EU integration Flascards

Council of Europe established 

• Initially 10 states participated 

• Federalists asked this council of Europe to make a draft for the future federal state of Europe 

Result of the schuman declaration: 

• zCreation of the coal and steel community (treaty of paris): 6 countries signed it 

• Independent appointees 

• The common assembly: representatives of the six countries who participated

• Special council: Ministers from the cabinet 

• Court of Justice: started working 1952 

• Intergovernmental: like the council of ministers; national ministers that were there for national interests 

• High Authority: predecessor of the European Commission 

• Eventually the Coal and Steel Community formed EU now 

• Aim was to create a union amongst Europe with the ideas of a united European federation 

• Early plans for European integration started in the interwar years 

• People in western Europe wanted to tie western germany to the west due to the cold war 

• Monnet method: Supranational cooperation in a limited, relatively unpolitical but crucial area would lead to closer union among the people of Europe, which was a condition for a future European federation. “Supranational”

The decolonisation of the French, Belgian, Dutch and Italian colonial empires 

• The narratives of the EU tell us a narrative that falsely regards european integrated after decolonisation 

• Europe’s colonial violence is confined to a memory “hole”- Europe’s self esteem seems unaffected 

• European integration can be regarded as the maintenance of colonisation 

• 21 out of the 27 members of the EU never had colonies 

• Charles Michel tried to erase the colonial past 

Myth of European integration as a postcolonial fresh “new start” after the defeat   of Nasizm 

• Schuman declaration, May 9th 1950 “With increased resources Europe will be able to pursue achievement of of one of its task, namely development of Africa ”

• Indonesia became independent 

• Indo-china became independent 

• Belgium Congo became independent 

• The progressive nature of European integration went hand in hand with imperial conservatism 

• Schuman spoke for the French; the Netherlands participated in ECSC with an eye towards a future without Indonesia- it’s important colony 

• Decolonisation obliged the netherlands to reorient economically- industrialization was important and the dutch economy will profit with participation in ECSC

• Imperialist concepts was excluded from EU history 

• “EuroAfrica” and “Atlantropa” 

• The french thought about european and africa and pooling colonial sovereignty in 1920s and 30s 

• Easy to fit African colonies into 1 economic state 

• French used tariff walls in their African colonies 

• Germans lost their colonies in 1918, the pooling of colonial sovereignty was interesting as it would be a way to gain overseas suppliers of raw material

• Germans also thought of connection between Europe and Africa 

• Herman Sörgel’s “Atlantropa”- German, Bavarian architect, damming of the Gibraltar and lowering Mediterranean Sea level then making use of the difference between Mediterranean and the Atlantic sea to general hydroelectric power- this would also provide more land hence provide access to Africa 

• The Dutch East Indies- Indonesia was a global supplier of tobacco, tea, rubber- it was about creating markets overseas for European products, “ethical imperialism”

• Netherlands prioritised Colonialism over common European market 

• The dutch eventually gave up- consequences was redirection to european market 

• Dutch feared the restoration of a former German power 

Decolonisation of Asia and Africa after 1945 supported by US, USSR, UN 

• US and USSR against colonisation 

• Dutch sent military troops to Indonesia to restore law and order but the UN and the US sent them back 

• The Dutch felt that they were being disrupted and they were being overthrown by the US and UN 

• The west could only protect itself through European integration 

Suez Crisis: 

• Israel, UK, and France invaded Egypt in 1956 

• Regain western control over Suez canal- very important connection, shipping of goods and oils

• US and UN forced the 3 to stop 

• Animosity within allies and US and Europe

• Developed an alternative for oil from the Middle East- atomic energy committee

“French Association” policy EEC: 

• France had a war in Algeria 

• African countries would provide raw materials, European countries would manufacture them 

• Willingness to compromise with the French increased 

• The German Federal Republic had no surety that US would save them 

• West Germany accepted the association policy and the development fund 

• EEC can be regarded as an unintended result of the Suez Crisis

Part 2: Establishment of EEC

EDC/ EPC 1950-4: 

• European Defence Community that would include West Germany by the French 

• 1952- design a European constitution 

• Strongly supported by the US, French refused to ratify the EDC treaty due to Indo-China 

