Politics EU

8/12/2019 Politics EU

1/339

This page intentionally left blank


2/339

The Politics of the European Union A new introduction to the European Union which uses the lensof comparative politics. This approach helps students understandthe EU through comparisons with domestic politics and links with broader debates in political science. The text is supported bynumerous examples, and chapters include briefings, fact files andcontroversy boxes which highlight important information andcontroversial issues in EU politics to widen and deepen studentunderstanding. The authors have developed online Navigating theEU exercises that introduce students to useful sources of informationon the Internet and help them to analyse policy-making in the EU.This textbook is a comprehensive introduction to EU politics andcovers history, theory, key institutions and participants, as well aspolicies and policy-making.

HERMAN LELIEVELDT is Associate Professor at Utrecht University,Roosevelt Academy.

SEBASTIAAN PRINCEN is Associate Professor at Utrecht University, Utrecht School of Governance.


3/339

CAMBRIDGE TEXTBOOKS IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS

Series Editors:

Jan W. van Deth,Universitt Mannheim, GermanyKenneth Newton, University of Southampton, United Kingdom

Comparative research is central to the study of politics. Thisseries offers accessible but sophisticated materials for studentsof comparative politics at the introductory level and beyond. Itcomprises an authoritative introductory textbook, Foundations ofComparative Politics, accompanied by volumes devoted to the politicsof individual countries, and an introduction to methodology incomparative politics. The books share a common structure andapproach, allowing teachers to choose combinations of volumes tosuit their particular course. The volumes are also suitable for useindependent of one another. Attractively designed and accessibly written, this series provides an up-to-date and exible teachingresource.

Other books in this series:KENNETH NEWTON & JAN W. VAN DETH

Foundations of Comparative Politics, 2nd edition

RICHARD GUNTHER & JOS RAMN MONTEROThe Politics of Spain

JAMES L. NEWELLThe Politics of Italy


4/339

The Politics of theEuropean Union

HERMAN LELIEVELDTand

SEBASTIAAN PRINCEN


5/339

C A M B R I D G E U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S

Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town,Singapore, So Paulo, Delhi, Tokyo, Mexico City

Cambridge University PressThe Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

www.cambridge.orgInformation on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521740111

Herman Lelieveldt and Sebastiaan Princen 2011

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exceptionand to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,no reproduction of any part may take place without the writtenpermission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2011

Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication dataLelieveldt, Herman, 1967

The politics of the European Union / Herman Lelieveldt, Sebastiaan Princen.p. cm. (Cambridge textbooks in comparative politics)

Includes index.ISBN 978-0-521-51862-8 (hardback) ISBN 978-0-521-74011-1 (paperback)1. Europe Politics and government Textbooks. 2. European Unioncountries Politics and government Textbooks. 3. Comparativegovernment Textbooks. I. Princen, Sebastiaan. II. Title. III. Series. JN5.L45 2011341.242 2dc222011013751

ISBN 978-0-521-51862-8 HardbackISBN 978-0-521-74011-1 Paperback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence oraccuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to inthis publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is,or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
http://www.cambridge.org/http://www.cambridge.org/9780521518628http://www.cambridge.org/9780521518628http://www.cambridge.org/


6/339

v

Contents

Acknowledgements page xiii List of briengs xiv List of fact les xv List of controversies xvi List of tables xvii List of gures xviii List of abbreviations and acronyms xix List of country abbreviations used in tables and gures xxi Preface xxiii

PART I

Setting the scene: origins, analytical perspectives

and institutions 11 The historical development of the EU 3

Introduction 3The origins of European integration 4 A brief historical survey of European integration 8

The 1950s: from one to three Communities 9The 1960s: progress and setbacks 11The 1970s: moving out of gridlock, slowly 14

The 1980s: moves towards a single market 16The 1990s: the road towards European Union 16The 2000s: Eastern enlargement and difcult treaty

revisions 18 What history teaches us about EU politics today 23Summary 24Further reading 25 Websites 25Navigating the EU 26

Appendix 26
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


7/339

vi

Contents

2 Analysing the EU 31Introduction 31Explaining integration 33

Neo-functionalism and supranational governance 33Intergovernmentalism 37Insights 39

Explaining EU politics 40Multi-level governance 41Comparative politics approaches to the EU 44

Questions asked in this book 48Summary 49Further reading 49 Websites 50Navigating the EU 50

3 The institutional framework 51Introduction 51The EU institutional framework 53

Representation of interests 53 Allocation of powers 55

The European Council 56Tasks 56Organization and decision-making 58

The Council 59Tasks 59Organization 60

The Commission 62Tasks 63Organization 64

The European Parliament 66Powers 67Organization 70

The Court of Justice 73Tasks 74Organization 75

Making sense of the institutional framework 76Summary 77Further reading 78 Websites 78Navigating the EU 78
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


8/339

Contents

vii

4 Legislation and decision-making: puttingthe institutional puzzle together 79Introduction 79Types of decisions in the EU 80

Legal instruments in the EU 81Directives and Regulations 82Other types of instruments 84

Decision-making procedures in the EU 84The ordinary legislative procedure 85

The logic behind the ordinary legislative procedure 85Commission proposal and advisory bodies 86The rst reading 87The second reading 89Conciliation and the third reading 91Informal processes under the ordinary legislative

procedure 92Other decision-making procedures 93

The special legislative procedures 93The European Council as an appeal body 94Decision-making under the CFSP 94Navigating the maze of EU decision-making 94

Decision-making in the Council 96How qualied majority voting works 97 Voting and consensus in the Council 98

Member state parliaments and the subsidiarity check 99The Open Method of Coordination 100

How the Open Method of Coordination works 100 Why the Open Method of Coordination is used 101

Summary 102Further reading 103 Websites 103Navigating the EU 104

PART II

Key actors in EU politics: citizens, interest groupsand political parties 105

5 Public opinion and political participation 107Introduction 107Public opinion, political participation and politics 108
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


9/339

Contents

viii

Public opinion 109Explaining public opinion 115 A gap between citizens and elites 117Elections 118Referendums on European integration 122The shift from a permissive consensus to a constraining dissensus 124Summary 125Further reading 126 Websites 126Navigating the EU 127

6 Interest groups and interest representation 128Introduction 128Interest groups and lobbyists: who are they? 129

The number of interest groups in the EU 129Types of interest groups in the EU 130Lobbying through different channels 133

Organizing interest representation: between pluralism andcorporatism 134

Systems of interest representation 134Pluralism and corporatism in the EU 135Designed pluralism in the EU 137

Interest group strategies 138Inside lobbying and outside lobbying 138The choice of strategy by interest groups 139Inside lobbying and outside lobbying in the EU 141Lobby routes and coalition formation 142

Do interest groups matter? 143The inuence of interest groups in the EU 144Resources and interest group characteristics 145Characteristics of the political system 145The importance of issues 146

Lobbying and democracy 147Summary 149Further reading 150 Websites 150Navigating the EU 150

7 Political parties and the European Parliament 151Introduction 151Political parties in the EU: three levels 152Political groups in the European Parliament 153

The development of political groups in the EP 153
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


10/339

Contents

ix

The ideological underpinning of the EPspolitical groups 154

Ideological cohesiveness in the EPs political groups 156Level of organization 158The benets of forming a political group 158

MEPs: between political group and member state 162Do political groups vote as blocks? 162Conict dimensions in the EP 163Coalitions between political groups in the EP 164

Political parties outside the European Parliament 165The development of European political parties 166The ten European political parties 169The roles and functions of European political parties 171


