Samenvatting European Union Politics.
Michelle Cini 5e druk.
Hoorcollege 1: History of the EU; foundations & treaties.
Hoofdstuk 1: Introduction
Understanding the EU from an historical perspective means stepping back to the post-1945 era.
The European integration process was initiated in the 1950s largely as a consequence of the
negative experiences of the six founding member states during and in the immediate aftermath of
WWII.
The ambition to prevent a repeat of two world wars went hand-in-hand with a general
awareness that Europe had to get back on its feet economically. Inter-state cooperation was
considered an essential step. Fundamental was the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the
German economy. Ultimately the two contradictory objectives of peace and economic recovery
were viewed mutually reinforcing. European integration was the instrument that allowed this
change of perspective to occur.
The EU will continue to exist in this form or another. The EU is as much a product of the
new world order as it is an actor seeking to manage change, or an arena in which other actors
attempt to perform a similar function. The EU is not just about security, it also concerns welfare-
related issues. Normative: the state ought to take responsibility for the well-being of its citizens.
Original: the welfare state was a European construct, so the EU has had ambitions in this
direction.
What is the European Union?
The EU is a family of liberal-democratic states, acting collectively through an institutionalized
system of decision-making. When joining the EU members sign up to the EU treaties, legislation
and norms, but also common values based on democracy, human rights and principles of social
justice. The common institutions of the EU:
- The Commission
- The Parliament
- Council
- Court
- European Council: comprising the EU’s governments and support staff
- European Central Bank: unique body which enjoys a high degree of independence in
determining the Eurozone’s’ monetary policy.
Are the most visible characteristics of the EU. They’re highly interdependent. The EU council
and Parliament are considered as a co-legislature.
Who can join?
From the beginning of the project, the European Community (EC) was open to new members. In
1993 the Copenhagen European Council agreed that countries had to meet political and
economic criteria:
- Working market economies
- Liberal democracies
- Able to take on board the acquis communautaire (Gemeenschapsrecht van de EU).
The EU’s enlargement experience to date is often heralded as one of the great achievements of
the European integration project. Enlargement fatigue and democratic backsliding in some of the
newer member states challenges the EU’s transformative power.
,Hoofdstuk 2: The European Union: establishment and development.
The roots of the integration process trace back to the early years of European cooperation in the
1940s, in particular the efforts of ‘the Six’:
1. Belgium
2. France
3. (West)Germany
4. Italy
5. Luxembourg
6. The Netherlands
In the 1950s they try to establish new forms of supranational integration in a concerted effort to
promote peaceful reconciliation and coexistence, economic growth and security.
Integration and cooperation in Europe: ambitions, tensions and divisions.
The EU owes its existence to the process of European integration that has been a defining feature
of post-WWII Europe.
1920-1930s: various proposals for federal or pan-European Union.
Not all governments warmed to the idea of integration, the appetite to pursue the ambitious goal
of a United Europe was far from universal. Post-war economic recovery was a far more pressing
concern than the pursuit of political integration. Initial steps in promoting economic integration
had been taken in april 1948 with the establishment of the Organization for European Economic
Cooperation. In 1949 the Council of Europe was established. Both organization had a lot of
members, but the goals were limited to achieve. They were unwieldy, relying on unanimity for
taking decisions, their intergovernmental nature conferring on each member state a veto.
Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries responded positively at the Schuman proposal
and this would lead to negotiations in Paris and with the Treaty of Paris to the establishment of
the European Coal and Steal community (ECSC). This successful negotiation encouraged ideas
of pursuing sectoral integration in other areas. The EDC and EPC neither came into being,
because the French parliament failed to ratify the treaty establishing the EDC. With that fell the
plans for the EPC. A new organization emerged, the Western European Union.
