77 but France was reluctant because of the size, population and agriculture of the country but, in the end, the argument of having Spain in the Community won. It was a question of stability in the southern of Europe. This proves that the integration criteria are very vague. 1990s: Member States engagement with the EU. Motivations. 1989: German reunification and Central and Eastern European countries’ motivations 1989: “An era was over, and a new Europe was being born” (Judt 2005: 1). Berlin Wall: 1961-Soviet bloc Berlin Wall: 1989-9 November 89, Easte German government announced that GDR citizen can visit RDF citizens. Enlargement as foreign policy. The process. Copenhagen criteria. The Path to Membership. Copenhagen European Council (1993): associated countries in Central and Eastern Europe shall become members of the EU. Conditions for accession: These conditions are obligations = the member states have to embrace everything, there is no possibility to derogation, no opt-outs. - ‘stable institutions that guarantee democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. - a functioning market economy as well as the ability to cope with the pressure of competition and the market forces at work inside the Union. - the ability to assume the obligations of membership, in particular adherence to the objectives of political, economic and monetary union. + The Union's capacity to absorb new members Critique of the criteria: From the beginning, the criteria are broad. Democracy and human rights mean a lot of things, it is open to interpretation. Furthermore, the relationship between the union and the MS that want to join is asymmetric. March 1994 and January 1996: 10 member states applied for membership. - The Commission o accession should be opened with 5/10 o Czechia, Estonia, Poland, Hungary and Slovenia + Cyprus. o proposed to delay the accession of Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania and Slovakia until their economic situation is advanced. - 1997 Luxembourg European Council: o accession negotiations with 5+1 (Cyprus) started - 1999 Helsinki European Council: o start negotiations with the second wave (5+1, including Malta). - The demands of Malta & Cyprus – more disputed WHY? Cyprus: division of the island Malta: very small state, what are the implications? How does a state join the EU? The Commission starts the screening = presentation of the 33 chapters of the EU to the future member state. The state that wishes to join to EU has to present where it stands for these chapters in order to implement all of those. Why: a member state is a specific actor with rights and obligations vis-à-vis of the Union and of other MS. The process from Nations-States to Member States takes several years to be completed. From Nation-States to Member States The concept of Member State “by creating a Community of unlimited duration, having its own institutions, its own personality, its own legal capacity and capacity of representation on the international plane and, more particularly, real powers stemming from a limitation of sovereignty or a transfer of powers from States to the Community, the Member States have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields”. Member states: - shall take any appropriate measure (…) to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union” and - “shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's objectives” (Article 4.3). - shall, “in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties” and this, in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation (Article 4.3). - “shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's action in this area” (Article 24). Discussion about who is driving the agenda: European Commission - Jacques Delors & Jacques Santer sought alternatives to enlargement. Indeed, enlargement has always been a divided issue. European Council - “The Big Bang enlargement happened because the European Council wanted it” (Hodson 2024) - varying degrees of enthusiasm. o Helmut Kohl: the reunification of Germany + exports to Poland increased by 120% o France: political and moral responsibility o UK: Margaret Thatcher & John Major: - in favour; but advocating enlargement to distract from deeper integration? The acceptance of the UK would disrupt the relation between France and Germany. 3. Attitudes towards integration Support co-existed with resistance to integration Kiran Patel: “people supported the integration project as long as it remained abstract and had little impact on their lives”. 1990s: “end of the permissive consensus” (Hooghe and Marks 2006) Why? - Unemployment: 10% but the economic situation could not entirely explain rising popular discontent - Establishing a European polity/an ever closer union for the people but without the people no longer possible  - Post-functionalism – domestic politics constrain governments and their preferences - out of 46 referenda on EU issues called since 1972, only 8 were held before Maastricht (Crespy & Ladi 2019) - Increasing number of referendums - Different types of referendums On the accession On treaty revisions And more recent on single issues 3. Attitudes. Typologies of opposition/support to EU integration Paul Taggart: - Hard Euroscepticism: principled opposition to the EU and the European integration. - Soft Euroscepticism: the defence of national interests and values. Kopecky and Mudde (2002): - Europhiles believe in the key idea of European integration supranational institutions & liberal market economy. - Europhobes do not support the general ideas of the EU integration. - EU optimists believe in the EU as it is and as it is developing. - EU pessimists do not support EU as it and are pessimistic about the direction of its development 4. Visions for Europe Implicit federalism (1950 - 1990) - Robert Schuman: a European federation, essential for preserving peace, marking the dawn of a brand-new era in Europe - Altiero Spinelli: the Ventotene Manifesto (with Ernesto Rossi) - federalism as method of integration - Jacques Delors, ‘federation of nation states’ = federation, but the Council plays an important role. o Not a federal Europe à la Spineli o Not an intergovernmental one à la de Gaulle Rhetorical federalism (1990-2002) Joschka Fischer (2000) - the creation of a federation of a ‘centre of gravity - creation of a bicameral Parliament - The Council becomes a true executive - The President of the Commission is elected - A constitution - Increased closer cooperation Taboo federalism (2002-2008) Jean-Louis Quermonne EU is not a federation EU integration is a process of federalisation Concept of “intergovernmental federalism / fédéralisme intergouvernemental” - Federalism – because decisions are taken through the supranational method - Intergovernmental – the key role of the Council & European Council 4. Visions for Europe in the context of crises Angela Merkel 2012 Towards a federal EU? “We need more Europe, we need not only a monetary union, but we also need a so-called fiscal union, in other words more joint budget policy” “And we need most of all a political union – that means we need to gradually give competencies to Europe and give Europe control” France hesitant for a federalist leap Prague Declaration 2013 – ECR - The importance of the family as the bedrock of society. - The sovereign integrity of the nation state - opposition to EU federalism - a renewed respect for true subsidiarity. - Effectively controlled immigration - An end to waste and excessive bureaucracy and a commitment to greater transparency and probity in the EU institutions and use of EU funds. - Respect and equitable treatment for all EU countries, new and old, large and small. Differentiation: - A strategy of integration to “reconcile heterogeneity within the European Union” (Stubb 1996: 283). - An attempt to reconcile the diversity of contrasting visions for Europe and preferences of each member state. 