• French also feared that the EDC would push the US to withdraw their troops from Europe 

• The US provided protection which they themselves paid for European had no money to do this; aims of NATO: Americans pay for defence in Europe 

• European Political Community to politically lead EDC: first step towards federal “super state” of the “the six”

• Defence budget in the hands of European supranational authority; Without responsibility for socio-economic policy budgets

• In 1955, West Germany became NATO member via newly created Western European Union, an intergovernmental defence organisation 

Benelux memorandum for relance europeenne 

• Informal meeting national foreign ministers in Messina 1995 

• In March, 1956 Treaties of Rome were signed: about a creation of a common european market with tariffs around it; idea of an everclosing union of the people of Europe; the 

• Results: 

1. Plan for a new sectoral community in the field of atomic energy: Eurotam/EAEC, 1957/8- seen as the energy source for oil 

2. Plan for a broas common market (no sectoral community) EEC, 1957/8- Tariff union as a first step 

1957, 25th March, Treaty of Rome by the means of customs union 

• Free trade zone: Elimination of mutual taxes and quotas 

• Customs union: Free trade zone plus common external tariff for imports 

• Common or internal market: customs union plus free movement of persons, goods, services and capital as well as dismantling of non-tariff trade restrictions 

• End result of the EEC: customs union, process was included in 1968 

• Common agricultural policy: governments agreed to develop this to protect western farmers from cheap importers 

Problems that needed to be solved: 

• Establishment of a tariff union with common “external” customs tariffs: gradual harmonisation of national import duties in raw material and goods 

• France had relatively high import duties to protect its own economy and “generous” socio-economic policy 

• The Netherlands, as a transit-country for goods to and from the Ruhr area, had low import duties

• Treaties of Rome was also about EAEC- as a cheap source of energy 

’

• Built on the model of the ECSC

• ECSC was “supranational”

• Slightly different in the European Economic Committee (EAEC)

• In Eurotom: Most important was Council of Ministers- came up with laws, main body of the EEC 

• European commission: 9 members- independent from their own national states, civil servants 

• European Parliament: 142 members, elected by their own parliament, represented their parliament in the EU Parliament: was not too important

EEC Treaty (1957)

 Article 8 of the “principles”

• Common Market shall be progressively established in the course of a transitional period of twelve years 

• Transition from 1st to 2nd stage should be conditional to a confirmatory statement- by means of a unanimous vote on a report of the commission

• At the end of the 6th year, council should make this statement by a qualified majority vote on a report of the commission- important of the democratic, the 6 member states were equal and the difference in the state sizes so Germany, France and Italy received 4 votes in the council, Netherlands and Belgium received 2 votes and Luxembourg 1 vote ; smaller countries could be outvoted 

• Unanimous voting first but then majority voting was introduced

Supranational EEC and the six vs Intergovernmental European Free Trade Association

• The relations with the other countries in Europe 

• British were not interested in joining the EEC

• They established the European Free Trade Association (1960) for those who didn’t want to join the EEC within the Framework OEEC/OECD (created for the distribution of marshall aid between 1948-52)

• Negotiations between the two organisations

• Outer severn: UK, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Swiss

• intergovernmental

• Different people wanted different things for European Integration 

• French after 1945 wanted access to German resources 

• Functionalist plan for Africa

• Marshall aid, ECSC & EEC/ EAEC products of American support against Communism in Western Europe 

• Interpretation depends on the actors with which you identify (such as French, Dutch etc.)

Milwardm Alan. The European Rescue of Nation States. London: Routledge 1992

• Main actors were not the US nor the European saints 

• Main actors were Political elites of European member states who acted on national interest 

• People wanted social security in terms of unemployment for example 

• Basic ideologies of 1950s: give people more food, they will become more democratic 

• Crisis of the 1930s- intensified social security demand in Western Europe 

• Milward: early phase of EU integration was a response of the national politicians for EU social security 

• National welfare states 

• Politician expected that prices in agriculture would fall as a consequence of modernization 

• Many people were farmers

• Interconnectedness between European integration and the establishment of West European national Welfare stated and social security 

• New agricultural policy was followed 

• European integration strengthened the national legitimacy of national political elites and it provided the condition for national welfare states 

• Adam smith on a European level: liberalisation of the economy on the European level 

• Why did politicians agree that Europeanisation would weaken their position? Milward argues that it strengthened it

Why supranational communities instead of intergovernmental communities? 