Part III

EU policies: agenda-setting, decision-makingand implementation 177

8 An overview of EU policy-making 179Introduction 179 What does the EU do? 180The limits of (re-)distributive policies in the EU 182

Types of policy in the EU 182 Where the EU gets its money from 183 What the EU spends its money on 185Budgetary politics in the EU 187

Regulatory policies in the EU: the internal market andbeyond 189

Regulation aimed at market integration: negativeintegration and positive integration 189

Regulation aimed at mitigating the negative impactsof economic activity 192

Regulation not (directly) related to economicactivities 192

The regulatory output of the European Union 193Europeanization: the impact of the EU on memberstate policies 196

Three mechanisms of Europeanization 196European integration and domestic policy choices 198
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


11/339

Contents

x

Towards a Europe of multiple speeds? 200Examples of multi-speed Europe 200The arguments for and against enhanced cooperation 201


9 Agenda-setting 205Introduction 205The political importance of agendas 206Types of agendas and agenda dynamics 208

The political agenda, the media agenda and the public agenda 208Linkages between the types of agendas 208 Agenda-setting dynamics in the EU 209

Why do political actors attempt to bring issues to the EU agenda? 211Tackling cross-border issues 211Political motives 212Economic motives 213 Universalistic motives 213Institutional motives 213Combinations of motives 214

From idea to proposal: the process of agenda-setting in the EU 214The steps in a typical EU agenda-setting process 214The steps in the agenda-setting process around obesity 217

Why do issues make it on to the EU agenda? 218Issue framing 220Institutional structures 222Timing 224


10 Decision-making 228Introduction 228Levels of decision-making in the EU 229History-making decisions in the EU 231

Treaty change and high politics 231 What is at stake in negotiations? 232Bargaining tactics in negotiations 234

Policy-setting and policy-shaping in the EU 238Low politics and high politics in EU policy-making 238
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


12/339

Contents

xi

Interinstitutional dynamics in EU decision-making 240Policy networks in policy-making decisions 242

Technocracy and politics in the EU 244Technocracy in EU decision-making 244The politics of technocracy 246

Flexibility and inertia in EU decision-making 247Summary 249Further reading 250 Websites 250Navigating the EU 251

11 Implementing policies 252Introduction 252The three phases of implementation 253Legal implementation 253

From EU law to national law: transposing directives 254From formal laws to operative rules: comitology 255

Practical implementation: enacting policies 257Monitoring implementation 260

Monitoring via the Commission: infringementproceedings 261

Monitoring via national courts 265 Agencies 267Summary 272Further reading 272 Websites 273Navigating the EU 273

Conclusions and reections 275

12 Reecting on the EU as a political system 277Introduction 277Deepening the EU: towards ever closer Union? 278

Internal sources of institutional and policydevelopments 279

External sources of institutional and policydevelopment 280

Lessons for the future? 281Enlarging the EU: towards an ever wider Union? 283Democracy and the European Union 285

Should the EU be democratic? 285How democratic is the EU? 288 Assessing the democratic decit in the EU 289
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


13/339

Contents

xii

Between state and international organization: the EUin comparative perspective 291

The scope of policies 292The role of the EUs supranational institutions 293Citizens and the salience of EU politics 294 Voting in the Council of Ministers 294EU law and member state law 295Putting the threads together? 296

Summary 297Further reading 297Navigating the EU 298

Key terms and concepts 299 Index 304
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


14/339

xiii

Acknowledgements

First we would like to thank our respective institutions, Roosevelt Academyand the Utrecht School of Governance, both at Utrecht University, for theirsupport and encouragement during the process of writing this book. In these

research-driven times we feel blessed to have our work on a textbook to beconsidered by them as relevant as writing peer-reviewed articles. We thank Jan van Deth and Kenneth Newton who as series editors entrusted

us with this project. Their ideas to produce a book on the EU in a compara-tive politics textbook series provided a perfect match with our longstandingdesire to write such a book based upon our experience teaching the EU in thisfashion. John Haslam and the editorial and production teams at Cambridgesmoothly managed the writing and production process. Deadlines were han-dled with just the appropriate amount of exibility needed to combine ourproject with other commitments, while ensuring a steady progress on com-pleting the manuscript.

Numerous anonymous referees gave useful comments on the book pro-posal and the various draft chapters. Harmen Binnema, students of theComparative Political Institutions course at Utrecht University and the EU pol-itics course at Roosevelt Academy read several draft chapters and are respon-sible for many improvements. Students of the autumn 2010 class at Roosevelt Academy also pre-tested the Navigating-the-EU exercises and produced excel-lent evaluation reports that helped to nalize them. We also thank JeanineBezuijen, Ramzi Benassa and Julia Khazanova for providing research assist-ance at various stages of the project and Roosevelt Academy for funding this.Herman Lelieveldt nally wants to thank the library staff at the College ofEurope in Bruges for hosting him during several research visits.

We dedicate this book to Hermans mother, Ton Lelieveldt-Pot, who despiteher illness always showed a keen interest in our project up till the very lastdays of her life.

Middelburg/Utrecht, January 2011


15/339

xiv

Briengs

1.1 Related international organizations and their currentstatus page 6

1.2 Excerpts from the Courts rulings establishing direct effect

and supremacy 131.3 How to become a member of the EU? 192.1 Functionalism as a precursor to neo-functionalism 352.2 Three types of institutionalism 423.1 Main results of the General Affairs Council meeting,

Brussels, 26 July 2009 623.2 The power of the Commission 653.3 A handful of Presidents 663.4 Draft agenda of the EP Committee on Foreign Affairs 724.1 The level of detail in a Directive 83

5.1 Gauging public opinion in the EU: Eurobarometer 1105.2 Cues 1166.1 Interest groups and the logic of collective action 1326.2 Interest groups and social movements 1407.1 Coalition formation in the European Parliament 1618.1 Mutual recognition and Cassis de Dijon 1919.1 Getting alcohol abuse on to the EU agenda 22110.1 Low politics and high politics around genetically modied

organisms 24011.1 The evolution of comitology 25811.2 The European Central Bank 26011.3 Is spilled oil waste? 26612.1 Input legitimacy and output legitimacy 287
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


16/339

xv

Fact les

4.1 Legal instruments of the European Union page 815.1 Referendums on the EU 1237.1 Party families 169

8.1 Examples of Regulations, Directives, Decisions andRecommendations adopted between 16 and 30 June 2009 1948.2 Conditions and procedures for establishing enhanced

cooperation 2019.1 A glossary of Commission documents 21910.1 Types of networks in (EU) policy-making 24311.1 Comitology procedures 256
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


17/339

xvi

Controversies

1.1 How large should the EU become? page 242.1 The debate over the Single European Act 403.1 Should the European Parliament elect the Commission? 69

4.1 Simplifying legislative procedures in the EU? 965.1 A European public sphere? 1216.1 Financial support for NGOs 1377.1 What is a European political party? 1688.1 Towards the United States of Europe? 1859.1 A competence catalogue for the European Union? 21510.1 Better regulation in the European Union 24711.1 Meroni versus Majone 27112.1 Constitutional patriotism and the European Union 295
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


18/339

xvii

Tables

A.1 A timeline of European integration page 261.1 An overview of the major treaties 101.2 EU member states, waves of enlargement and key

characteristics 203.1 The institutions of the EU as outlined in Article 13 TEU 533.2 Council congurations and number of meetings in 2009 613.3 Comparing the powers of the EP and national parliaments 714.1 Instruments and procedures in EU social policy 1025.1 Citizen support for their countrys membership of the EU