1970s: monetary matters (Italy would join latter) 1990s: - Germany: model of deeper integration called the Kerneuropa bringing together France, Germany and the Benelux countries (but exclusion of Italy problematic) - UK: John Major was in favour of this “pick and choose” or “Europe à la carte” - France: French Prime Minister Balladur proposed “a Europe of concentric circles” - some member states would be part of the inner circle in some policy areas and part of other circles in other policy areas Flexibility: pragmatism but also necessity Schengen Eurozone Freedom, Security and Justice Some members are not part of Schengen (criteria), Eurozone (some member states don’t want it, it is a political decision). Establishment of EPPO = European Public Prosecutor Office. 2017 – Jean-Claude Juncker: 5 ways to continue this process of integration. There are graduations in this proposal. White Paper on the future of Europe: Avenues for unity for the EU at 27 1. "carrying on": which represents the status quo 2. "nothing but the single market" : recentring on the single market considering that the 27 are not able to find common ground on other areas 3. "those who want more do more": the multi-speed Europe Coalitions of willingness to emerge → Treaty of Amsterdam 4. "doing less more efficiently": Deliver more and faster in a selected number of areas 5. "doing much more together”: Member States decide to share more power, resources and decision-making across the board. Decisions are agreed faster at European level and rapidly enforced 2017 was a decade of crises so this paper was received with more or less enthusiasm. Towards a multi-speed Europe? little appetite for “doing much more together” - France, Germany but also Spain and Italy expressed their interests in favour of a multi-speed Europe. - Mark Rutte declared: the “ever closer union” principle behind the EU’s integration process was “buried and gone”. - Eastern European member states against. We talk about them as a block but there are variations. 5. Candidates and prospectives A new dynamic for enlargement (why is the EU willing to enlarge?) 1. European Council: defends the interests of the States 2. European Commission: defends the interests of the EU  3. Parlement: defends the interests of the citizens Expansion used to be interesting regarding the market but today, new interests and new factors exist. Expansion today is more of a rational and a geo-strategic choice. It is beneficial to the Union because the enlargement would strengthen the EU strategic autonomy. 2003: European Council Thessaloniki confirmed the EU membership ambition of the Balkan countries - 2004: Slovenia - 2013: Croatia - “enlargement fatigue” 2014: President Juncker (Commission) - “no prospect for any enlargement during its term” 2022: Russian’s war of aggression in Ukraine + Russian & China influence - “the EU’s most powerful foreign policy tool” - President von der Leyen - enlargement at the core of the agenda of the Commission. The enlargement is a geo-strategic investment that would strengthen the autonomy of the Union. France & Germany Common ground on further enlargement Divergence on how to respond to the war (see compulsory reading) Enlargement is a long process enrolling diverse countries. Albania: it took 9 years for Albania to join the EU because of technical aspects, political considerations and an alignment was necessary between the country and the Union. North Macedonia: tensions between the country and 2 other MS: - Greece because of the name of the country. - Bulgaria wanted North Macedonia to recognize the existence of Bulgarian citizens living in North Macedonia. How to go beyond the Bulgarian veto? During the French presidency a compromise was found: N.M. would change its constitution in order to recognize Bulgarian minority in the country. Before joining the EU, member states that have tensions must pacify. There is a treaty between N.M. and Bulgaria to put and, end to the hate between the 2 countries. Eurobarometer: section of citizens changes vis-à-vis of the enlargement. Countries in favour of an enlargement: countries on the border: Lithuania, Poland, Ireland, Croatia, Spain Countries no in favour: Cyprus, Austria, Rep Cheque. Turky – application in 1987 We can see that: - 2004: pro-European wave, Europeanization of the country, tries to implement criteria, etc. - 2016: coup d’état  - Today: no discussion, no progress but there are debates about the benefits and the risks about this country joining the EU. For instance, the NL referendum was not validated. o Benefits of Turky joining: ▪ huge market, ▪ demographic argument as its population is young while EU’s population grow older, ▪ location as its location would strengthen EU’s relations with the Middle East o Perceived risks: ▪ Size of the country ▪ Diversity of the country ▪ Gap between the development of this country and other member states ▪ Union will have a border with countries in conflict ▪ Tensions with Cyprus (because of the division of the country) 6. Why is the EU enlarging? See Ursula von der Leyen. Political guidelines. 2024-29 - Geostrategic rivalries - Enlargement as a “moral, political and geopolitical imperative” - Enlargement to reduce dependencies & give the EU greater geopolitical weight - Merit-based process Theories of European integration Theory - an abstract and simplified representation of the world - an explanation of the relationships that exist between several concepts/phenomena Concept - an abstraction that represents an idea; - ‘an abstract construction that aims to account for reality’. - a tool for organising reality and research; EX: Europeanization Integration - the process of EEC/EC/EU construction and policy-formulation by a wide range of actors—representative of governmental as well as non- governmental entities, of member states as well as of the EU—engaged in decision- making at the EU level. (Schmidt) EU integration Theories of EU integration explain/understand: - Establishment of the communities and their evolution - Creation of institutions - Emergence of policies - Power relations between institutions - Interest representation… - Attitudes towards EU - Dynamics Explaining European integration. Do we need a new grammar? Theories of IR - Why do states cooperate? - Why do they accept to voluntarily transfer their powers to supranational institutions? - How to explain integration? Theories of political science - Who is in charge of the EU? - Who governs? - Who controls what happens? Theories of comparative politics - Is the EU a federation? - What kind of federalism? EU studies - New concepts - Concepts borrowed from other fields 1. Liberal Intergovernmentalism. And its critics Questions : - Why would states allow competences to be shifted out of their own hands to supranational institutions? - How to explain the willingness of countries to join to EU? (lecture) - Why do we see more integration in some areas than in others? Stanley Hoffman : - Member states determine the pace of integration - This process reflects domestic preferences and interests Andrew Moravcsik: - The EC is a unique institution, but it does not require a sui generis theory - member states are in full control of EU integration o rational actors o accept the ‘unique institutional structure’ of the EU ‘only insofar as it strengthens, rather than weakens, their control over domestic affairs, permitting them to attain goals otherwise unachievable’ (1993). integration is the result of bargaining among member states Can explain: More or less integration  Dynamic of integration -> new policies Preferences are not fixed: preference can vary from one sector to another and over time LI explains the development of policies In favour of more integration in one area in one period and opposed to more integration in another policy area at the same moment (or in the same area in a different period) (Hix and Hoyland 2011: 16) LI explains the creation of institutions + power delegation: Member States are careful in what they delegate to supranational institutions - agenda-setting