Politics of the European Union

What is a theory

A simplifying device that allows you to decide which factors matter and which do not - Beylis

Grand theories

General/classic integration theory

Meso-theories

Mid-range theories

Developing theoretical approaches to explaining particular aspects of functioning of the EU

Examples of Grand theories for EU integration

• Federalism

• Functionalism

• Neo-functionalism

• Intergovernmentalism

• Liberal intergovernmentalism

Federalism

• federalist idea: preciously discreet, distinct or independent entities come together to form a new whole, in which they merge part of their autonomy

• Two understanding:

  • Theoretical phenomenon

  • Political movement

• 1941: Manifesto di Ventotene by Spinelli and Rossi: ‘democratic radicalism’

• 1943: Foundation of the European Federalist movement

• 1946: Foundation of the European Union of Federalists

• 1952: Monnet & creation of ECSC: ‘federalism by installments’

• Analytical approach: two levels of government, each at least with one autonomous sphere of decision-making

Functionalism

• 1943: David Mitrany’s A Woking Peace System

• Started as critique to federalism:

  • Federalism = utopia

    • functionalism argues for creation of functional agencies and through them national divisions will become less important

  • Focus on role of states and intergovernmental agreements

• Functional integrations characterized by:

  • Functionality

  • Pragmatism

  • Flexibility

• Peace through a network of institutions dealing with non-controversial issues

Neofunctionalism

First theory of European integration in 1958 by Ernst B. Haas

• Rational, self interested and flexible actors who learn from their experiences

• National and supranational elites provide key impetus to integration

• Membership of ECSC/EU changes the way in which national gov see their interests

• Once established, the institutions take on ‘a life of their own’

• Positive-sum game

• functional spillover

• Political spillover

Functional interdependence between economies of the member states will foster further integration

Neofunctionalism: functional spillover + example

Integration in one functional area will lead to integration in others

Example: internal market → social dimension → single currency → fiscal harmonization

Neofunctionalism: political spillover + example

National elites become favorably disposed towards integration process and consider common interests; supranational institutions and non-governmental actors become more influential while the states become less influential

Example: increase of the role of the Commission → increased use of the QMV voting in the Council → the role of the ECJ and its support for intergration

Neofunctionalism: critique

• cannot provide a general theory of European integration, especially not the origins

• Spillover is not automatic

• Difficulties in explaining a slow-down in integration in 60s and 70s

• Overly reliant on the role of actors/elites as opposed to structure

• Does not adequately account for the broader international context

Neofunctionalism: summary

In spite of criticism, it has been an evolving theory and we hav even seen a recent revival in EU scholarship

Intergovernmentalism: realist and liberal

Explains integration through the actions and decisions taken by the governments of memebr states

• Much of the critique of neo-functionalism came from intergovernmentalism

• STATES on central stage

• Roots in realist theories (neo-realism)

Main difference between intergovernmentalism and Neofunctionalism

Intergovernmentalism: states are key actors

Neofunctionalism: elites and NGOs are key actors

Liberal Intergovernmentalsim

3 main ideas

1. States are rational actors. They achieve their goals through bargaining rather than through a centralized authority making

2. Domestic politics matter, it shapes the state goals

3. Governments are key in relations between states and the relative bargaining power pre-determines the outcome of negotiations

• National security is not the main motivation behind the state action

• Lowest common denominator is often the outcome of negotiations

  • Lowest common denominator is the outcome when there are tough negotiations going one

    • The most ‘broad’ common policy, agreement etc they can agree on

    • Not always the case though!

      • Could be a critique of theory

Liberal intergovernmentalism: critique

• the choice of ‘easy cases’

  • ‘Easy cases’ = focus on history making cases like changing of treaties

    • Places where states, govs play key role

    • Also policies that are easier —> agriculture ex

• Ignoring the informal decision-making

• Insufficient attention to the different ways in which the governments choose their policy options

• Underestimating the powers of Commission, the ECJ and the interest groups

Would be easier to withstand some of the criticism if they did not identify as a grand theory

• If they were more niche and say they focus on specific policy areas, like agriculture, a lot of the criticism would not work anymore

Governance

The capacity to overcome collective action problems in ways that are agreed by the participants in the society f

Governance approaches

Not about explaining why states cooperate/integrate but about explaining how the EU worlds as a political system

Multi-level governance (MLG)