(2009) 1135.2 Support for the involvement of the EU in different policy

areas 1145.3 Percentage of citizens opposed to membership of country of

the EU 1146.1 Types of interest groups in Brussels 1317.1 Political groups in the European Parliament 1557.2 The ten ofcially recognized European political parties 1707.3 The functions of domestic and European political parties 1728.1 EU involvement in policy areas 1818.2 Government spending in 2008 in the EU and selected

member states 1838.3 Net contributors and recipients in the EU in 2008 18810.1 Types of decisions in the EU 23111.1 Community agencies 26811.2 CSDP and PJCCM agencies 26912.1 The EU as a state and as international organization: ve

examples 292
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


19/339

xviii

Figures

2.1 Analytical perspectives to study the EU page 324.1 The ordinary legislative procedure 874.2 Voting weights under QMV before and after 2014 98

5.1 Public support for a countrys membership of the EU 1115.2 Percentage of elites and citizens considering their countrysmembership of the EU a good thing in 1996 118

5.3 Turnout for EP elections and most recent parliamentaryelections in the member states 119

5.4 Turnout in EP elections, 19792009 1216.1 Channels for lobbying in Brussels 1347.1 Domestic parties, European parties and political groups in

the EP 1537.2 Distribution of seats in the EP according to member state 159

7.3 Political groups in the European Parliament (20092014) 1608.1 Composition of EU budget revenue in 2010 1848.2 EU expenditures, 19802010 1868.3 Regulatory output of the EU, 19752008 1939.1 Steps in a typical EU agenda-setting process 2169.2 Steps in the agenda-setting process around obesity 21610.1 Graphic depiction of a bargaining situation 23311.1 Suspected infringements in 2008 26211.2 Infringement procedures (annual average 20042008) 26411.3 The annual number of references for preliminary rulings

(19612009) 266
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


20/339

xix

Abbreviations and acronyms

AECR Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists ALDE Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for EuropeCAP Common Agricultural Policy

CEECs Central and Eastern European CountriesCEFIC European Chemical Industry CouncilCEMR Council of European Municipalities and RegionsCFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy CIA Central Intelligence Agency CJ Court of JusticeCoR Committee of the RegionsCoreper Committee of Permanent RepresentativesCPME Standing Committee of European DoctorsCVCE Virtual Resource Centre for Knowledge about EuropeDG Directorate-GeneralEC European Community ECB European Central BankECOFIN Economic and Financial AffairsECPM European Christian Political MovementECR European Conservatives and Reformists GroupECSC European Coal and Steel Community ED European DemocratsEDC European Defence Community EDP European Democratic Party EEC European Economic Community EFA European Free AllianceEFD Europe of Freedom and Democracy GroupEGP European Green Party EL Party of the European LeftELDR European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party EMS European Monetary SystemEMU Economic and Monetary Union

EP European ParliamentEPC European Political Community EPP Group of the European Peoples Party


21/339

List of abbreviations and acronyms

xx

ESC Economic and Social CommitteeESDP European Security and Defence Policy ETUC European Trade Union ConfederationEU European UnionEUD European Union DemocratsEUL/NGL Confederal Group of the European United Left-Nordic Green LeftEuratom European Atomic Energy Community GAC General Affairs CouncilGATT General Agreement on Tariffs and TradeGDP Gross Domestic ProductG-EFA Group of the Greens/European Free AllianceGNI Gross National IncomeGMOs Genetically Modied OrganismsGSM Global System for Mobile Communications

IAR International Authority for the RuhrIGC Intergovernmental ConferenceIR International Relations JHA Justice and Home AffairsMEP Member of the European ParliamentMLG Multi-level GovernanceNATO North Atlantic Treaty OrganizationNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationOECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentOEEC Organisation for European Economic Co-operationOMC Open Method of CoordinationPES Party of European SocialistsPP Partido Popular (Spain)PS Parti Socialiste (France)QMV Qualied Majority VotingS&D Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats

in the European ParliamentSEA Single European ActSP Sozialdemokratische Partei sterreichs (Austria)TEC Treaty establishing the European Community TEU Treaty on European UnionTFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union UKIP UK Independence Party UMP Union pour une Mouvement Populaire (France) UMTS Universal Mobile Telecommunications System UN United Nations VAT Value Added Tax VLD Vlaamse Liberalen en Democraten (Open Flemish Liberals and

Democrats) WEU Western European Union WHO World Health Organization


22/339

xxi

Country abbreviations used intables and gures

AT AustriaBE BelgiumBG BulgariaCY CyprusCZ Czech RepublicDE Germany DK DenmarkEE EstoniaEL GreeceES SpainFI FinlandFR FranceHU Hungary IE IrelandIT Italy LT LithuaniaLU LuxembourgLV LatviaMT MaltaNL Netherlands

PL PolandPT PortugalRO RomaniaSE SwedenSI SloveniaSK Slovakia UK United KingdomEU-12 The twelve new member states who joined in 2004 and 2007EU-15 The fteen old member statesEU-27 All member states


23/339


24/339

xxiii

Preface

Why yet another textbook on EU politics? And why in a series on compara-tive politics? For us, the answers to these two questions are closely linked.Having taught EU politics for several years, both of us grew increasingly dis-

satised with the introductory texts on EU politics available on the market.Our dissatisfaction stemmed from two facts. First, existing textbooks on EUpolitics tend to be too descriptive for our liking. Vast parts of those texts aredevoted to discussing the details of the EUs institutional set-up or the intri-cacies of EU decision-making procedures. By contrast, we are more interestedin the political processes that take place within the EU. Knowledge of theEUs institutions and procedures is necessary in order to study those proc-esses fruitfully, but our objective in teaching EU politics is to give students anunderstanding of how politics in the EU works, not of the EUs institutionsand procedures per se. Second, most textbooks still look at the EU as a one-of-a-kind system or, as it is commonly put in the EU studies literature, as anorganization sui generis. The focus on the EUs uniqueness makes it difcultfor students to relate their understanding of EU politics to what they knowabout other political systems. We believe that, increasingly, the EU can bestbe studied from a comparative politics perspective, and that this should formthe leading premise of a textbook on EU politics. In that sense, we build onthe pioneering work of the one textbook on EU politics that does discussthe EU in a comparative politics framework: Simon Hixs Political System of the

European Union . At the same time, Hixs text is both too difcult as an intro-ductory text for students who are new to the EU and looks at the EU from onespecic theoretical lens that of rational choice theory. What we were look-ing for was a book that we could use for undergraduate students new to thesubject and that would draw upon a wider range of theoretical approaches.Hence this book.

Why comparative politics?

For us, the core assumption underlying a comparative politics approach to

the EU is that most of the questions that can be asked of domestic politicalsystems can also be asked of the EU even if the answers to those questionsare not always the same. The latter addition is crucial because we do not


25/339

Preface

xxiv

mean to imply that the EU is essentially (whatever that may mean) or even just for practical purposes a state or like a state. What we do claim is thatthe kind of questions that we normally ask of domestic political systems can(and should) also be asked of the EU. These include questions such as: Howare relations between the executive and the legislative organized? In what ways do citizen opinions play a role in political decision-making? What roledo political parties play in politics? How much inuence do interest groupshave over policy-making? How do issues reach the political agenda? How arepolicies implemented once they have been adopted? It is not self-evident thatthese questions can be asked of any political institution. For instance, wedoubt whether it would yield useful insights to ask about the role of politicalparties in the World Trade Organization or executivelegislative relationshipsin the United Nations Organization. In order for these questions to makesense, the actors that we commonly look at when studying domestic politics

at least need to be present in the political system we are interested in. In thecase of the EU, so we argue, this is indeed the case.Having said that, the answers that we give to those questions will often

be different in the EU than in domestic political systems. Although it makessense to study political parties in the EU, their organization and the role theyplay in EU politics are quite different from the way they operate in most EUmember states. Likewise, we can study executiveparliamentary relations inthe EU but in doing so we will have to acknowledge that the executive ismuch less clearly dened in the EU than in domestic politics. This, however,is exactly the point of looking at the EU from a comparative politics perspec-tive: by asking the same questions, we can see more clearly both where EUpolitics is similar to domestic politics and where it is different. This is notunlike the benet of applying a comparative politics perspective to domesticpolitical systems after all, no two countries are identical and in studyingthem comparatively we will see both commonalities and points at which spe-cic countries are unique.