powers to the Commission to solve collective problems - legislative power to the EP to improve the legitimacy of the process - adjudication power to the Court of Justice to resolve collective action problems in the implementation of the EU law. EU institutions are not independent actors, they serve the interests of Member States Critics of the liberal intergovernmentalism theory: Pros: - LI explains ‘history decision making” / revision of the treaties / major steps towards integration - remains highly relevant in today’s EU - LI provides a convincing and indispensable analysis of intergovernmental bargaining Cons: - Supranational institutions act as independent actors - The process of preference formation - more complex - LI focus on commercial policies and their actors: producers, consumers, and their interest groups - LI offers a partial explanation of preference formations in times of crises, indeed LI is not strong enough to explain the 3 crises so there are limitations. - Does not take into account endogenous ( = what happens outside) preferences: path dependence and politicization 2. The new intergovernmentalism in the post-Maastricht era Angle of the M.S. it is the post-Maastricht era. New trend: Integration without supranationalization Member States advance the integration process without delegating legislative competences and executive functions to the supranational level Decline of supranational institutions = After Maastricht, M.S. decide to do things together at a supranational level without delegating powers (a it would have done before Maastricht). Who governs? the Council and the European Council drive the integration process the European Council instructs both the Commission and the Council to work towards certain objectives Decisions are taken in a complex day-to-day complex intergovernmental coordination process The supranational method is no longer considered the preferred option when it comes to develop new areas of activity 3. Neo-functionalism Angle of supranational institutions. Questions : - Why states accept the idea of being part of an international or supranational organization? - How Western Europe can move beyond the Nation State? - How do neo-functionalists explain the integration process? - What are the main assumptions? - What are the limitations of neo-functionalism? Integration: ‘the process whereby political actors in several distinct national settings are persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations and political activities toward a new centre’ A social process of shifting loyalties, A political process through political activities at the European level an institution-building process by means of which new supranational institutions had been established (Haas 1968). Transfer of loyalty: elites & civil society & citizens Spill-over = effet « boule de neige » : one policy generates pressure to create a new policy. Functional spill-over Sectoral integration creates pressures for cooperation in another related areas Political spill-over When two policy areas are linked not for functional reasons but for ideological/political reasons to facilitate negotiations among Member States Neo-functionalism : “golden age” in the 1980s & its critics + new revival Developments at the EU level confirmed some of its core assumptions in the 1980s spill-over: a new series of policies confirmed Haas’s argument according to which integration in one field engenders integration in another Role of supranational institutions: The Commission as policy entrepreneur the Commission acted as a supranational institution acting independently from member states and following its own agenda ( * remember examples about Maastricht) The European Court of Justice (ECJ) pro-active ‘audacious’ interpretations of the treaties (Magnette) Civil society Increasing number of interest groups and civil society organizations defending interests in Brussels Abandoned in a context of stagnation and euro-pessimism. - Determinist approach (spill-over; more integration) - The explanation is too linear - Haas’s assumptions do not take into account internal and external dynamics Post-functionalism It is present today in EU studies as a continuation of neo-functionalism. It explains the dynamics in the EU integration but this time, it focuses on domestic politics. It focus on what happens inside the member states. Domestic politics matters  How national electoral politics and citizen discontent affect EU-level decision-making (Hooghe and Marks, 2019). How domestic politics explain crises (i.e. crisis of values in the EU, lack of solidarity in migration) How domestic politics explain disintegration (Brexit) Argument: Integration moves into core areas of state sovereignty and national identity ➔ effects reaching deeply into national economic, financial and welfare policies ➔ it increases the domestic salience of the EU ➔ Parties mobilise public opinion (populist/Eurosceptics) ➔ creates cultural and economic integration losers 1st stage: spill-over process 3rd stage: more visibility for European issues at the domestic level LI vs Post-functionalism? Crises not fully captured by single theories (Schimmelfennig, 2018) The crises are not fully captured by single theories. There are different schools and theories in political science. Eurozone crisis: member states tried to save the Euro = strong interest. LI explains perfectly this crisis. You can make some steps with a theory and complete it with another theory. 4. The new institutionalism This comes from political science. It is a theory which explains reality having institutions as its core. It is called “new institutionalism” because it is a continuation of a theory born in the 80s that developed in the 90s. There is a revival because the institutions are defined in a broader way. The new institutionalism: understating the EU through the lenses of polsci. Centrality of institutions - How are institutions established? - How do institutions shape outcomes? - How do institutions affect the behaviour of individuals? - How do institutions behave? - Why do institutions last (even when ineffective)? - Why and how do institutions change? Assumptions: Institutions influence social actors and processes institutions reflect social forces (1) and produce arenas for interaction (2) EU institutions have their own agenda How to explain institutional change/stability or outcomes in the EU? Rational choice Institutionalism, actors are rational Interest based explanation Historical institutionalism -> Path dependency: The explanatory power of the past = taking the past into account to explain the present Decisions adopted in t0 impact decisions in t1 Example: Used to explain the reform of the CAP Sociological institutionalism -> Learning: a relatively lasting change in behaviour resulting from experience’. = focus on institutions but don’t look at the past no actors but focus on interaction between actors. How does it produce outcomes? Learning how to do things and how the learning has an impact on the outcomes. Example: Used to explain change in the enlargement policy Sociological institutionalism > Socialisation: ‘These are the conscious or unconscious processes by which individuals internalise the social norms of different socialisation bodies, such as the family, school, the media, the workplace, etc. Example: role of diplomats in the formation of preferences of MS Discursive institutionalism – the power of ideas (2008) Here the ideas are more important than the interests or the past. It is not a rejection of institutionalism. Institutional power matters but is it not the only thing that matters, ideas mater as well. Who governs? New intergovernmentalists: member states are in charge intergovernmental deliberation powers of persuasion New supranationalists: supranational actors are in control institutional discretion. powers of ideational innovation New parliamentarists: parliamentary actors are gaining influence ideas and discursive interactions with the