• sovereignty of individual states is diluted in the European arena by collective decision-making and by supranational institutions

• The locus of political control is changed

• Focusing on the regional-level, national-level and Eu-level (supranational-level)

Multi-level governance (MLG): 3 main ideas

1. Decision-making competences are shared among actors at different levels: regional, national and European (not monopolized by the state)

2. There has been a significant loss of control for state executive

3. The political arenas are interconnected

Instead of being explicitly challenged, states in the EU are being melded gently into a multi-level polity

Feminist critique of integration theories

• The theory itself is not new, but its voice in the conversation is rather new

• Kronsell - did not think EU integration took gender into consideration seriously

• Other theories fail to see how gender effects all kinds of areas within EU integration

  • Main point of view was male

• Gender is main organizing principle of social relations + power asymmetry is the main focus

Feminist critique vs liberal intergovernmentalism

• fails to recognise the power relationship between the state and the nation; gender relations become irrelevant, hence Liberal intergovernmentalism defines the place of politics as a place where women are not.

• LI and feminist share power as basis HOWEVER see power very differently

Feminist critique vs Neofunctionalism

highlights the importance of interest groups, which for feminists may be an important mechanism for change. However, it pays no attention to dominance of certain groups over others.

Feminist critique vs MLG

shares some similarities with feminism in their views on power, which takes multiple forms and is constantly reshaped BUT could be more critical in patterns of authority that emerge from multi-level interactions.

De-centering and post-colonial approaches

• Mostly connected to external relations of EU

• Eurocentrism survived European imperialism

  • Eurocentrism is very present when we analyze EU integration and EU’s place in the world

• Post-colonial perspectives have been omitted from the first wave of theorizing EU integration

• Interpreting history and power relations

"marginalized a central historical fact: the role of appropriation of non-European resources and labour in the empowerment of European states through to at least the mid-20th century, the violence this entailed and the echoes - direct or indirect - of this European past among those former 'subjects' among whom are to be found the rising powers of today's world."

3 dimensions of decentering

	Empirical	Normative
Provincializing	Question Eurocentric accounts of world history and politics	Question Eurocentric ‘civilizational’ assumptions
Engaging	Engage others perspectives in which Europe may or may not figure	Engage others assumptions with a view to mutual engagement
Reconstruction	Recognize historical patterns underpinning the EU’s external relations	Explore more ‘decentered’ approaches to the EU’s external relations on the basis of mutuality and empowerment

• Provincializing: taking Europe away from the center of analysis

Examples of EU external relations

• involvement in Iran nuclear deal

• Sanctions on Myanmar

• Human rights in China

• Statements on attacks against Israel

EU response to Russian aggression on Ukraine

• In recent years this has been the main focus on EU foreign policy

  • For many years this was an issue that the EU member states was divided on

• EU responded fast, strong and united

  • Something that was not expected

• Remarkable

  • Overcoming business, financial, energy interests

  • Overcoming very different threat perceptions among member states ‘ 

EU’s role in world depending on policy

• Economic giant

• Political dwarf

• Defense Pygmy

Difference between external relations and foreign policy

• External relations is broader than foreign policy

  • It includes:

    • Development

    • Enlargement

    • Agriculture

    • Public health

• Historically only states can have foreign policy, when EU was starting up it was hard for them to speak about EU foreign policy —> therefore external relations/actions

  • Language was adopted by many EU institutions

• EU does not have monopoly of foreign policy making in Europe

• How conducts foreign policy in EU?

“The EU is state-like but does not formally aspire to statehood. It may have a “foreign policy”, but it clearly lacks a monopoly on foreign policy-making in Europe. It thus seems to exist in a conceptual no mans land” - D. Allen

Does the EU speak with one voice outward?

Simple answer no, not really (but does on some specific areas)

• There are a lot of voices in EU and they don’t always say the same thing when it comes to foreign policy —> councils, foreign ministers in the council, national ministers

  • Trade = EU speaks with one voice

  • Regulations = EU speaks with on voice

• Currently there is no institution that has the mandate and legitimacy to speak with one voice for all of EU

  • Commission and Council President elected by EP or as far as the people of EU; that congregation would have mandate and legitimacy

EU: superpower?