How this book is organized

In taking a comparative politics perspective, we have made a number ofchoices about the organization of the book. Since our focus is on gaining anunderstanding of how EU politics works, our treatment of the history, institu-tions and policies of the EU has been structured in such a way that it invitescomparisons with other political systems and concentrates on the politicaldynamics of the EU.

This book consists of three parts plus a concluding chapter. The rst part(Chapters 14) lays the foundation for studying EU politics by developing a working knowledge of the historical development of the EU (Chapter 1), the-

oretical approaches to studying EU politics (Chapter 2) and the institutionsand procedures of the EU (Chapters 3 and 4). We do not see this knowledge asan end in itself. Although we acknowledge that an understanding of history,
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


26/339

Preface

xxv

institutions and procedures is important for understanding political systemsand political processes, we also believe that in a political science textbook discussions of history, institutions and procedures should be instrumental todiscussions of political processes. Hence, we seek to place the EUs history,institutions and procedures within the framework of the EUs political sys-tem as a whole and we elucidate the logic behind the EUs institutional andprocedural framework.

The second part (Chapters 57) moves on to discuss the role of three keyactors in politics: citizens (Chapter 5), interest groups (Chapter 6) and polit-ical parties (Chapter 7). In these three chapters, we show what role they playin EU politics and how this compares to the roles of citizens, interest groupsand political parties in domestic political systems. In this way, a better insightcan be obtained of how the EU works and what it is that makes EU politicstick.

The third part focuses on policies. Policies are arguably a key outputof any political system. It is in making policies that politics has its greatestimpact on society. Therefore, much of what political actors do is linked, one way or another, to inuencing policies. In discussing EU policy-making, wetake a thematic approach. After an overview of policy-making and the mainpolicy elds in Chapter 8, we take a closer look at three important aspectsof policy-making processes: agenda-setting (Chapter 9), decision-making(Chapter 10) and implementation (Chapter 11). By reading these chapters,students will be equipped with the conceptual and theoretical tools thatthey can subsequently use to study and analyse specic policies and policyareas.

Finally,Chapter 12 brings together a number of threads woven throughoutthis book. It does so by reecting on three important issues in debates on theEU. First, it takes a look into the future and shows how the insights presentedin this book can help analyse developments in the EU. Second, it discusses theissue of democracy in the context of the EU. Having compared the EU withother (democratic) political systems, what can we say about the democraticcredentials of the EU itself? Finally, we come back to the comparative methoditself, reecting on the added value it has provided in this book.

Features to help you learn

Learning a subject is not just about substance, it is also about the appropri-ate ways of bringing the substance to life. Therefore, we have sought to aidstudents understanding of the EU by adding a number of learning tools thatlink abstract concepts and theories to concrete issues and debates:

In briengs, important issues are highlighted and background informa-tion is given without distracting from the argument in the main text.Fact les provide concise overviews of key facts for easy reference.Small boxes in the margin of the text dene and explain key concepts.
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


27/339

Preface

xxvi

Students are engaged in debating EU politics through controversy boxesthat discuss topical debates in the EU and invite students to reect onthem.In addition, we have developed a number of navigating the EU exercisesfor each chapter. In these exercises, students are encouraged to furtherexplore EU politics by making use of the vast amounts of information nowavailable on the Internet. Because of the changeability of Internet sources,these exercises are not included in the book itself but are available on the website www.navigatingthe.eu.

All in all, we have sought to write a book that will be attractive to stu-dents and instructors alike. It will be of interest to those studying or teachingcourses in the elds of political science, government and European studies.For those, we hope to have written a book that is accessible, stimulating andclear the kind of book we wanted to use in our own courses.


28/339

PART I

Setting the scene: origins, analyticalperspectives and institutions


29/339


30/339

3

1 The historical developmentof the EU

Introduction

To most European citizens the Ninth of May will be a day just like any other.In Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg however, this is different. In thesecities a sizeable number of people work for one of the institutions and organi-zations of the European Union (EU). If we follow the ofcial historiography ofthe EU, their jobs found their origin in a press conference held sixty years agoby the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Robert Schuman. On 9 May 1950 heproposed a plan that laid the foundation for todays European Union by pro-posing to set up a European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).

In 1985 the leaders of the member states of the EU decided that it wouldbe good to celebrate this day as Europe Day. But most citizens will not noticethis. Maybe this is not surprising given the fact that the day marks a ratherobscure event in history. After all, commemorating a press conference isquite different from celebrating a rebellion (like the USAs Fourth of July) ora revolution (such as Frances Quatorze Juillet).

Despite its humble origins, the EU has in the meantime developed into apolitical system that seriously impacts the lives of these same citizens. Withina timespan of only sixty years it has established itself as a unique form of pol-itical cooperation comprising 27 member states and 500 million inhabitants,

with a combined income that is the worlds largest. No wonder some obser- vers have characterized the EU as a superpower, albeit a soft one: instead of


31/339

T H E H I S T O R I C A L D E V E L O P M E N T O F T H E E U

4

conquering new territory by force as the old superpowers used to do, the EUhas been able to expand because countries have been very eager to join andshare in the assumed benets of membership.

In this book we outline the current politics of the EU, but a brief overviewof the way this organization has evolved is essential to better understandhow it operates today. After all, many of todays political decisions will endup as historic events in tomorrows books. A closer examination of the mostsignicant political events that occurred in the EUs history gives us a rstinsight in the nature of EU politics today. We do this by examining the fol-lowing questions:

What was the historical background to several initiatives for internationalcooperation after the Second World War?

What made the European Coal and Steel Community so important forEuropean integration?

What have been the major developments in the process of European inte-gration when looking at the evolution of its policies, institutions andmembership over the decades?

What does the history of European integration teach us about studyingEU politics today?

After reading this chapter you will have learned that the process of bringingthe European countries together was a long and winding road with many tsand starts. Periods of rapid change and innovation have alternated with longstretches of gridlock and stalemate. The process was often erratic because offundamentally different views on the nature, pace and scope of integration.

While the term European Union suggests that we are dealing with an organ-ization that was swiftly put in place on the basis of a solid design, we are infact looking at a patchwork that has been stitched together in a step-by-stepfashion over the course of six decades.

The origins of European integration

The institutional roots of the European Union lie in the years following theSecond World War. Europe was shattered, and not for the rst time. Europeanhistory had been marked by an almost innite sequence of conicts, warsand rebellions, fuelled by religious strife, imperial ambitions and nationalis-tic sentiments. Notable philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, JeremyBentham and Immanuel Kant had already concerned themselves with thisproblem and come up with proposals for some type of a federation of statesin order to guarantee peace and avoid war. None of these ever materialized,however.