other more institutionally powerful actors. The EU as a political regime: formal rules shape the behaviour of actors Not a state in the Weberian sense EU can be studies with the traditional tools of pol science The EU is a political system, with a legislative, executive, and judicial institutions that adopt binding public policies and hence influenced the authoritative allocation of values in European society A system of vertical separation of power Legislative power: shared by the Council and the EP with the Commission as agenda setter Executive power: the Commission, the member states in some areas + agencies Judicial power: CJEU A political regime open to opposition and contestation Classical concepts Opposition (Robert Dahl) Parliamentary opposition Concept applied to the EU  Opposition to policy (soft Euroscepticism) Opposition to polity (hard Euroscepticism) Opposition to the EU rather Opposition opposition within the EU a deficit of policy opposition ? a surplus of polity opposition ? Opposition is used to understand opposition in the Parliament. Contestation (A. Wiener) Contestation is defined as a “social practice [that] entails objection to specific issues that matter to people”; in “international relations, contestation...involves the range of social practices which discursively express disapproval of norms.” Opposition and contestation are 2 values that represent the core of democracy. POLITY = finalité 5. Constructivism Approach that rejects positivism and rationalism claims: idea can be observed with the tools of hard sciences. Constructivists say that reality is more complex. ‘reality is socially constructed’ and reproduced by the ongoing interaction between social agents’. This theory is about the means and not the interests. It is about the perceptions of the interests. EX: 500 missiles from the UK are less dangerous than 5 missiles from North Korea. Key assumptions: the preferences of the actors are the result of ongoing interactions institutions shape not only the behaviour but also the preferences and identities of individuals and member governments = The social environment defines who we are and what we think about the world. Similarities with other theories: Constructivists and neo-functionalists: interested in the formation of preferences, socialisation, the transfer of loyalty and the redefinition of interests that results from the ongoing interaction between actors.  Constructivists and neo-institutionalists: focus on the norms and ideas that shape actors' identities and behaviours The aim is to propose a more complex/sophisticated framework. 6. The deliberative turn Comes from political theories and underlines the importance of interaction in order to take politics decision. Assumptions: European politics is more than strategic interaction in formal institutions Not only bargaining but also arguments and persuasion = power of argumentation. Explains why some actors are more important than others. ‘important political decisions, whether individual or collective, ought to emerge from careful and informed judgement, rather than... capricious choice or unreflected deference to prevailing opinion’ (King 2003: 25). Deliberation does not take place behind closed doors = transparent Deliberation without participation is close to technocratic governance = should be public/transparent Deliberation requires that the exchange of arguments is conducted publicly in full view of those who are ultimately affected by authoritative decisions and that all those who are affected by a decision have a say in what is on the agenda (Neyer 2006) Actors engage in discursive modes of interactions Examples: What are the outcomes of these interactions? How do they shape policies / institutions? Deliberation in the search of the best public policy Citizen panels Committees Conference on the Future of Europe Convention method  7. Multi-level governance Was fashionable in the beginning of the 2000. Comes from the concept of governance. Broad concept Used in different fields Encapsulates the idea of power / State transformation (1970s in Western Europe) = show a process of change in the Nation-States = the power is no longer centralized → involvement of non-state actors in public policies. The role of non-state actors in public policies (UK): participation markets, civil society and individuals are able to spontaneously cooperate and to support governments’ capacity to solve policy problems Policy networks: what is the implication of this process for the State? Bring the state back in or the state is moving out? Pros & cons Participation (= increased legitimacy, consultation) vs Dispersed authority Power is more fluid (= dispersed, who takes responsibility, the States doesn’t shape policy anymore) Used to provide prescriptions in normative terms -- > “good governance”. The opposite of “government” as ““state’s competence to rule through hierarchy Refers to less hierarchical power relations An alternative to “traditional forms of government” Hooghe and Marks (2003) the concept captures the complexity of the EU, its fragmented and pluralistic day-to-day decision-making Decision-making: Involve actors at the national, supranational and regional levels Supranational institutions exercise independent influence on policy processes and outcomes (Commission, Parlement) Subnational institutions exercise significant powers (in many MS)  Collective decision-making involve a loss of sovereignty Political arenas are interconnected rather than nested Stats remain important actors, but they no longer provide the sole interface between supranational and subnational arenas Critics Do supranational / subnational actors really have the power and influence that MLG claim they have? Influence of the Council on the Commission & EP (overemphasize of the subnational power) Subnational actors have little room or potential to make a significant impact Little evidence of subnational actors exercising much of a policy role beyond the sphere of cohesion policy The European Commission The EU’s institutional framework European Parliament comes first because it represent the interests of its citizens, and those of the member states (European Council and Council). All these institutions work on the attribution of power. Each institution acts within the limits of its competences. Principle of attribution of power Loyal cooperation 1. What is the Commission? The college of Commissioners Size and composition Political/admin institution The role of presidents The Spitzenkandidaten procedure The political Commission The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Individual & collective accountability Commissioners: technicians, diplomats, political actors? Decision-making Administration and services Organization How does the Commission work internally The Commission is organised much like a government (Hix & Hoyland 2020) A core executive 26 Commissioners + President The Commission is a very complex institution. The Commission is also a bureaucracy with 32000 workers. A bureaucracy A network of agencies (+50): they have been created to facilitate the job of the commission. They implement some policies; they perform specific tasks. Each member states want to have an agency but it is also important for the Commission to have some representation in other MS. A political & technocratic institution a bureaucracy/administration The EU core executive: Size and composition - Vivid debates about the size of the Commission: number of commissioners increased from 9. Debates when there were 13 commissionners. - Treaty of Lisbon: from 1 November 2014, membership to be equivalent to 2/3 of the number of MS Article 17.4 TEU - ”… unless the European Council, acting unanimously, decides to alter this number” (Article 17(5) TEU). - 2009/European Council: Commission membership - a number of members equal to the number of MS In the 80s: the EP started to approve the appointment of the members of the Commission. Maastricht: the Parliament started