Drawing on the model of the ECSC, the Six committed themselves not only to the
establishment of a customs union, but also to the adoption of common commercial, agricultural
and transport policies and the establishment of a common market with common rules governing
competition. The EEC would also involve the free movement of workers and capital, certain
social policy activities and an investment bank. The OECC collaborations about European free
trade collapsed. Western Europe was effectively split in trading terms between an ‘Inner Six’ and
the rest. In 1960 there came the EFTA, which created a division of Western Europe into two
trade blocs.
The Communities:
1. The EAEC
2. The EEC
3. The ECSC
,The Communities and a Europe of ‘The Six’.
The establishment of the EEC and the EAEC in 1958 opened a new era of integration among ‘the
Six’. The EEC had to cut tariffs and remove quotas if the customs union was achieved by the
target data. Common rules governing the common market had to be adopted, and relations,
particularly regarding trade, regulated with non-members and overseas territories. The
predominantly economic focus of activities could not hide the fact that the Communities were
part of a political process and far from being the limit of integrationists’ ambitions. The Six were
not joined by others. Other, often independent states, were wary about the perceived and actual
‘loss’ of sovereignty that membership of supranational entity entailed.
The early years of the EEC & EAEC demonstrated that integration was possible, at least
between the six. In 1961 the UK applied for membership to the Communities. This lead to
negotiations and French president Charles de Gaulle vetoed against the UK. In 1961 De Gaulle
proposed the Fouchet plan.
The 1970’s were a good time for integration plans. There were a lot of innovations, but
also setbacks. Governments in Europe generally reacted to the economic crisis by pursuing
national as opposed to coordinated European responses. With governments’ attention firmly on
trying to mitigate the effect of economic recession and high unemployment period of
‘Eurosclerosis’. Nevertheless efforts were made to sustain and deepen integration. The
Tindemans report was published and the EMS was established. The membership of the
Communities had become more diverse with more interests having to be accommodated:
countries that were economically less developed than the Six stretched the Communities finances
and undermining deeper integration.
Establishing the European Union.
Developments in the 1980s proved to be a turning point in the history of the Communities. The
committent to European Union had not fallen victim to the Eurosclerosis and Europessismism of
the 1970s. Pressures for integration spilled over from the efforts to establish the free movement
of goods, services, capital and people by the Single Market Project in 1984-85. If the project
were to be implemented, decision-making needed to be relieved of the veto threat. Necessary
treaty changes were soon negotiated in an intergovernmental conference (IGC). The result was
the Single European Act (SEA).
The Single European Act.
The member states agreed some significant amendments to the Treaty of Rome. The SEA was
not simply about Single Market-oriented reforms, but an attempts, genuine as far as most
member states were concerned, to realize their desire to transform their relations into a European
Union. The SEA introduced a range of new competences, established a deadline for the
completion of the internal market and facilitated the adoption of harmonized legislation to
achieve this. It expanded the decision-making role of the EP through the introduction of
- a cooperation procedure to cover mainly internal market issues, and
- the assent procedure governing association agreements and accession.
The SEA also extended the use of qualified majority voting in the Council. Also it established a
Court of First Instance to assist the European Court of Justice in its work.
,The Treaty on European Union.
The Maastricht Treaty was designed to expand the scope of European integration, to reform the
EC’s institutions and decision-making procedures, and to bring about EMU. Also it brought
together the EEC, ECSC and the EAEC as part of an entirely new entity, the European Union. It
comprised not only their supranational activities, but also intergovernmental cooperation on a
common foreign and security policy matters (CFSP) and justice and home affairs (JHA). This
mix of supranational integration and intergovernmental cooperation lacked a political and legal
entity with a coherent an uniform structure. The EU was now based on three pillars:
,Hoofdstuk 3: From the constitutional Treaty to the Treaty of Lisbon and beyond.
Vragen:
1. Why did the EU establish a Convention on the Future of Europe in 2000?
Because of the weaknesses of the Treaty of Nice the EU agreed upon the need for further EU
reform. The Future of Europe debate grew out of an awareness of the Treaty of Nice’s own
weaknesses:
- The existing proliferation of treaties
- Pressures from the German Länder for a clarification of their rights vis-à-vis the EU
- Elite desires for making the EU more democratic and effective through a process of
constitutionalization.
