Lecture 2' EU decisionmaking

1
Lecture 2. EU decision-making

• Objective
• to become familiar with the decision-making
  processes of the EU and the roles of the
  respective institutions

2
Institutional structure of the EU

• Structure of the European Union following the
  Maastricht Treaty based on three pillars
• Community pillar
• common foreign and security policy
• justice and home affairs
• note that second and third pillars are largely
  intergovernmental
• draft EU constitution proposes to do away with
  the three pillar structure

3
Institutional structure of the EU

• The European Council
• Council of Ministers of the European Union (EU)
• The European Commission
• The European Parliament
• The European Court of Justice
• Court of Auditors
• European Central Bank
• Advisory role for the Economic and Social
  Committee and Committee of the Regions
• (students should read any of the texts to learn
  more about the precise powers and roles of each
  of these institutions, or download the National
  Forum on Europe summary)

4
Characteristics of EU decision-making

• The Community method - a blend of pooling of
  sovereignty and supranationalism
• A few competences are assigned exclusively to the
  Community level (e.g. commercial policy)
• common institutions are established with powers
  far beyond those normally assigned to
  international secretariats. Commission has sole
  right to propose legislation, it has considerable
  monitoring powers as guardian of the treaties,
  and executive powers in selected policy areas
  (e.g. competition policy).
• Supranational in the possibility of being
  outvoted in the Council of Ministers by simple or
  qualified majority voting
• Establishment of a common court, the rulings of
  which override national law or court rulings

5
Characteristics of EU decision-making

• Degree of supranationalism limited by
  intergovernmental features
• unanimity still required for certain decisions
• where Commission has implementation powers, it is
  required to consult widely through a network of
  management and advisory committees with the
  member states a process known as comitology
• even where common policies exist Member States
  retain considerable powers of autonomy in
  implementation as majority of law takes the forms
  of directives
• EU policy-making dominated by regulation rather
  than spending policies.

6
Alternative perspectives on next stage of EU
integration

• The integrationists
• central argument is that economic and social
  processes have moved beyond the national scale
  and thus effective policy measures require common
  European policies.
• The nationalists
• partly object to increasing scope of the European
  agenda, but also the degree of supranationalism
• see enlargement and increased diversity as an
  argument for a looser form of market integration
• The need for flexibility
• integrationists response to growing diversity in
  notions of two-tier Europe, variable
  geometry, enhanced co-operation

7
Enhanced co-operation

• Note distinction between multi-speed Europe (all
  states moving towards the same objective but at
  different speeds) and variable geometry (deeper
  cooperation between some states compared to
  others)
• Fear that variable geometry would lead to
  two-tier Europe and fragmented decision making
  vs. need for flexibility in a much more
  heterogeneous Europe
• Treaty of Nice safeguards
• Must further objectives of Union, does not
  undermine the single market or economic and
  social cohesion, involves a minimum of eight
  States and will remain open to all Member States