to have informal hearings: question to know how well- prepared to do the job. Amsterdam: very empowerment of the power of the Parliament Nomination procedure – Lisbon Treaty – Slight amendments Stage 1: President of the Commission European Council proposes the candidate to the EP Shall take into account the results of the qualified majority If this candidate does not obtain a majority, the European Council, acting by a QM, proposes within a month a new candidate who is elected by the EP according to the same procedure EP: elects the President by a majority of its members Stage 2: Members of the Commission Member states make suggestions of candidates Council: adopts the list of persons: QM + Common accord with the President-elect European Parliament: vote of consent + veto individual candidates (hearings) European Council: Appointment of the Commission The procedures for selecting the Commission a mix of - Parliamentary model: Support of the Commission in the EP - Presidential model: Commission President proposed by the MS govt The EP can only exercise a veto From an apolitical to a political institution: The role of the presidents of the Commission 1958→ 1985 Not only what is written in the treaty that matters but also their ability to perform their duty → influence on the functioning of the union. Hallstein: empty chair crisis so he proposed new resources. Rey: diplomate. At the international level, trade agreements were at stake. Manshold: he was a farmer and a member of the Dutch resistance during the war. That is the reason he wanted to establish (and devoted his European career) the CAP. Jenkins: No support from France and Germany. Presidentialization and politicization since 2014 Delors: 3 times president of the Commission. He was not appointed by the MS because he was not regarded as a strong political leader. He was appointed for his intellectual intelligence. Implementation of the market. Santer: “Doing less but doing better”, he resigned for fraud. Prodi: esteemed in Brussels. He prepared Italy to join the Eurozone. He had a lot of political experience in Italy, but he was less familiar with EU affaires → faux-pas. Administrative reforms of the EU. The Spitzenkandidat process (top candidates/leading candidates): process specific to Germany How to increase participation in EU elections? Turnout declining since 1979 1992: EP resolution: context of Maastricht. It underlines the role of the European politic parties on the nomination of the President of the Commission. The idea was to increase the rate of participation to increase the legitimacy of the EP. The Spitzenkandidat process → lead candidates designated by European political parties as candidates for the Presidency of the Commission Pros Legitimacy Democratization Role of the European political parties Link between the results of the elections & Commission Politicisation increases pressure on politicians to deliver Cons the European Commission’s President is not the EU’s President → confusion give the wrong impression that EU citizens elect ‘the EU President” the Spitzenkandidaten often lack popular recognition EX of the use of this process: a. 2009 - The first elections to follow the new rules - EPP: introduced José Manuel Barroso as lead candidate - No similar candidate nominated by the other political groups ▪ President: Barroso (2nd term) b. 2014 - Jean Claude Juncker – EPP (European People’s Party) - Martin Schultz - S&D  - Guy Verhofstadt - ALDE - Ska Keller and José Bové – Greens - Aléxis Tsipras - European Left - ECR – No candidate - EFD – No candidate ▪ President: Juncker; one of the president of the commission who managed to get 422 votes in the EP (highest number so far) c. 2019: process is in place, followed but after the election, the candidate was a disappointment (Von der Leyen). The turnout increased in the European elections. - Manfred Weber – EPP - Frans Timmermans - S&D - Margrethe Vestager - ALDE - Ska Keller and Bas Eickout – Greens - Violeta Tomic/Nico Cué - European Left - Jan Zahradil – ECR ▪ President: Von der Leyen What happened ? Weber didn’t have the political experience as a minister + France was against this process (Spitzenkandidaten) and the candidate. France supported Von der Leyen. 2 main political groups didn’t get the majority and needed the liberals. What is left of the Spitzenkandidaten process? Conflict Parliament/Council Ambiguous formulations of the Treaties European Council says that the procedure is not laid down/written in the treaties so no obligation to use it. Parliament plays in important role in electing the president of the commission and in organizing the hearings. 2019: vote for Parliament with a narrow majority (9 votes = 374 votes) + support of EPP (own political group), social-democrats (not all of them). 2024: EPP + greens The role of the president and the college of commissioners The President Formal powers Sets the overall policy agenda of the Commission chairs the meetings and is in charge of the Sec Gen Decides the internal organisation Determines the portfolios of commissioners The President Informal powers (not well seen by the MS.) Put pressure on governments to propose more high profile and competent figures / pro- European Can ask a commissioner to resign if he/she proves to be corrupt of incompetent (*discussions in the media about the use of these informal powers) President of the Commission organises the College. Once the resident of the commission is elected, he/starts preparing the college = writing mission letters. Each candidate receives a letter containing the job description, the expectation of what should be delivered within the 5-year practice. High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Double-hatting Vice President of the Commission Chair of the Foreign Affairs Council Art. 18 TEU: appointed by the European Council (QMV) with the agreement of the Commission’s President Art. 27 TEU: contributes to the development of the common foreign and security policy and ensures implementation of the decisions adopted by the European Council and the Council. represents the Union for matters relating to the common foreign and security policy. assisted by a European External Action Service (composed of officials of Commission, Council and Member States) Wide-ranging role interpreted differently by the different High Representatives: Catherine Ashton Federica Mogherini Josep Borrell Kaja Kallas Political Accountability – Selection and Censure of the Commission Personal accountability (Article 245 TFEU) Members of the Commission are required: To be completely independent in the performance of their duties, in the general interest of the Union; they may neither seek nor take instructions from any government or other external body; Not to engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not. Commissioners may be compulsorily retired by the Court of Justice, at the request of the Council or of the Commission itself, if they breach any of the above obligations or have been guilty of serious misconduct (Article 247 TFEU). Collective accountability The Commission is collectively accountable to Parliament under Article 234 TFEU. If Parliament adopts a motion of censure against the Commission, all of its members are required to resign, including the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy as far as his or her duties in the Commission are concerned. Example: Several attempts, none has been carried Santer Commission: 1999 allegations of financial mismanagement, nepotism and cover-up → no vote Even if the vote was never taken, we can say that the EP censored the Commission Decision-making in the College Weekly meeting: Wednesday chaired by the President All Commissioners must adopt all acts in the college Oral procedure Written procedure Majority voting  simple majority of commissioners President deciding in the event of a tie Abstention & absences = negative votes Vote by showing hands votes almost never take place decisions are taken by