• Economy, population are up there but with other aspects they lack

• Foreign minister: depends on the issue as to where the EU stands and how

  • Trade + development 👍

  • Defense 👎 (both agree on this)

• EU lacks some strategic capacities for becoming a superpower

EU external action: 3 competences

• intergovernmental

• Shared competences

• Exclusive competences

Tells us key actors that will be involved in decision making about the external action

EU external action: intergovernmental

most involvement from the member states —> in drivers seat

EU external action: shared competences

Will have a mix of actors involved

EU external action: exclusive competences

Trade will have a greater involvement of EU Commission

History: European Political Cooperation (EPC) before 70s

• Predecessor of CFSP is EPC

• Known for:

  • Flexibility

  • Confidentiality

  • Informality

• Historically it all started with the EPC

  • Seen as second Europe (first Europe was the European Communities —> political cooperation kept separate)

• First 17 years the political cooperation had no legal or even formal standing and no institutions/secretariat 

  • Described as a secret club by diplomats for diplomats

    • They loved it —> confidential and informal

      • Small expectations —> when agreement was found it was a big surprise and big achievement

      • No journalists

      • No complicated procedures

Common foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)

• Maastricht treaty: birth of CFSP

• Separate pillar: institutional structure same but decision-making would be different and involvement of actors world be different

  • Unanimity and members in drivers seat

• Defense provision cautious due to there being a split between members wanting or not wanting

  • We have NATO so we don’t need another one

    • Netherlands, UK

  • Some countries wanted to proceed faster but was made impossible by the ones that did not want to

    • France, Italy

• Amsterdam treaty: to help with consistency

  • Through High Representative for CFSP

    • Did not have a lot of power —> was about coordination

    • Today they have a lot more power

  • Javier Solana was the first one (1999)

Changes the Treaty of Lisbon brought

• CONSISTENCY is the key word

• Union acquires legal personality (art. 46A)

• Pillar structure disappears

• New Permanent President of the European Council (art 9B.6)

• “High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy” (not a foreign minister)

• Joint action/common positions become decisions (were policies)

• European External Action Service (art. 13A)

• ESDP becomes CSDP

• Enhanced cooperation in defense (art. 28E)

CFSP scope

“The Union’s competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union’s security, including the progressive framing of a common defense policy that might lead to a common defense” (art. 24)

Why comply with CFSP

• the Union shall conduct, define and implement a common foreign and security policy, based on the development of mutual political solidarity...

• "The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area

• "The Member States shall work together to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity. They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union … (art. 24)

Actors in CFSP

• European Council

• President of the European Council

• High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP)

• European External Action Service (EEAS)

• The Council (FAC, COREPER ||, PSC, Working Groups)

• Rotating presidency

• European Commission ‘fully associated’

• European Parliament (still a limited one)

• No prerogatives for the ECJ

Many actors —> can be difficult to know who represents what within foreign policy

European Council in CFSP

• Strategic interests: crucial for foreign policy

• Guidelines —> important, listened to by other institutions in EU (those with legislative powers)

• Before a lot of decisions within foreign policy were taken by the foreign ministers themselves but as crises in EU has increased it has become more the norm for the council (heads of states) to be more involved and the EU working together

  • Ministers no longer felt like they had the mandate

The High Representative in CFSP

• appointed by QMV with agreement of the President of Commission + vote of consent by the EP

• Double-hatted: idea behind this was that there would be more consistency as one person would be directly involved with member states and then also sit in the supranational level of the Commission

  • Not always worked well

  • Big task for one person —> demanding

    • High up in two big institutions + representing EU outward

• assisted by EEAS

• Supported by Commission and Council services

• Exercises functions previously held by the presidency

External Representation

• president of European council shall, at his level and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative

• The High Representative shall represent the Union for matters relating to the common foreign and security policy. Shall be the Union’s outward presence

Brussels vs External Representation

Brussels	External Representation
Heads of State	President of the European Council
Foreign Ministers	HRVP; trade = Commission
Lower Levels	Issue Related
Third Countries and IO’s	Union delegation, heads and staff

EEAS Headquarters

• Based in Brussels

• Headed by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and security Policy

• Divided in geographical and thematical directorates

• Akin to a foreign ministry but includes defense/military structures

• Composed of EEAS permanent officials and those seconded by the member states (you can be sent by your country to work in the EEAS)

EU delegations of EEAS

• Ca. 139 EU delegations around the world

• Should work in close cooperation and share information with the diplomatic services of the Member States (Art. 9)

• Close relations with the Commission: partly with instructions come from there

• Controversy over consular affairs

• Most important transformation in the delegations rather than in Brussels?