• An intergovernmental organisation would fall apart when it was most needed, during economic crises 

• This was the lesson politician had learned from economic protectionism of the 1930s when all treated about internal trade had been worthless- memory of 1930s was of paramount of important 

Part 3- Empty Chair Crisis: 1965-66, dispute over the question whether or not the EEC should become more supranational

• European Commission first step towards a European government or body of “civil servants”

• The majority voting is good, the unanimity for special cases

• As the president of the EU Commission says the council is intergovernmental, the council of ministers should have more power than the member states. Council of ministers > member states representatives. (EC-Chairman Hallstein)

• National politicians: Charles De Gaulle was against this, decisions should be intergovernmental; the states matter and it should not be supranational 

• Hallstein showed imperialistic attitude: March 1965- farmers would be paid out of European agricultural funds 

• Expansion of competences Commission and Parliament 

• Decisions in the Council taken by unanimity, to not damage member states interests or taken by qualified majority vote so that member states could be overruled 

• De Gaulle wanted a revision of treaties of Rome, against majority voting 

• French farmers made it clear that France should not leave the EEC 

• Other 5 states continued regular meeting- firm attachment to the treaties of Rome

• French delegations were forced by the farmers to remain in the EEC

• January 1966, they reached an agreement- final result nobody wanted this 

Luxembourg Compromise, 28.29 Jan 1966: 

• In the even if decision which may be taken by majority vote on a proposal from the commission, very important interests on one or more partners are at stake, the members of council will endeavour, within a reasonable time to rech solutions which can be adopted by all members of the council

• It was  a hybrid of De Gaulle (intergovernmental) and Monnet (supranational) 

• When very important interest of one partner is at stake then unanimous vote should be taken 

• General can be argued that this was a part of the EEC policies and there was no resurrection of the veto and EEC remained a consensus machine 

• Can be seen as a weakness and a strength 

• Questionable if a stronger european supranational community would’ve survived in the 70s and 80s 

Signing of the Merger treaty April 1965

• Merged European Communities in 1967

Commision EC included: 

• High authority 

• Commission Euratom 

• Commission EEC 

Council EC included: 

• Council of ministers ECSC  

• Council of ministers EUratom 

• Council of ministers EEC

Spirit of The Hague 1969: 

• De Gaulle replaced by Pompidou 1969 

• Reorganisation Common Agricultural Policy 

• Counterbalancing of West German Ostpolitik 

• 1970 negotiations, 1973 membership UK Ireland, Denmark 

Functionalist approach EEC successful 

• Anti-communist plans 

• Supranational cooperation

• Overproduction as a result of the EEC agricultural policy: “wine lake”, “butter mountain”

Karamouzi and De Angelis: 

• Democracy was slowly introduced and built into the core political value of EU Identity 

• High identity was controlled by the common assembly 

• This forerunner came together once a year and on special occasions 

• There were 78 members and they were delegated 

• After the establishment of EEC & the Euratom- the same assembly was used  

• It was able to develop a real european democracy 

• Did not commit to anything and was not connected to any time frame 

• This assembly wanted to acquire a voice in determining the budget and promoting regulations 

• Treaties of Rome, Karamouzi argue, did not make democracy as a prerequisite

• According to the treaties it was possible for a dictatorship to join the economic committee 

• Democratic criteria were mentioned for the first time in “Birkelbach report” European parliament in response to application Francoist Spain as Spain

Conclusion Karamouzi and De Angelis: 

• Central legitimising strategy EC since 1950 of promoting peace and reconciliation found its complement in promoting democracy- debatable 

• History is about a singular processes in the past

• About undercurrents becoming mainstream and vice versa 

• Political science theories are about the repetition of patterns 

Theory 1: Neofunctionalism  (Ernst B.Haas 1957)

• National states cannot stop the integration model once it has started 

• Integration spread like an oil spill over, integration on one sector will affect related sectors: Functional spill-over

• Very important way to look over economic functionalism 

Theory 2: Liberal Intergovernmentalism

• Main actors are governments of the member states 

• European integration was not about shifting of loyalties, it was just about pragmatic calculation about national interests 