consensus Even if a commissioner is against = collective responsibility: all commissioners are equal Meetings are confidential Coordination role of the cabinets The principle of collegiality: All Commissioners are equal and carry together responsibility for their decisions A political & technocratic institution (a bureaucracy/administration) Member states: 300 civil servants per 10.000 inhabitants EU: 0,8 per 10.000 for all EU institutions The Commission’s administration 30+ policy departments (directorates-general) develop, manage and implement EU policy, law and funding Each Commissioner in charge of one or several departments Secretariat General Vertical coordination between cabinets and services Horizontal coordination between services Legal Service Provides legal advice on the form and the content of any act adopted by the Commission. Represents the Commission in all legal proceedings (CJEU)  a bureaucracy (Directorate generals) undertaking legislative drafting, administrative and regulatory tasks How does the Commission work internally? A hierarchical structure SERVICES Drafting of the act in the services Coordination with competent cabinet Political guidelines from the cabinets but technical expertise in the services Interservice consultation Public consultation Impact assessment COLLEGE Commissioner in charge involved at an early stage President’s cabinet always informed Often back and forth between the Commissioner cabinet and the DG Involvement of cabinets with an interest Many meetings to prepare the college meetings Final adoption of act in college  2. Powers The Commission… Shall promote the general interest of the EU Legislative functions - Takes appropriate initiatives - Initiates legislation and arbitrates between co-legislators - Proposes policy ideas for the development of the EU (agenda setting powers) Executive functions - Executes the budget - Responsible for implementing the revenue and expenditure of the budget in accordance with the Treaties. - Manages programmes Representation functions - Ensures EU’s representation (with the exception of the CFSP) Enforcement functions - Ensures the application of the treaties - Obverses the application of EU law under the control of the Court of Justice Legislative functions - Power of initiative the Commission has a monopoly on the initiative in EU law-making "Union legislative acts may only be adopted on the basis of a Commission proposal, except where the Treaties provide otherwise. Other acts shall be adopted on the basis of a Commission proposal where Treaties so provide (Article 17(2)TEU). Full initiative Legislative initiative The Commission draws up and submits to the Council and Parliament any legislative proposals Budgetary initiative The Commission draws up the draft budget (Article 314 TFEU) Relations with non-member countries The Commission (under mandate from the Council) is responsible for negotiating international agreements (Article 207 and 218) Limited initiative (power of recommendation/opinion) EMU The Commission submits recommendations CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy) many competences have been transferred from the Commission to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and her European External Action Service (EEAS). Chance that most of the cases are resolved before going to the Court of Justice. 3. Key controversies 1. Is the European Commission in decline? A weak monopole of initiative? 2. Independent or obedient? 3. The political Commission Is the European Commission in decline ? (Nugent & Rhinard 2017) New intergovernmentalism Since 2010, decline of the Commission with the arriving of new institutions that set the agenda of the EU. The commission is less proactive. Lack of leadership / the Commission has become “reactive”— - To crises - To various interests - To instructions from the European Council & the Council The Commission has not become a weaker institutional actor (Nugent & Rhinard 2017). The power of the institutions changes: 1) Agenda setter function 2) Legislative function 3) Executive function A “weak” monopole of initiative ? Some context We witness a difference in numbers. Something is changing. The Commission takes 100 initiatives per year, but we witnessed about 23 proposals last year. What does that mean? It means: The fact that the Single Market is pretty much achieved nowadays is one xplanation. The Commission perpetuates public policies more than it creates new ones (less legislative proposals) Since Prodi, the Commission is very cautious and consults member states before making a move Independent or “obedient”? Dual leadership = subordinated to the European Council The president of the Commission = Member of the European Council Commission president leadership occurs in a supranational & intergovernmental arena Different types of leadership: transformative vs transactional (Tommel 2013) two was to lead the commission: Transformative: president with a vision that will engender changes, treaty change Transactional: day to day politics, less ambitious, adopting legislation as described in the treaties. José Manuel Barroso – closer relationship between the Commission & the European Council; « partisan » Commission → president during the Eurozone crisis. It was said that he was a Commission Partisan. Jean-Claude Juncker - political Commission Ursula von der Leyen – geopolitical Commission The Commission does not propose legislations based on its own interests. Some specific policies have been developed based on propositions coming from member states. The Agent of member states ✓ Initiate legislative process on demand : letters from member states to ask the president of the commission to do something. ✓ Make it easier for government to find an agreement ✓ Arguments of efficiency and credibility ✓ Risk of failure and isolation if the Commission goes far beyond what MS will accept (Ross and Jenson 2017) “Power of the pen” = the ideas come from different actors, but the Commission holds the pen An Actor autonomous from MSs ✓ Sole power of legislative initiative ✓ Cultivated spill over: involving domestic interests at EU level, convert national interests into EU interests ✓ Use of technical experts to put pressure on national governments Difficult to use one single theory to account for the leadership of the Commission A political Commission? (see also reading) Political commission: the commission was created as an apolitical, independent institution. The Commission becomes political. It was never technocratic, but we talk more and more as a political commission. It will govern on the basis of a program. A political commission does not mean that the Commission is against the states. Jean-Claude Juncker - 18 years of political experience Program => Agenda setting power of the Commission Priorities => Decisions The role of the Commission in the political system -> Relationship with other institutions Juncker & Tusk (President of the European Council) Juncker & regular meetings with the presidents of the groups in the EP Organisation => Internal organisation of the Commission & roles of the Commissioners (letters) Example of decisions?  