In the Treaty of Nice the member states called for ‘a deeper and wider debate about the future of
the European Union’.
2. Why was the Constitutional Treaty rejected in France and the Netherlands?
The CT itself was only one of the reasons for the no-votes in France and the Netherlands. In the
Netherlands the majority voted no for reasons associated with the text and its reforms:
- The text was problematic and as a complicated compromise document, it was hard to sell.
- The issues adressesd were poorly appreciated, making room for other concerns.
The no-votes and worries in France were essentially national and social, seeing the EU as
becoming too liberal.
Popular rejection of the CT was a part of a broader malaise that had at its roots a general
dissatisfaction with national governments and a basic alienation from the EU.
3. Why did the member states decide to continue with the reform process after 2000?
Because the Treaty of Nice was never seen as the ending product of the integration process of th
European Union.
4. How does the Treaty of Lisbon compare with the Constitutional Treaty?
The Treaty of Lisbon was an amending treaty, in comparison to the CT it did not replace existing
treaties. Five of the Protocols were originally part of the CT, now inserted in the Treaty of
Lisbon:
- Covering the role of national parliaments
- Subsidiarity and proportionality
- Eurogroup
- Permanent structured cooperation
- EU’s planned accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
The Treaty of Lisbon reformed the TEU and the TFEU. The reshaping of the TEU resulted in a
treaty that provided an outline of purpose and structure of the EU, notable in terms of aims,
objectives, principles and institutions. It now includes a great deal of detail on enhanced
cooperation and, on extern action.
Together the TEU and TFEU provide for a simplified and somewhat more efficient EU.
Key changes:
Treaty of Lisbon brought matters into line with common practice. The Community
disappeared and the EU become the sole structure of integration.
Treaty of Lisbon made clear that the EU is a bode based on powers conferred by the
member states, enshrined in the treaties and subject to proportionality and subsidiarity.
, EU policies were not greatly expanded by Lisbon. The rules on justice and home affairs
(JHA) were now governed by normal EU procedures, and not subject to special, largely
intergovernmental procedures.
Treaty of Lisbon renamed co-decision the ordinary legislative procedure.
The Treaty introduced significant changes to institutional arrangements.
A new emphasis on values and rights. Values were expanded and given more prominence,
while rights were given a dual boost.
The Treaty tried to make the EU more democratic
5. What enabled the Irish government to commit to, and win, a second referendum in 2009?
A lot of the no-voters in Ireland did so because of the ‘loss’ of guarantee that there would be an
Irish Commissioner, the perceived threat to neutrality and the threat to the Irish ban on abortion.
Clarifying the Treaty of Lisbon’s position on these issues was a key focus of the government’s
strategy for holding a second referendum. During 2008-09 Ireland secured agreement from the
other member states that the size of the Commission would not be reduced, allowing Ireland to
keep its Commissioner.
6. To what extent have the reforms introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon been successfully
implemented?
The implementation of the Lisbon Treaty occurred against the background of the economic
crisis. The immediate impact of the Treaty was rather mute beyond the institutional
appointments. The voice of citizens and national parliaments was enhanced by the Treaty. Few
citizens’ initiatives have impacted on EU legislation and national parliaments have faced
considerable logistical challenges in securing coordinated responses. All this, while well-
intentioned, has done little to address the EU’s democratic deficit and bring the EU closer to its
citizens.
7. What is the significance of the post Lisbon Treaty changes for the future of the EU and of
European integration?
8. What are the prospects for a new major round of treaty reform in the EU?
After the Treaty entered into force, EU leaders appeared agear to call time on more than 20 years
of discussion about institutional reform and treaty change. EU leaders declared that the new
Treaty provided the EU with a stable and lasting institutional framework. The mood was that the
days of treaty reform were now over.