• Delegations do not replace the national embassies in the counties they are located

• Before Lisbon Treaty the Commission had delegations —> could only deal with what was within their mandate (trade)

  • With the treaty EU got political recognition and we now have EU delegations

Main tasks of the Delegations

• represents the EU to the countries (or IOs) where they are based

• Promote the values and interests of the EU

• Responsible for all policy areas (eg political, trade, human rights)

• Analyze and report on political developments

• Program development cooperation

• Engage in public diplomacy

EU delegations: Washington DC

• strong competition and beauty contest

  • Bilateral ties

• Shortly after Trump was elected the delegation in Washington DC was downgraded from member state to IO —> big difference

  • The EU was not notified of this

  • 6 months after this occurred it was changed back

• After BREXIT a similar thing happened in the UK and it is still an ongoing debate

EP in CFSP

• difficult, in general, for parliaments to hold executives accountable

• On going ‘parliamentarisation’ of EU external relations

• Supervision and accountability of HRVP linked to his/her the double-hatted nature (EP hearings of candidate for HRVP)

• Since Maastricht: right to be informed on CFSP issues

• HRVP reports presented twice a year

• Approves budged and controls implementation → includes EEAS operational and administrative budget

European Commission in CFSP

• Lisbon treaty: right of initiative jointly with HRVP

• Presents at all levels of decision making in the Council

• Involved in every day policy making with the EEAS regarding external relations

• HRVP chairs the meeting of the REFLEX family commissioners

  • RELEX family consists of ministers that deal with external relations

Representation: Nobel Peace Prize 2012 example

• 3 people went to collect the Nobel peace prize

  • EU Parliament president = represents the people

  • President of Commission = supranational —> represent interests and values of EU

  • President of European Council = highest political level

• This shows that EU external action is complicated

Decision-making in CFSP

• unanimity as a general rule

  • Every member state has a veto power

• Some exceptions when decisions are taken by the QMV (mainly for implementation measures)

Decision-making structure in CFSP

• Political and Security committee (PSC): made up of ambassadors (high diplomatic level)

  • NICOLAIDIS group : prepares the meetings/conferences

• COREPER ||

  • ANTICI group: prepares the meetings

• A lot is decided at a relative junior level 

Key concept: resilience

Somewhat vague concept but meaning an ability of states and societies to absorb changes and still persist. It also means to be prepared to live with some risks. Fits well with “principled pragmatism”, also endorsed in the European Global Strategy

Key concept: (effective) multilateralism

Promoted by the EU, in spite of some recent disillusionment and setbacks

Key concepts: strategic autonomy

Recently very popular among the politicians and diplomats (eg Macron); means (something like) the ability of making decisions and mobilizing resources without depending on others

Strategic autonomy: Macron’s view + problems

• Criticism that it is ‘too much’

 

• Macron wants us to rely less on US—> more independence

  • Strengthen a strategic EU

• Problem with Macron‘s idea:

  • Paradox: went to china to create a voice there; what happened is split opinion back home

  • Bargain with US that they help Ukraine and EU is prepared to help US in Taiwan 

    • Macron breaking this by going to China to make relations

  • How to deescalate —> preserve statue quo

Adopt strategic interdependence instead?

Common Security and Defence Policy

• ESDP becomes CFSP (Lisbon Treaty)

• Stronger reference to NATO

• Solidarity clause in the case of a terrorist attack or a major disaster

• Mutual defense clause in the case of an armed aggression

• Creation of the European Defense Agency (EDA) with an “opt-in” membership

• Introduces Permanent Structured Cooperation in defense

Petersburg Tasks

Article 28 A(1): Union may use civilian and military means shall include:

• Joint disarmament operations

• Humanitarian and rescue tasks

• Military advice and assistance tasks

• Peace-keeping and peace-making

• Post-conflict stabilization

All these tasks may contribute to fighting against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories

Permanent Structured Co-operation PESCO

• June 2016: European Global Strategy (EGS)

  • Security and defense identified as one of five priorities

• Art. 42 of Lisbon Treaty key (enhanced co-operation in defense)

• June 2017: European Council agrees on “the need to launch an inclusive and ambitious Permanent Structured Cooperation”