Excessive deficits & EU funds suspended 2015: Portugal and Spain 2016: France to allow more time to address deficit Migration (quota system) Decision to activate Article 7 TEU against Poland. Difficult decision. Poland has a new government and new measures are taken. Dialogue, discussion, search of compromise between the commission and the polish authorities but after 2 years we see no results. Then the Commission active the Article 7 against Poland. Article 7 TEU: suspension of certain rights including the voting right of the member state in the council when there is a breach of the values cited in article 2. ➔ The “political Commission” - A positive development as seen by the staff (see Kassim & Laffan p. 58) The European Parliament Role: represent the citizens, pass/initiate legislations and control the executive. The parlement provides a public space for discussion, political debates. Structure 1. The gradual empowerment of the EP: consolidation of the power of the Parliamnent From a ‘talking shop’ to a powerful institution? Treaties revisions & institutional empowerment strategies (informal changes: changes based on practices. EX: hearings) 2. Dynamics/powers inside the EP Composition, coalitions and alliances, organization 3.Key controversies & academic/political debates ECSC: the Common Assembly EEC (European Economic Community): the European Parliamentary Assembly 142 members MEPs initially appointed by the NP ➔ Dual mandate  the members of the assembly chose to sit by political orientation rather than by nationality The first meeting of the “European Parliamentary Assembly”: - 19 March 1958 in Strasbourg - President Robert Schuman (1958-1960). The European Parliament – organisation – former Presidents Luxembourg had no presidential representative. The EP’s empowerment : from consultation to codecision/OLP (through the treaties) Rome : at that moment the parliament had the role to deliberate and to discuss advisory role Consultation: the Commission proposes, and the Council adopts legislation + EP is consulted. Parlement did not have too much power.  No confidence vote vis-à-vis the High Authority Luxemburg – 1970 Budgetary powers : budget proposed by the commission and must be discussed by the Council and the EP. Brussels - 1975 Budgetary powers Single European Act Cooperation procedure: Commission proposes, Council and EP are involved but it gave a stronger role to the council. (1/3 of the legislation – market, regional spending, environment) = involving ore and ore the parliament in the decision-making process. Assent of the EP before the Council approves enlargement and association agreements = assent means that the EP doesn’t have the power to change what is discussed but it can approve or reject. Maastricht Co-decision EP & Council – co-legislators Cooperation extended to new areas Assent extended to new areas - the electoral procedure Right of initiative -> right to ask the Commission to submit proposals Amsterdam Co-decision extended to more areas Assent - > Article 7 TEU (respect of the common values) Lisbon Co - decision => Ordinary legislative procedure (OLP) Assent is replaced by CONSENT procedure Budgetary powers Treaty revision: EP can take the initiative Mosaïque of forms of power as the power is not uniform. Powers inside the EP: MEPs Political groups prior to the direct elections of the EP 1953: 3 groups - Christian Democrats, Socialists, Liberals 1965 a fourth, new group : the European Democratic Union, following the separation of the French Gaullists from the Liberals 1973: the British Conservative Party formed a new group: the European Conservative Group. A communist group was established In 1975, the Socialist Group became the largest in number. Before the first elections by direct universal suffrage (1979), there were six groups: - Socialists, - Christian Democrats, - Liberals, - European Progressive Democrats, - European Conservatives, - Communists. From appointed Assembly to elected MEPs EEC Treaty: “The Assembly shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage…” “ The Council shall, acting unanimously, lay down the appropriate provisions, which it shall recommend to Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements” 1960: EP approved such proposals Summit conference in Paris (9 and 10 December 1974): Direct elections ‘should take place in or after 1978’ ➔ we witness a delay of 14 years (1960-1974) 1975: Parliament adopted a new draft convention, on the basis of which the Heads of State or Government reached agreement at their meeting of 12 and 13 July 1976.  The Decision and Act concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage were signed in Brussels on 20 September 1976. ➔ ratification by all Member States ➔ the act entered into force in July 1978 ➔ the first elections took place on 7 and 10 June 1979. Maastricht: elections must be taking with a uniform procedure. EP proposed it but the Council was unable to agree with the proposition of the EP. 2002: instead of adopting a uniform procedure, the EP and the Council adopted common principles that MS have to respect. → diversity in the organisation of the elections of the EP. The first direct elections to the European Parliament: 7 and 10 June 1979. The resulting Parliament met for the first time in July 1979, under its President, Simone Veil. The European Parliament – Political groups after 1979 Political groups – central mechanisms for structuring debates & coalitions Graph: you need 25 members in order to create a group. From 1979 to 2019: for several terms of the EP: the EPP and the social democrats were together able to have a majority. Simple majority: number of yes > number of no Absolute majority: half +1 Coalition formations “grand coalition” of the EPP and S&D, often with the centrist Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (ALDE) joining these two parties in a “super grand coalition” a “full left coalition” of S&D, ALDE, and the two groups to the left of the socialists, the Greens/European Free Alliance (G/EFA) and the radical left European United Left–Nordic Green Left (EUL-NGL) “a full right coalition” of EPP, and the main group to the right of the EPP, ECR, ID… How do they vote in the EP? 2 main lines of conflict. The groups position themselves: - left/right - pro/against EU integration Research show that groups are created by representative of social parties. There is a strong tendency in the EP of cohesion. Number of MEPs 142 198 (1st enlargement) 518 (2nd enlargement) 567 (after German reunification) 732 (Treaty of Nice) 785 (Romania + Bulgaria) 736 (2009 elections) 751 (Lisbon Treaty) 766 (Croatia) 720 (2024-2029) How many national political parties? > 200 from the member states. Second order elections (Reif & Schmitt 1980) What does it mean? Turnout in European Elections since 1979 There is a paradoxical trend: - empowerment of the EP = a very important institution in the EU political system - turnout in the EU election has decreased Hypothèses : - Participation to EP election is 20% less than in national elections - Governing parties will lose when they participate - Large parties perform worst, and small parties are privileged. What does it mean ? - EU election is seen as less important than national elections. - For EU elections, citizens vote less strategically for small parties. - Trend to sanction government when voting for EU elections. Lack of interest because : - EU are not about European issues but more about national issues. - In EU elections, the power of national parties is stronger than EU parties. The selection process does not take in consideration the performances but the national interests. The number of groups has increased overtime. The European Parliament – organisation – the President The President of Parliament (Rule 22) is elected for a renewable term of two and a half years (Rule19) from among the Members of Parliament. ▪ represents the institution vis-à-vis the outside world and in its relations with the other EU institutions. ▪ oversees the debates in plenary and ensures that Parliament’s Rules of Procedure are adhered to. ▪ At the beginning of every European Council meeting, the President of the European Parliament sets out Parliament’s point of view and its concerns as regards the items on the agenda and other subjects. ▪ After the European Union’s budget has been adopted by Parliament, the President signs it ▪ The Presidents of both Parliament and the Council sign all legislative acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure. ▪ The President can be replaced by one of the 14 Vice-Presidents (Rule 23). ▪ + 14 vice presidents whose main responsibility is to chair the plenary sessions The European Parliament – organisation – former Presidents The European Parliament – organisation – Political bodies Senior offices in the EP the Bureau