The treaty offered two generally applicable simplified revision procedures. In the period after
the Treaty of Lisbon, small, ad hoc changes were made. Significant treaty reform appear to have
disappeared from the EU’s agenda. There have not been formal calls for a new round of major
reforms. But, EU leaders have been aware of the EU’s limited capacity to respond effectively.
There are some calls for treaty reforms to provide the EU with necessary competences and
improve the institutional framework for economic governance.
,The future of Europe debate and the European Convention.
Key points:
The Treaty of Nice’s weaknesses explain the agreement of the need for further EU
reform.
The Laeken Declaration provided the parameters for the next stage of treaty reform.
The European Convention attempted to be both more open and more innovative than a
typical intergovernmental conference.
The Convention failed to attract popular attention and was perceived as an elite-driven
process.
The 2004 IGC and the Constitutional Treaty.
Key points:
The IGC took two attempts to produce a slightly amended text.
The Constitutional Treaty was designed to replace all the existing treaties and become the
single constitutional document of the EU.
The CT attempted to establish a streamlined and more democratic EU.
The constitutional dimension of the treaty proved to be highly controversial.
The ‘no’ votes: crisis and reflection.
Key points:
The CT could have entered into force only if it had been ratified by all members states.
‘No’ votes in the French and Dutch referenda reflected a range of concerns, not all of
which were connected with the CT, together with a failure of governments to make
convincing cases about European integration.
The two ‘no’-votes left the EU with a constitutional crisis.
The rejection of the CT was regarded as evidence of popular discontent of with the EU.
Negotiating the Treaty of Lisbon.
Key points:
The reflection period failed to produce any clear answer to the ongoing constitutional
crisis.
The German presidency followed a tightly controlled strategy to secure member state
agreement on a CT mandate to transfer much of the CT into a conventional amending
treaty.
Discussions about the new amending treaty occurred against the background of the
fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome
Under the Portuguese presidency, a technical IGC, produced the Treaty of Lisbon.
The main elements of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Key points:
, The Treaty of Lisbon was not designed to have a lasting existence of its own, since its
function was to amend the two treaties – the TEU and TEC – on which the EU is based.
The TEU and TEC were extensively altered and modernized, and, in the case of the TEC
renamed as the TFEU.
Together, the TEU and TFEU create one structure, the EU, with characteristics fairly
close to those of the past.
The Treaty of Lisbon introduced changes to institutional arrangements affecting all key
institutions.
The Treaty of Lisbon: an appraisal.
Key points:
The Treaty of Lisbon was much more obvious and deliberately a treaty than the CT:
hence it remained complex and difficult to understand.
The Lisbon Treaty sought to make the EU more democratic and efficient, but this has not
always been acknowledged.
Despite its range of changes introduced, and the criticisms made of it, its effects have not
been revolutionary.
Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon:
Key points:
Parliamentary ratification proceeded without undue difficulty into summer 2008.
The main cause of the ‘no’ vote in Ireland were a lack of knowledge and understanding of
the Treaty of Lisbon, together with specific national concerns.
Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon continued despite the ‘no’ vote in Ireland, with the
Irish government committing itself to holding a second referendum before 31 October
2009.
Irish voters’ concerns were addressed through ‘guarantees’ and dedicated ‘Irish’ protocol,
thus paving the way for a ‘yes’ vote in a second Irish referendum.
The significance of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Key points:
Abandoning the language of ‘constitution’ in the Treaty of Lisbon failed to pacify
opponents.
Governments had a case, but failed to engage with a well-organized opposition.
The Irish ‘no’ opened a new period of crisis over EU reform.
Implementing the Lisbon Treaty.
Key points:
The implementation of the Lisbon Treaty occurred against the backdrop of the economic
crisis.
Herman van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton faced different challenges in their new
institutional roles within the EU.
The extension of the OLP to more policy areas helped strengthen the EP’s role.