• Rational choices of national government 

• European communities and EU are the product of negotiations between national states with conflicting economic interests 

• No internal dynamics and there are no “spill overs”

• Two totally different ways to look at it 

Part 2- Britain and Europe before an after 1973, around 1984, around 1990 and after 2016 

• Brexit= chaos 

• New genre of literature: Brexlit 

• The UK was not as possibility about eu integration 

• Many britishers saw Europe as anti colonist 

• Imperial nostalgia played a role in Brexit 

• Connection between migration, EU, and colonisation 

• After French defeat in 1940s, British empire stood alone against Germany- very powerful in the imagination of people

• In 1950s, British were reluctant due to this and this would cause problems with the ties with the commonwealth 

• UK changed its mind, after decolonisation took place

• Application rejected by Charles De Gaulle; ppl made a connection 

• Gildea saw this as a loss

• Correlation and causality mixed up and

• Fundamental difference between political culture of the UK & EU: UK- very polarising whereas EU very compromising

Applications for accession UK: 

• “Failure” EFTA

• Application UK (w Ireland, Denmark) 1961 and 1967, Norway 1962 and 1967

• Within the framework of this, the British created European Free trade Association 

• Negotiations between EEC and EFTA 

• The EFTA was failure, British moved to EEC 

• Charled De Gaulle vetoed this- France became the important power for the EFTA 

• Hesitations on the British

  • Special relationship with the US - cooperate in the steel community 

  • Strongly opposed to federalism 

  • Common Agricultural Policy 

Enlargement European Communities 

• UK, Ireland, Denmark (1973): Joined EEC 

• Referendum was held in the UK- 64.5% British voted yes

• The idea of referendum in 1973 came from the left; Anti-marketers as they feared for the state of UK markets 

• Left wing labours considered Europe as imperialism 

UK was an “awkward partner”

• Initially UK was far richer than Europe; Per capita GDP was 1/3rd of Europe 

• In 1973 the gdp was 10% before compared to the EUrope of the 6

• Early 1970s- GDP declined down 

• The oil crisis (early 1970s)

• Did not participate in the most successful part of European integration hence did not have a good perception of it 

Tabloids: 

• British tabloids like The Sun are against EU but in the early 1960s they were for integration 

• After 1973, the EEC had been progressive but became regressive due to the fall of British economics 

• EU blamed for decisions- all members blame the EU

Kaiser- Using Europe 

• British succession was used and abused by both right and left 

British policy objective TV series: Yes Minister 

• Civil servants and politicians have a strained relationships

• SIr Humprey explains “british has had the same policy: to create a disunited Europe, we’ve divided and ruled, we had to break everything up and now that we are in the EEC we should break it up” 

• Shows how british involvement was seen 

• May be a reason that they might’ve joined 

• Instrumentalization of national politics 

• National political leaders turn against the EEC in an attempt to gain domestic popularity and legitimacy 

• “Brussels” used as a s scapegoat for unpopular measures

British national politicians and the European communities/ EU. Thatcher: 1979

• Not popular with the british 

• We are simply asking for our own money back 

• Used a press conference: forever 2 pound we contribute we should get 1 back 

• Thatcher was considered popular for this 

• The “British Rebate” meeting of EC in Fontainebleau, June 1984

• UK protested: we need our money back 

• Budgetary problems were solved 

• Agriculture sector was reduced 

• End of renationalisation phase   

Part 3: Elastic Europe

• SD saw a way to make Europe SD 

• British Referendum blamed market liberation and it would be a threat to the British  

• Dutch communist party was also against a “superstate”

Thatcher in speech to the College of Europe: sept 20th 1988

• accused Jacques that there was a plan for socialist super state

• Margaret thatcher’s characterization of the “imperialist” commission

• Margret thatcher’s refusal to contemplate european integration

• Thatcher lost conservative support and was replaced 

• In 2016, the brexiters were interested in this 

• Political culture is different in Britain than in EU 

• European integration was a product of rational thoughts 

British Parliament: Left- Right polarisation

European Parliament: compromise

Euroscepticism: 

Criticism of the EC/ EU because:

• Integration process is expected to weaken the national state, or 

• Because of its “socialist” overregulation or 

• Its “neoliberal” socio-economic “race to the bottom”