• Joint Notification on PESCO, FAC, 13 November 2017 (23 MS + later Portugal and Ireland)

• 11 December 2017: Formal decision establishing PESCO

PESCO

• participation is voluntary, decision-making only by those participating

• Each project managed by those members who contribute to it

• PESCO secretariat within existing structures (EU budget)

• Any participating state may propose projects to Secretariat:

  • EDA checks no duplication with existing projects EU/NATO

  • HRVP makes recommendations to the Council, which decides

• Third-party states may be invited to participated if they bring ‘substantial added value’ but without decision-making rights

• NOT an “EU-army”

Commitments of participating states of PESCO

• regular increase in defense budgets

• Increase defense capabilities to 20% if total defense spending

• Increase spending on defense research and technology to 2% of total defense spending

• Increase joint and collaborative projects

• Harmonies capability requirements and prioritize a European collaborative approach

Collaborative PESCO projects + examples

• Each project has a coordinator - a country that proposes the project

• Each project has members - counties that decided to join in on the project

Examples

• European Medical Command

• Military Mobility

• Energy Operational Functions (EOF)

• Cyber threats and incident response information sharing platform

• Indirect fire support

History: European Political Cooperation (EPC) After 70s

• 1970 really start of developing

  • Slow beginnings of the (formal) institutional setting

• Important for member states to keep economic (EEC) and political cooperation (EPC) separate

  • One hand: those that favored intergovernmental cooperation worried that common institutions and they would come together into something supranational

  • On the other hand: those that favored supranational cooperation were worried that the merger might reverse the progress that had been made

  • France was the one that particularly insisted on this

• Still today trade and foreign policy are not treated in the same way

• 1986: political cooperation written down in SEA

  • Legal basis and creates permanent EPC Secretariat in Brussels

• “Procedure as substitute for Policy?”

History: example of how important it was to keep EEC and EPC separate for member states

• Danish presidency in Council, US President Nixon coming to visit. He was there to meet with foreign ministers, but they did not meet in Brussels (too supranational) so they met in the capital of the country in presidency

• Meet in the morning in Copenhagen (discuss points related to POLITICAL issues)

• Afternoon travel to Brussels to discuss ECONOMIC issues  (Trade)

EU decision-making in lens of International Relations

• Delegation of power

  • EU outlier in this case —> Commission negotiates trade deals for all EU states

    • The power has been delegated but it has to be done on the mandate of the member states (final control)

  • Right of initiative

    • Within states: members of Parliament

    • EU: Commission

      • Member states stay in control bc they sit in the Council and the Commission has to come to them for approval (change it, kill it)

• Pulling of sovereignty

EU decision-making in lens of Comparative Politics

• Commission: executive

  • Right of initiative —> strong

  • Can’t implement laws —> weak

• Decision making

  • Council: represent member states

    • National executive

    • Brussels legislative (with EP)

What type of decision-making is the focus?

Secondary legislation

What is secondary legislation decisions-making

Regulation, Directive Decisions

• Ordinary legislative procedure (‘co-decision’) & special legislative procedures

• Policy setting

• Treaties tell us how secondary legislation is made

What is not within secondary legislation

Implementing legislation

• Puts out what comes from secondary legislation into practice

EU competence within decision-making

• Exclusive

• Shared

• Supportive

Exclusive Competences

Can only be taken at the EU level

• Ex. Trade (member states can NOT have bilateral agreements with other nations)

• Ex. Competition for internal market (common competition)

Shared Competences

Members can agree to have decisions made at EU level BUT in some areas it can take decisions at national level

• Ex. Environment, climate change

  • If EU does not have legislation on it, member states are decide themselves how to deal with it

Supportive Competences

• EU commission can gather member states in Brussels and they talk/exchange ideas —> end of the day they go back to their own nations and decide what to do

  • Commission can support member states in the discussion of ideas, no legislation is coming from it

  • Learn from each other, discuss ideas with each other

  • Might be the most effective way to make legislative

    • Why? Governments take ownership

Principle of Subsidiarity

Areas that do not fall under its exclusive competence, the Union shall only act as so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states, either at central, regional or local level. Those goals can be achieved at the EU level.

Are policy and decision making the same thing

No!