The aftermath of the Second World War provided unusually fertile ground

for new ideas for international cooperation. The war took the lives of approxi-mately 40 million civilians and 20 million soldiers, while those that survived were faced with destruction and despair. In a speech at the University of


32/339


5

Zrich in 1946 Winston Churchill who had been Britains Prime Ministerduring the war sketched the sense of despair: Over wide areas a vast quiv-ering mass of tormented, hungry, care-worn and bewildered human beingsgape at the ruins of their cities and their homes and scan the dark horizonsfor the approach of some new peril, tyranny or terror. Churchills speechbecame historic because he proposed to recreate the European family in aregional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe. He urgedFrance and Germany, the two arch-enemies, to take the lead in setting upsuch a federation.

Fears about the future were fuelled in particular by the geopolitical map ofthe new Europe. Following the post-war settlement, Europe was divided intotwo spheres of inuence. An Eastern zone was dominated by the communistSoviet Union, with countries such as Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgariaand the eastern part of Germany. The Western part of Europe consisted of

liberal democracies that were strongly supported and protected by the USA.Fears that the Soviet Union might try to expand its sphere of inuence west-

ward necessitated a swift rebuilding of Europe. Hence, the USA was support-ive of many of the initiatives that were launched to foster cooperation (seebrieng 1.1 ). Three different types of organization emerged:

Military cooperation found its beginnings in initiatives for a commondefence such as the Western European Union (WEU) and the North AtlanticTreaty Organization (NATO).Political cooperation emerged via organizations such as the Council of

Europe.Economic cooperation took root via the Organisation for EuropeanEconomic Co-operation (OEEC), the Benelux and the European Coal andSteel Community (ECSC).

The legacy of the two world wars made any form of cooperation involvingFrance and Germany extremely difcult. The most delicate and pressing issue

was the German question. Germanys size and its economic potential necessi-tated that it recover as soon as possible. Germanys large coal resources in theRuhr area were pivotal for Europes recovery and for the French steel indus-try in particular. At the same time many feared that a resurgence of Germanycould make the country belligerent again and cause new military conict.

Fuelled by the fear of communism the USA decided that Germany neededto be integrated in the Western bloc as soon as possible. In April 1949 the

western part of Germany regained its independence and was transformedinto the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). French fears were dealt with byputting Germanys coal industry under the supervision of the International

Authority for the Ruhr (IAR) which would manage coal supplies from theRuhr region. The IAR was in charge of determining the minimum amount

of coal, coke and steel Germany should make available for export. Both pol-itically and economically the IAR was not a success: the Germans still feltoccupied and the method of rationing coal was not efcient. The Americans
http://-/?-http://-/?-


33/339


6

Brieng 1.1Related international organizations and their current status

The Western European Union (WEU) was founded through the Brussels Treaty in1948 by the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.It was set up to provide for common defence in case of an attack on any of itsmembers and prepared the ground for the foundation of NATO (see below). Theactivities of the WEU have now been incorporated in the EUs Common Securityand Defence Policy and the Treaty was terminated in 2011.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a military intergovern-mental alliance through which each of the members pledges support to the othermembers in the event they are attacked. It found its origin in a similarly named

Treaty signed in 1949 by 12 Western countries including the USA, Canada, UnitedKingdom, France and Italy. NATO currently has 28 members and is involved in

several peacekeeping and reconstruction missions worldwide. The Council of Europe was founded in 1949 to achieve greater unity between

its members by maintaining and developing the rule of law, human rights andfundamental freedoms. It currently has 47 member states and is home to theEuropean Court of Human Rights which deals with cases relating to the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights. The judgments of the Court are binding upon themember states. (Note that the Council of Europe should not be confused with theEuropean Council, an EU institution that hosts the Heads of State and Governmentof the EU member states.)

The Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC) was setup in 1948 in order to administer the Marshall Plan, a US-funded package foreconomic recovery of Europe. In 1960 it was succeeded by the Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which focuses on analysingand forecasting the economic policies of its 34 members.

The Benelux was founded in 1944 by the governments-in-exile of Belgium,the Netherlands and Luxembourg with the aim of forming a customs union. It wasupgraded to an economic union in 1958. A new treaty expanding cooperation tosustainable development and judicial cooperation entered into force in 2010.

therefore urged the French to devise another scheme. It was Jean Monnet,Commissioner-General of the French National Planning Board, who cameup with a plan that would pool the coal and steel production of France andGermany and create a common market.

On 9 May 1950 Monnets scheme was presented by the French Ministerof Foreign Affairs Robert Schuman in a declaration that is nowadays consid-ered to be the EUs founding moment. This is how Schuman outlined thisphilosophy:

Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be builtthrough concrete achievements which rst create a de facto solidarity. The rassem-blement of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition


34/339


7

of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the rst place concern these twocountries. With this aim in view, the French Government proposes to take actionimmediately on one limited but decisive point. It proposes to place Franco-Germanproduction of coal and steel as a whole under a common higher authority, withinthe framework of an organisation open to the participation of the other countriesof Europe. [] In this way there will be realised simply and speedily that fusionof interests which is indispensable to the establishment of a common economicsystem; it may be the leaven from which may grow a wider and deeper communitybetween countries long opposed to one another by sanguinary divisions. By poolingbasic production and by instituting a new higher authority, whose decisions willbind France, Germany, and other member countries, this proposal will lead to therealisation of the rst concrete foundation of a European federation indispensableto the preservation of peace.

Robert Schuman, The Schuman Declaration.European Navigator (www.ena.lu/schuman_declaration_paris_1950_2_613).

Two things in the excerpt from Schumans speech merit attention. First,the plan was innovative because it proposed the institution of an impar-tial body the High Authority that would beempowered to monitor and execute the agree-ment between the member states. This feature

would give the ECSC the characteristics of asupranational organization : member states handed over part of their sov-ereignty to a third, neutral party that would supervise the execution of theterms of the treaty. In Schumans plan the High Authority was authorized tomake decisions that were needed to execute the agreements laid down in thetreaty. And in those cases where member statesand the High Authority disagreed, they would beable to bring their dispute to a court that wouldbe authorized to issue a binding judgment. Thesupranational formula differentiated the organ-ization from all the other organizations which had been set up so far: thesehad been intergovernmental organizations .

A second important feature of the plan was its limited scope. Cooperation would start on a small basis by rst trying to manage the common market for

coal and steel. It was a deliberate decision to do this, because it was absolutelyclear that the time was not ripe yet for a fully edged federal state. In sucha federal state member states should have been willing to cease to be inde-pendent and become part of a United States of Europe. Although at the timethis was of course a bridge too far, there were many federalists that activelypromoted these ideals and strived for a development of integration in thisdirection. In their view the supranational model acted as a halfway house onthe road to a truly federal state. Small and concrete steps would provide thefoundations for an eventual transfer of sovereignty to a new centre.

Schumans plan needed to be turned into a treaty between the countriesthat wanted to take part in this experiment. In addition to France, ve coun-tries joined the negotiations. Germany was very happy to accept Frances

Supranational organizations: Organizationsin which countries pool their sovereignty oncertain matters to allow joint decision-making.

Intergovernmentalorganizations: Organizations in whichmember states work together on policies ofcommon concern but retain their full sovereignty.


35/339


8

invitation. It was the rst time that it would be treated on an equal footing andit made possible the abolishment of the Ruhr Authority. The countries of theBenelux (Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg) simply had to join becausetheir economies depended very much on those of France and Germany. Italy

joined the negotiations for both political and economic reasons. Just likeGermany it wanted to regain respectability after the war. It also felt its indus-try would benet from being part of the common market for coal and steel.