• Different parties attribute different things 

• The idea the Eu integration makes the state weaker 

• It could be argued that EU integration acc strengthens the state 

Part 4- Re-nationalisation of the European Communities in the 1970s and early 1980s and growing importance of the European Council 

• Europe was marked by Oil crisis and the east and west tension 

• In 1970s economic worse 

• National protectionist measures taken on the expense of the world economy 

• 1971-73: Collapse of Bretton Woods system of 1944- international monetary system tied to gold through US dollar. The US was forced to devalue the US dollar as a result of “imperial overstretch” Vietnam. EStablished European Monetary System and Exchange rate mechanism in 1979

• Oil Crisis in 1973 and 79- unemployment. Economic nationalism 1970s and early 1980s

  • National protectionist support for national industries: Mines shipyards, factories 

• Transformation of the economy. Shift from industry to service actor 

• Intergovernmental relations became more important 

• 1975: European Council was created, First meeting in Dublin 

• Became the most important part 

• Took the lead in European communities 

• Initially it was informal, in 1992 it became formal 

• Deliberation EC unintendedly changed position of Prime minister in Dutch domestic politics 

  • Ex. domestic change as a result of Europeanisation

• After the creation, the position of the dutch prime minister was strengthened

1979: First direct elections European Parliament, partly consequence of establishment European council 

• To satisfy supranational demands to counterbalance the establishment of the intergovernmental european council 

• Still relatively powerless institution after 1979 

• New initiatives were taken until Altiero Spinelli: “Crocodile club” 1980, where they designed a new federalist treaty, 1984 design new federalist treaty, as part of a new “European spirit” - national state protectionism led to a response from neo-politicians Thatcher and Reagan saying that national protectionism wasn’t good- support them through tax payers money 

4/11

‘Who do I call if I call Europe?’ 

• Ursula Von Der Leyen: President of the European Commission 

• Charles Michel: European Council President - replaced by Antonio Costa

• Josep Borrel: High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy 

• Roberta Mersola: President of the European Parliament 

European commission: promotes common interest 

• ‘Supranational’ nation- should not have national interests 

• Stands above member states 

Role of European Commission: 

• Commission proposes, council disposes 

1. Proposes legislation to th Parliament and the COuncil 

2. Manages and implements EU policies and budget 

3. Enforces European law (with the Court of Justice)

4. Represent the EU on the international stage 

Commission pres. Ursula von der Leyen

• After the EU elections, she was reelected as EU president 

• Currently, these commissioners are being interviewed by the EU parliament 

• Has permanent secretariat: Secretariat- General 

• Has the power to reject commissioner nominees 

• Power to re-allocate portfolios and reshuffle 

European Council: 

• Defines EU’s general political direction and priorities, no legislation 

• Meets 4 times per year: to answer big questions 

• Heads of state/ government 

President of the European Council: 

• Charles Michel: Former prime minister of Belgium 

• Member of Renew Europe 

• Predecessors: Donald Tusk (PL)

• 1/12/24: Antonio Costa

Often these two councils are in conflict: especially Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel

• Example: When pres. Biden came, there were two meetings that were held, one with von der Leyen and Michel

Joseph Borrel: High representative 

• High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Secretary Policy 

• Visible international legal personality 

  • Blurs boundaries between Council + Commission 

  • Boosts EU as global actor 

  • High level diplomacy through European External Action Service 

• European Council appoints HR for 5-year term 

• Currently: Joseph Borrel 

• As of 1 dec: Kaja Kallas. She is Estonian- Russian debate, Estonia is closer to Russia

European Parliament: Voice of the people 

• Strasbourg (plenary sessions)

• Brussels (plenary, committee sessions; most offices)

• Luxembourg (sec-general)

EP Pres. Roberta Metsola: 

• Took office in 2022, after the death of Davide Sassoli 

• Youngest pres, 3rd woman, 1st Maltese 

• Member of EPP 

• Controversies: Pro-lifer 

• With respect to the war in Ukraine, she has been effective 

Current political groups: 

• Most right- winged government to date 

• Around third of the parliament 

EP elections every 5 years: 

• 1st elections in 1979 

• Last elections 2024 

• Regional or national lists 

• Proposal for transnational lists 

Power and influence: 