the President and 14 Vice-Presidents internal organization and admin matters the Conference of Presidents the President and the political group chairs/presidents political issues/interinstitutional relations the five Quaestors: responsible for Members’ administrative and financial business the Conference of Committee Chairs: the agenda of EP’s committees the Conference of Delegation Chairs: the agenda of EP’s delegations The European Parliament – organisation – Committees 20 committees + 4 subcommittees They inform legislative proposals through the adoption of reports, propose amendments to Plenary and appoint a negotiation team to conduct negotiations with the Council on EU legislation. They also adopt own-initiative reports, organize hearings with experts and scrutinize the other EU bodies and institutions. Rapporteurs have been widely recognized as influential agents within EP. Rapporteur will draft the position of the Committee on a special issue. The European Parliament – organisation Blue - political groups MEPs meet with other members from their political group. During the political groups’ meeting, MEPs discuss their positions on proposed legislation, to be debated and voted on during plenary. They scrutinise reports from Parliamentary committees, table amendments and agree on a group position. Turquoise – work outside the Parliament MEPs undertake activities outside the Parliament. They work either in their constituency in their home country, where they have the opportunity to interact with their electorate, or in Parliamentary delegations, responsible for maintaining relations with non-EU countries Pink –committee meetings Each MEP works in one or more parliamentary committees, dedicated to a particular area of European policy, ranging from foreign affairs to economic issues, equality, education and culture. Red – plenary sessions in Strasbourg and in Brussels. MEPs debate important issues, take significant decisions through votes by adopting, amending, or rejecting legislation. 12 plenary sessions (apart from August/ one extra for the budget) Discussion of reports from committees Urgent issues Statements by the Commission / Council Questions time 6 mini plenaries The European Parliament – seat of the institution – political/aca debates The seat of the institutions is to be determined by common accord of the governments of the Member States 1952 : Luxembourg: High Authority + Special Council of Ministers + the ECSC Court of Justice Strasbourg: Common Assembly (in the premisses of the plenary of the Council of Europe) but also sessions in LU 1958: Brussels: the activity of the Commission & Council On 23 June 1958, the Assembly nominated candidate cities which might become the seat of the institutions. The three cities at the end of the first ballot were Brussels, Strasbourg and Milan. The Assembly asked the governments to take a decision as quickly as possible. Merger Treaty of 8 April 1965 Luxembourg, Brussels and Strasbourg were confirmed as temporary seats of the institutions. The Parliament divided ➔ Brussels vs Strasbourg 1992: decision - Plenary sessions in Strasbourg - Parliamentary committees in Brussels - Staff of the EP based in Luxembourg Change? Revision of the treaties & unanimity The Council Council: Already foreseen from the 1st treaties as they put the legal basis of the council. It is an old institution. 50s: they see the role of the council decline and the role of the commission would rise. Member states would come to trust each other. It shapes policy in EU institutions and national government. European council: not foreseen by the treaties. It is an institution that developed informally at the end of the 60s and beginning of the 70s. It emerges to fill in a political void, a lack of leadership. In the 60s there is a high authority of the commission, weak authority of the parlement and the council so there is a lack of leadership. It was an idea of Pompidou in 69 and was later developed by France and Germany. The Council – Composition – the ministers Article 16 TEU: The Council shall consist of representatives of each Member States at ministerial level, Who may commit the government of the Member State in question and cast its vote = they take responsibility/decisions. The room of the council is big as each delegation can bring 5 members supporting the lead representative in the council. The role of the others is to make sure that the representative understands the matters and supports the representative. SO 1+5 but also topics (and the president of the council announce it in advance): 1+2, 1+1 or ministers and the commission. The Council - a single legal entity - it meets in 10 different 'configurations’ - No hierarchy but some are more important than others (GAC) Around 70 meetings per year Where? Brussels (most of it in Bxl) and Luxembourg: - April - June - October Important configurations: General Affairs Council (GAC): bring together ministers of European affairs. They discuss the most important and sensitive political issues. Foreign affairs – chaired by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy: external trade, development, cooperation, etc. Economic and financial affairs = ECOFIN (economic and fiscal policy coordination; budget) Sectoral committees: They have meetings Agriculture and fisheries (CAP, Common fisheries policy, food safety) Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) (External border control, visas, asylum, police cooperation, judicial cooperation) Employment, social policy, health and consumer affairs (Employment, working conditions, public health, consumer protection Competitiveness (internal market, industry, research) Transport, telecommunications and energy  Environment (environment and sustainable development) Education, youth and culture (education, vocational training, cultural protection) The Eurogroup The Eurogroup is an informal body that brings together: the ministers of the euro area member states discuss matters relating to their shared responsibilities related to the euro. Established in 1997. First meeting 1998. Aims: to ensure close coordination of economic policies among the euro area member states. to promote conditions for stronger economic growth. The role of the president: chairs Eurogroup meetings sets agendas represents the Eurogroup in international fora (e.g. G7) informs the European Parliament about the priorities of the Eurogroup presents the outcomes of Eurogroup discussions to the public and to the ministers of non-euro area EU countries Former presidents of the Eurogroup 2004: The Eurogroup decides to have a permanent president, appointed for a period of two years. Jean-Claude Juncker: 2005 - 2013. reappointed in 2006. Thomas Wieser: appointed in 2012 Jeroen Dijsselbloem: 2013 - 2018 Mario Centeno: 2018- 2020 Paschal Donohoe (2020- The Council – Council’s preparatory bodies – the diplomats In Brussels, each member state has a permanent representation. The work of the ministers is prepared by the diplomats. Article 16.7 A Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) of the Governments of the Member States shall be responsible for preparing the work of the Council = must prepare the work of the council. COREPER is the Council's main preparatory body. ▪ COREPER II: permanent representatives ▪ deals with mainly political issues. The work of Coreper II is prepared by the 'Antici Group’. ▪ COREPER I: deputy permanent representatives ▪ deals with more technical issues. The work is prepared by the Mertens Group ▪ 85 per cent of issues are already resolved by the time they reach the Council. COREPER II prepares the work of 4 Council configurations: economic and financial affairs foreign affairs general affairs justice and home affairs COREPER I prepares the work of 6 Council configurations: agriculture and fisheries competitiveness education, youth, culture and sport employment, social policy, health and consumer affairs environment transport, telecommunications and energy We can summarise