Policy making

• Community method

• Intensive transgovernmentalism mode

  • Member states are in charge —> make the most important decisions

    • Unless money is needed to be given -> commission needed (budget)

  • Commission is always in the room

• Centralized decision-making: member states delegated the task to EU level

  • Competition policy

  • Eurozone interest rates

• Open-method: similar to supported competences

Community method: policy making

commission proposes, European Parliament and the Council decide, Court adjudicates

Community method: decision-making

• Commission proposes, EP and the Council decide, Court adjudicates

Community method: 4 decision-making procedures

• Consultation procedure

• Consent procedure

• Cooperation procedure (not relevant)

• Ordinary Legislative Procedure (aka co-decision)

What makes the different procedures within community methods different

The role of the EP

Consultation procedure

Within community method

• Treaty of Rome

• Council can:

  • Amend (change what is being proposed)

  • Veto (yes or no)

• European Parliament can:

  • Amend (change what is being proposed)

Consent procedure

Within community method

• Single European Act

• Council can:

  • Amend (change what is being proposed)

  • Veto (yes or no)

• European Parliament can:

  • Veto (yes or no)

Ordinary Legislative Procedure

Aka co-decision

Within community method

• Maastricht Treaty (Lisbon Treaty)

• Council can:

  • Amend (change what is being proposed)

  • Veto (yes or no)

• European Parliament can:

  • Amend (change what is being proposed)

  • Veto (yes or no)

Ordinary Legislative Procedure: First reading

1. Commission comes up with proposal

2. Sends proposal to EU parliament and council + national governments for their opinions

   1. First reading of EU - if it likes everything it can approve without amendment but can also add amendments to it if they are not satisfied (the Council then has to approve the amendments)

      1. To approve them there is either QMV (if Commission also agrees with changes) OR with unanimity (if Commission does not agree with changes)

   2. Council can also make amendments

3. Second reading of EP with Commission present

Ordinary Legislative Procedure: second reading

1. Second reading:

   1. Do nothing —> act considered adopted

   2. Like what the Council proposes and approves by simple majority

   3. Really not like it —> veto

      1. Not adopted

2. EP can included further amendments

   1. Commission is asked for their opinion again

3. Goes to Council second reading

   1. Can approve (QMV with Commission approval/ unanimity without Commission approval) —> act adopted

   2. Doesn’t approve

4. Moves to third reading (if no agreement made)

Ordinary Legislative Procedure: third reading

1. Third reading = procedural deadlock

2. Conciliation committee is convened

   • There to find consensus

   • Made up of equal parts EP and the Council (27 each)

   • Commission is also represented —> the relevant Commissioner

3. Conciliation committee there to discuss any breakthroughs and find a way to agree on the text - formal procedure

   • Trialogues (informal): each representative from each delegation meet to clarify things, move things forward

     • Happens in parallel to conciliation committee

   • If both EP and Council within the Conciliation committee agree —> act adopted

   • If one does not agree —> not adopted

   • If no agreement can be reached at all —> not adopted

• EP and the Council are present at every step of decision making

  • This means that representatives from every member state is present throughout —> can’t say ‘them in Brussels decided this’

Simple majority

14 member states vote in favor

Qualified majority

55% of member states, representing at least 65% of the EU population, vote in favor

Unanimous vote

All votes are in favor

Council voting in reality

Mostly consensus

• Even though QMV is the norm and what they are allowed to use 82% of the decisions are made by consensus

• Culture of consensus in Council

  • don’t want to leave anyone behind, everyone on board

How the EP decides in the OLP

“Working parliament” → Committee with a rapporteur and a “shadow” rapporteur

Plenary

• Simple majority in the first reading

• Absolute majority later on

What is absolute majority in the EP

353 out of 705 votes

Average length of legislative process

Based on 2014 - 2016

• First reading: 16 months

• Second reading: 37 months

• Third reading: -

• Total average: 22 months

“Bang Goes the theory”

Problems with “Bang goes the theory ”

• Lack transparency

• Accountability (who is accountable?)

Odd one out in decision making

Foreign affairs

How are decisions made in foreign affairs

• Agenda-setting/ policy proposals

  • High Representative/ EEAS

  • Member states - Council or European Council

• Decision-making (no “laws”)

  • Unanimity in Council (“Decision”) & “constructive abstention”

  • For international agreements: consent of EP

• Implementation

  • Programming decision by Commission/ EEAS

  • Member States

Trialogues: problematic?

• not very transparent

• More difficulties to exert democratic accountability

• Old dilemma: efficiency vs transparency