Negotiations on the treaty took almost a year. Opinions differed on theamount of power that should be given to the High Authority and the waysin which it could and should be controlled. The Dutch and the Germans suc-cessfully insisted on a solution that would make it possible for the memberstates to supervise the High Authority. The result was an additional body inthe form of the Council of Ministers that would represent the governments ofthe member states. The Council constituted an intergovernmental institution

that would act as a counterweight to the supranational High Authority.On 18 April 1951 the six countries signed the Treaty of Paris which formally

established the European Coal and Steel Community. The Communitys fourmain institutions were:

A Council of Ministers, representing the member state governments, toco-decide on policies not provided for in the Treaty.

A High Authority, consisting of independent appointees, acting as a dailyexecutive making decisions on the basis of the Treaty provisions.

A Court of Justice, consisting of independent judges, to interpret the Treaty

and adjudicate conicts between member states and the High Authority A Common Assembly, drawn from members of national parliaments, tomonitor the activities of the High Authority.

The initial institutional design of the ECSC proved to be quite resilient. Itis still clearly visible in the institutional make-up of the EU today and it pro-

vided the template for organizing the other Communities that were set up inthe decades to come.

A brief historical survey of European integrationIn order to better capture the historical developments it is useful to look atthree different questions that help explain the steps that were taken over thedecades.

In which areas did member states decide to cooperate? This question looksat the policies that member states agreed upon. The rst way to chart thehistory of integration is by tracing the incorporation of new policy areas

over time.How did the member states organize their cooperative efforts? This secondquestion looks at the institutional framework they put in place to make these


36/339

A brief historical survey of European integration

9

policies. It examines the institutions that were set up, their powers andthe way they arrive at decisions.

Which countries became members? This question looks at the develop-ments in the organizations membership. The process of enlargement chartsthis third element of European integration.

When we recount the EUs history below, we keep the above distinctionsin mind. Table A.1 (see appendix) gives an overview of the main events withrespect to these three questions. The rst column shows what happened interms of policies, the second provides an overview in terms of institutionaldevelopment, while the last column gives key dates regarding developmentsin membership.

In a formal sense steps in integration are characterized by the adoption oftreaties in which member states agree to cooperate in certain areas as well asby subsequent amendments to such treaties. Table 1.1 lists the four foundingtreaties: the European Coal and Steel Community, the European EconomicCommunity, the European Atomic Energy Community and the European

Union. The founding treaties have been amended frequently in order toincorporate changes in policies, the institutions and membership. The tablealso lists the most important amending treaties. Note that in 2002 the ECSCtreaty expired whilst the EEC treaty was renamed twice, and is now known asthe Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The 1950s: from one to three Communities After the six founding members had ratied the Treaty of Paris, the ECSCstarted operation in July 1952, with Jean Monnet as the rst President ofthe High Authority. In the meantime new inte-grative steps were underway. The Korean War,between communist North Korea and capital-ist South Korea, heightened concerns about theglobal threat of communism. The USA thereforepressed for a rearmament of the FRG that would bolster the defensive cap-

abilities of Western Europe and defend the West German border against apossible attack from the east. For the French in particular the prospect of anindependent Germany with its own army was unacceptable, however. A solu-tion was found in following the ECSC model: West German troops would bebrought under a supranational command. In April 1952 the member statesagreed on a European Defence Community (EDC) that would establish sucha structure. Soon thereafter another treaty European Political Community(EPC) was drafted in order to provide for a common foreign policy: if there

were to be a common defence, then it made sense to also provide for an

organization that would give political guidance to the activities of the EDC.The pace of integration was remarkable: only three years after theTreaty of Paris, the ECSC members were on the brink of cooperation in two

Ratication: Procedure through which amember state formally commits itself to a treaty,in most countries via a majority vote by itsparliament.
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


37/339

T a

b l e 1

. 1 A

n o v e r v

i e w o

f t h e m a j o r

t r e a

t i e s . (

F o u n

d i n g

t r e a

t i e s

i n

b o

l d . )

T r e a t y

n a m e

Y e a r s i g n e d

E n t r y

i n t o f o r c e

T y p e

T r e a

t y e s

t a b l i

s h i n

g

T r e a t y

o f

P a r i s

1 9 5 1

1 9 5 2

F o u n

d i n g

E u r o p e a n

C o a l

a n d S t e e

l

C o m m u n

i t y

( E C S C )

T r e a t i e s o

f

R o m

e

1 9 5 7

1 9 5 8

F o u n

d i n g

E u r o p e a n

E c o n o m i c

C o m m u n

i t y

( E E C )

E u r o p e a n

A t o m

i c E n e r g y

C o m m u n

i t y

( E u r a

t o m

)

S i n g l e E u r

o p e a n

A c t

1 9 8 6

1 9 8 7

A m e n

d i n g

T r e a t y

o f

M a a s

t r i c h t

1 9 9 2

1 9 9 3

A m e n

d i n g /

F o u n

d i n g

T r e a t y o n

E u r o p e a n

C o m m u n

i t y

( T E C )

E u r o p e a n

U n

i o n

( E U )

T r e a t y

o f

A m s t e r d a m

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 9

A m e n

d i n g

T r e a t y

o f

N i c e

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 3

A m e n

d i n g

E x p

i r e d 2 0 0 2

m e r g e

d w

i t h

T E C

T r e a t y

o f

L i s b o n

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 9

A m e n

d i n g

T r e a t y o n

F u n c t

i o n i n g

o f E u r o p e a n

U n

i o n

( T F E U )

T r e a t y e s t a b

l i s h i n g

t h e

E u r o p e a n

A t o m

i c E n e r g y

C o m m u n

i t y

( E u r a

t o m

)

T r e a t y o n

E u r o p e a n

U n

i o n

( T E U )


38/339


11

elds defence and foreign policy that formed the core of a nations sov-ereignty. Indeed, the plans proved to be too ambitious. In 1954 the Frenchparliament fell short of a majority needed to ratify the EDC. In the end themove towards supranational cooperation in these areas was clearly a bridgetoo far.

Despite the failure of the EDC and EPC, new initiatives to broaden cooper-ation were launched soon thereafter, albeit in areas that were less sensitive.

Jean Monnet, disillusioned by the lack of progress in European cooperation,resigned as President of the High Authority. He further pursued his federalistideals by setting up the Action Committee for the United States of Europe.Monnet pressed for broadening cooperation in the eld of energy by pro-posing a European Atomic Energy Community. Around the same time DutchForeign Minister Beyen came up with proposals for a common market that

would cover all types of economic activity.

Representatives of the founding member states discussed these differentproposals in a series of meetings that started in the Italian city of Messina.In the end the governments agreed on the establishment of two newCommunities that were laid down in the Treaties of Rome. The European

Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) would strive for the development ofnuclear energy, whilst the European Economic Community (EEC) would focuson establishing the free movement of goods, services, persons and capitalbetween the member states.

The agreement on abolishing barriers to trade was accompanied by worriesabout the effects this might have on specic groups. Hence some provisions

were made that would make it possible to alleviate such negative side-effects.The French, for example, successfully lobbied for the inclusion of a commonagricultural policy that would enable measures to support farmers. In a simi-lar vein the Italian government demanded measures that would reduce dif-ferences in prosperity between the regions in Europe. In this manner Italyhoped to secure funds that would be targeted at the extremely poor southernregions of the country. The treaty therefore also enabled the setting up of aEuropean Social Fund. Although it would take several years before they actu-ally were implemented, the treaty already provided the legal possibilities todevelop these policies.

The institutional set-up of Euratom and the EEC was roughly similar tothat of the ECSC, with one exception. The powers of the supranational execu-tive in the EEC and Euratom called the Commission were signicantly lessthan those in the ECSC. The Commission was granted the right to make legis-lative proposals for what came to be known as Community legislation, but allthese proposals needed to be approved by the Council of Ministers.

The 1960s: progress and setbacksOf the three Communities the EEC turned out to be the most energetic.Progress on the elimination of customs duties was ahead of schedule and


39/339


12

the Commission managed to complete this three years earlier than planned.Three other developments signalled the EECs success in cooperating on

the economic front. In 1963 the member statessigned the Yaound agreement, a preferentialtrade agreement with the EECs former col-onies. And in 1965 the Commission represented

the six member states in negotiations for the Kennedy round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the negotiating framework for liber-alizing trade in the world. Finally, in 1962 the Council agreed on the organ-izational features of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP): it establisheda system of guaranteed minimum prices for specic agricultural products.In 1967 the rst common markets (for cereals, pig meat, poultry meat andoilseeds) started operating. The CAP was different from the other policiesbecause it liberalized trade within the Community but at the same time

provided measures to protect European farmers by guaranteeing them min-imum prices and levying import duties on products from outside of theCommunity.

The early 1960s also were marked by two key rulings of the Court of Justice(CJ) that made a lasting imprint on the legal order of the Community. In itsrulings the Court argued that the new legal framework of the Community

amounted to more than an ordinary inter-national treaty and formed an integral part ofthe legal order of the member states. As a resultindividuals could invoke European legislationdirectly ( direct effect ) and European legislationassumed precedence over national legislation(supremacy ) (see brieng 1.2 ).

Several member states and their nationalcourts initially objected to the Courts interpret-ation of the status of European law. The Courtsrulings were seen by many as part of a deliber-ate strategy to increase its own powers through

judicial activism . The decades to come would wit-ness numerous other rulings of the Court that

fostered integrative steps. Member states nevertheless accepted the Courtsruling, albeit reluctantly.

The success of the EEC did not go unnoticed in neighbouring countries.Hence, the UK, Ireland, Denmark and Norway made applications for member-ship. In 1963 French president Charles de Gaulle vetoed the UKs application,much to the dismay of the other member states. De Gaulle considered theBritish to be too strongly aligned to the United States. He also feared a lossof inuence for France as a result of the possible entry of such a large coun-

try. As a result negotiations with all four candidates were aborted. De Gaulle would again veto the UKs application in 1967. Negotiations were resumed

In a preferential trade agreement countriesagree on lowering the tariffs they charge for

importing goods.

Direct effect: a major legal principle in EU lawholding that individuals can directly invoke EUlegislation in cases before national courts.

Judicial activism: Constellation when courtsin their rulings go beyond a mere passiveinterpretation of existing laws and in additionbase their rulings on what the judges believe hasbeen the intention of the lawgiver.

Supremacy: a major legal principle in EUlaw holding that if national legislation is inconict with EU law, EU law overrides nationallegislation.
http://-/?-http://-/?-


40/339


13

Brieng 1.2Excerpts from the Courts rulings establishing direct effect and supremacy Direct effect : In the case Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlands Administratie derBelastingen (1963) the Dutch transport company Van Gend en Loos challengedan increased import duty it had to pay to the Dutch authorities on the ground thatit violated article 12 of the EEC Treaty, which expressly forbade introducing newduties. The Dutch court referred the matter to the Court because it was unsure

whether individuals had the right to directly invoke Community law in a nationalcourt case. In its ruling the Court argued that:

this Treaty is more than an agreement which merely creates mutual obligations betweenthe contracting states. [] Independently of the legislation of member states, Communitylaw therefore not only imposes obligations upon individuals but is also intended to conferupon them rights which become part of their legal heritage. [] According to the spirit, the

general scheme and the wording of the Treaty, Article 12 must be interpreted as producingdirect effects and creating individual rights which national Courts must protect.

Supremacy : In the case Costa v. ENEL (1964), an Italian citizen Flaminio Costabrought a case before an Italian court claiming that plans to nationalize the elec-tricity company ENEL violated Community law. The Italian court referred the caseto the Court of Justice which claried the status of European law as follows:

By contrast with ordinary international treaties, the EEC Treaty has created its own legalsystem which, on the entry into force of the Treaty, became an integral part of the legalsystems of the member states and which their Courts are bound to apply. By creating

a Community of unlimited duration, having its own institutions, its own personality, itsown legal capacity and capacity of representation on the international plane and, moreparticularly, real powers stemming from a limitation of sovereignty or a transfer of powersfrom the states to the community, the member states have limited their sovereign rights,albeit within limited elds, and have thus created a body of law which binds both theirnationals and themselves.

Source : Court of Justice of the European Communities, Reports of Cases beforethe Court (Luxembourg, 1963 and 1964).

only after he had stepped down as president of France and was replaced byGeorges Pompidou in 1969.

De Gaulles vetoes were part of a larger legacy of events that seriouslyslowed down the pace of integration. The most important of these was theempty chair crisis. In 1965 the Commission proposed to the Council a differ-ent way of nancing the Common Agricultural Policy. Because it would givethe European Parliamentary Assembly and not the Council the right to decideupon the budget, de Gaulle felt that this undermined the power of member

states. Tensions further increased when de Gaulle objected to a scheduledchange in decision-making rules in the Council that would introduce a new


41/339


14

Qualied majority voting: Decision-makingrule in the Council which requires a majority thatis substantially larger than a simple majority of(50%+1), but does not require unanimity.

Luxembourg Compromise: agreementallowing a member state to block a decisionin the Council if it declares the matter a vitalnational interest.

rule for making decisions, called qualied majority voting (QMV). This wouldeliminate the possibility for a member state to

veto proposals in some policy areas.The French president decided to withdraw

his ministers from participation in the meetingsof the Council. This paralyzed decision-makingfor half a year, because the remaining mem-bers did not want to make any drastic decisionsuntil France returned. It did so after the mem-ber states agreed on a declaration that came tobe known as the Luxembourg Compromise . The

declaration provided for a safeguard clause that would give every memberstate a veto to block decisions considered to be a matter of vital nationalinterest. While the compromise was never formalized into a provision in

any of the treaties, it had a real effect on decision-making in the Council. Itnecessitated nding a consensus even in those instances where the formalrules would allow decisions on the basis of majority voting. The crisis alsoforced the Commission to be more cautious in advancing its plans. Thisobviously slowed down decision-making and the process of integration inthe years to come.

The 1970s: moving out of gridlock, slowlyThe early years of the 1970s were difcult, not least because of the economiccrisis. Eurosclerosis held the member states in its grip: a relatively inexiblelabour market coupled with a system of generous unemployment bene tsmade their economies inexible and economic recovery difcult. The eco-nomic setbacks seemed to generate a retreat from European cooperation

with member states unwilling to move ahead with integrative steps. TheCouncil had accumulated a backlog of no less than 1,000 Commission pro-posals that it was unable to decide upon because member states were block-ing decision-making with a reference to the Luxembourg Compromise. Thisin turn demotivated the Commission. It would take until the end of the 1970sbefore pessimism gave way to renewed condence.

Despite this general mood of pessimism, a couple of small developments would provide the foundation for more signicant integrative steps in thedecades to come. First, in 1970 the Treaty of Luxembourg was signed. Its sig-nicance lay in granting the Community its own resources and giving theEuropean Parliament the right to approve part of the budget (its powers

were extended in 1975 through a second budgetary treaty). The position ofthe Parliament was further strengthened by the decision to directly elect itsmembers from 1979 on.

Negotiations with the aspiring four members were also concludedin the early 1970s. In 1973 the UK, Ireland and Denmark nally joined.


42/339


15

Norway, however, stayed out after its citizens rejected membership in areferendum.

The 1970s also witnessed the rise of a new body that would eventuallydevelop into one of the EUs most important institutions: the EuropeanCouncil. From 1969 on the political leaders of the member states the so-called Heads of State and Government had started meeting informally todiscuss the most urgent problems. In 1974 these meetings were formalizedthrough the establishment of the European Council (not to be confused withthe Council of Europe). The rst role of the European Council would be toprovide political guidance to the activities of the Community. It did so byidentifying new areas of cooperation and surveying the possibilities for devel-oping policies in these domains. In 1970, for example, the Werner reportrecommended measures to coordinate economic and monetary policies. Thisprovided the basis for several agreements to dampen currency uctuations

in the early 1970s. In 1978 the European Council made the decision to set upthe European Monetary System (EMS), which xed exchange rates betweenthe participating countries.

A second important role of the European Council would be to discuss andtackle the major problems the Community faced. A notable early example

was the UKs problem with the budget. In 1979 Prime Minister MargaretThatcher complained about the UKs status as a net contributor: What weare asking is for a very large amount of our own money back, over and above

what we contribute to the Community. Five years later the EC nally agreedon a formula that would give the UK a substantial rebate on its contribution.The rebate is still in force today.

In the second half of the 1970s Greece, Portugal and Spain applied formembership. The three countries had each suffered under dictatorships. Theend of their autocratic regimes provided an opportunity for these countriesto consolidate democracy and boost their economic development by joiningthe Community.

A major impediment to the further development of the Community hadbeen the continued existence of all kinds of non-tariff barriers to trade. Evenif on paper enterprises were allowed to import and export goods without anyrestrictions, in practice national laws and regulations often prevented this.Firms very often brought cases to court to address such barriers. One caseinvolved a German importer that was not allowed to sell a French liqueur inGermany because the alcohol percentage was below what German law pre-scribed. In the 1979 Cassis de Dijon ruling the Court of Justice qualied theGerman law as an illegal barrier to trade. The ruling established the principleof mutual recognition (see brieng 8.1 in Chapter 8 ).

In 1979 the rst direct elections for the members of the EuropeanParliament (EP) the new name for what was originally known as the Common

Assembly were held. While at this stage the EPs powers were still limited,its direct mandate would make it more assertive in the years to come.
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


43/339


16

The 1980s: moves towards a single market The Courts Cassis ruling made clear that there was a wide gulf between theprinciples and the practice of the Communitys free trade area. Customsduties might have been abolished, but there were so many other barriers that

a truly single market did not exist yet. In 1985 a new Commission took ofceunder the leadership of Jacques Delors, who made the completion of the sin-gle market one of its key ambitions. At the request of the European Councilthe Commission made a proposal in which it sketched a timeline that wouldremove all barriers by 1992. To realize this goal it was deemed necessary tofacilitate decision-making in all policy areas relating to the single market.This necessitated a revision of the treaties, which was achieved via the SingleEuropean Act (SEA). The SEA signed in 1986 included measures to advancethe single market project and further broadened the EUs sphere of activity by

including environmental policies, social policy and measures to increase eco-nomic and social cohesion between the member states. The Act also formal-ized some forms of cooperation which had already been developed outside ofthe treaties: Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and Common Foreign andSecurity Policy (CFSP).

The Act also contained a number of signicant institutional changes.Decision-making on the single market was facilitated and the EP was grantednew powers through the introduction of two new decision-making proced-ures. It was given the right of assent for enlargement and association agree-ments and also acquired some say over a limited number of policies throughthe cooperation procedure.

After Greece had joined the Community in 1981, Portugal and Spain joinedin 1986. The accession of these countries was not unproblematic. Greece waseconomically very backward, but the solid support of Germany and Franceensured its entry, despite reservations on the part of the Commission. Theentry of Spain and Portugal met with resistance from France and Italy whofeared a ooding of cheap agricultural products as well as an inux of guest

workers. These worries were handled by agreeing to a transition period that would put limits on exporting certain products as well as quotas, limiting the

amounts to be exported.In 1987 both Turkey and Morocco applied for membership. Moroccos

application was immediately turned down because it was not considered tobe a European country. The Turkish application would be the start of a verylong accession process that is still under way.

The 1990s: the road towards European UnionThe project of completing the single market proved to be quite successful and

led to renewed attention to achieving further integration in the elds of eco-nomic and monetary policies. In 1989 Commission President Jacques Delorsbrought out a report on achieving Economic and Monetary Union, once again


44/339


17

at the request of European Council. Delors proposed a timetable consisting ofthree different stages that would ultimately result in a single monetary policyand a replacement of national currencies by a single currency.

The same year witnessed the fall of the Berlin wall which would bring toan end a four-decade era of communism in the Central and Eastern EuropeanCountries (CEECs). The events necessitated further reections on the politicalfuture of the Community. A new treaty revision was needed to incorporatethese developments.

The Treaty of Maastricht broadened the areas that would be part ofCommunity policies, including a timetable to introduce a single currencyin countries willing and qualied to join the Eurozone. Maastricht furtherexpanded cooperation in the elds of Common Foreign and Security Policy.

Under the heading of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) it launched agree-ments on asylum and immigration policies as well as judicial and police

cooperation. The Treaty of Maastricht further increased the EPs legislativepowers through the introduction of co-decision.For a limited number of policy areas this newdecision-making procedure allowed the EP tomodify legislative proposals before approvingthem. (The procedure would eventually becomethe most common form of decision-making andhence is called ordinary legislative procedure today).

The institutional structure for these different policies was quite complexand captured by referring to three different pillars. The rst supranational orCommunity pillar consisted of all policies that were part of the three found-ing treaties and their respective amendments (ECSC, EEC and Euratom). Thesecond pillar and third pillar represented CFSP and JHA respectively: thesetwo pillars were referred to as intergovernmental, because they granted mostdecision power to the Council and the member states represented there (weexplain these different decision-making procedures in Chapter 4 ).

To still suggest some modicum of coherence the term European Union was coined to refer to the overall structure that was supported by these threedifferent pillars. Hence the EU was built on a very uneven foundation, whichreected the divergent views on levels of cooperation for different policyareas. Still, one other ingredient was added to symbolize unity: the Treatyalso introduced the concept of European Union citizenship. Although initiallythis decision was seen as a highly symbolic move, it would achieve real sig-nicance through several Court rulings that granted rights to European citi-zens living in another member state.

The 1990s witnessed important developments in terms of enlargement.During the decades of the Cold War Austria, Sweden and Finland had decidednot to apply for membership because they wanted to maintain their neu-

trality. With the fall of the Berlin wall this was no longer needed. Given theafuence and the level of democracy in each of these countries, their appli-cations were warmly welcomed. In fact, accession negotiations for this fth

Ordinary legislative procedure: decision-making procedure that is most commonly usedin the EU for adopting legislation, giving equalpowers to the European Parliament and theCouncil.
http://-/?-http://-/?-


45/339


18

enlargement proved to be somewhat of a mirror image of the previous two.Instead of member states demanding guarantees to alleviate worries aboutnegative effects of new members, this time the candidates expressed wor-ries about the possible negative effects of joining the Community for certainsectors.

Several deals were struck with each of these countries, such as measures toprotect farmers in Finland and Austria that went well beyond those mandatedby existing Community policies. The three countries joined the EU in 1995.

While the German Democratic Republic (GDR) had already joined the EU via the reunication of Germany, between 1994 and 1996 ten other CEECssubmitted an application for membership. Given the radically different back-ground of these countries, the European Council formulated some additional

rules that would guide the admission

Documents

Politics EU