•  EU budget

• Commission: right to scrutinise, dismiss and appoint 

• Law-making: right to mend and reject commission proposals 

Hearings of European commissioner candidates 4-9 November 2024

Summary: 

• No single person to call 

• Institutions cooperate, but competitions arise  

• Power balance shifts

Council of Europe, Council of the European Union, European Council

EU: (1992/3)

• ECSC (1951/2)

• EEC (1957/8)

• Euratom or EAEC (1957/8)

Justice and home affairs 

Common Foreign and Security Policy 

Part 1: Plans for European integration before 1945

• Plans aimed to create a common “European” market (= Europe and overseas territories) without internal trade restrictions 

• Aim of this was to increase prosperity and to protect the European economy against cheap imports from the extra-European world 

Ex: 

• 1923: Coudenhove-Kalergi’s Pan-Europa Plan (blueprint of European Integration)

• 1930- Brian Plan

• 1940: Naxi Funk Plan (few things common with the Kalergi pact and even democratic ideas)

Coundenhove- Kalergi’s Pan-Europa (1923)

• Empires fallen apart 

• Fear in central europe that due to the Russian revolution communism would spread 

• Europe had to unite economically 

• Europe consisted of colonial empires hence Kallergi’s Pan- Europa included the European colonial - he did not believe Britain was even part of Europe

• He believed it was important to create a Pan-European economies and build tariff walls around territories to create high import tariffs and to protect European economy from cheap imports which would hurt European industries 

Economic Nationalism after economic crisis 1929

• Beggar thy neighbour policy 

• Many supported him but in reality the wall-street crash of 1929 led to Economic warfare between the countries in Europe 

• Specific products from one country were dumped to the neighbouring company to destroy competition - dumping theory 

• Trade wars: instead of one big tariff wall around Europe, European states started raising tariffs within themselves 

• Plans for European integration but Kalergi did not succeed 

Second World War, 1939-45: European continent under Nazi Rule 

• Nazi Reichsminister Walther Funk’s Plan for European economic cooperation 

• The Nazis rejected the idea of Kalergi and saw him as western world 

• They had the same idea as Kalergi: a european economic unity 

• These plans remained just plans 

• The first year of Nazi occupation, the occupied thought that occupation would mean that there would be European cooperation 

Wartime “Federalist” plans for a postwar European federation: 

• Started to think about european integration as necessary 

• It had to be steered; according to the anti-nazi resistance

• German resistance: Carl Goerdelr, Kreisaur Kreis 

• Italian anti-Fascist resistance: Altiero Spinelli Ventotene Manifesto 

• Spinelli: Ventotene Manifesto: federal Europe

• They believed in a Europe that consisted of smaller provinces where they were united under one European federation 

• These people thought Nationalism was the cause of WWII and hence the role of national capital should be broken thus breaking up these states. 

• It would be possible to make use of the German economy

• Nazi Germany had started WWII and many feared that Germany would start another war - if Germany is broken down to provinces and united under the European federation, this would go against that 

Part 2 economic importance of West Germany for Western Europe after the end of the Second World War and fear of a future flirtation of West Germany with Moscow: 

• Germany was in the middle of the sea saw between East and West and always gained profit that geopolitical position “Rapallo fear”

Tehran Conference (1943): 

• 2nd front against Nazi Germany in Western Europe 

• No compromises peace between US or Western Allied forces with Nazi Germany 

Morgenthau Plan (1944/45): US plan for Postwar Germany

• De-industrialization of Germany 

• Re-agrariansation of Germany

• Partition of Germany 

• Economic decline for Germany’s neighbours 

Severe negative economic consequences for Postwar Western Europe

• West German chancellor Konraf Adenaur: no talks with Moscow but Westbindung (Western connection) via European Communities and NATO

• West Germany took West’s side and participated in European cooperation

Geopolitical purpose of postwar Western European integration (European Coal and Steel Community, European Economic Community, Euratom)

• Lord Ismay: keep Russians out, Americans in, Germans down

• Attempt to tie West Germany to West Europe and get benefits from them

• West always looks at Germany with suspicion 

• One of the important bg of European integration process

Part 3: Establishment of European institutions after the end of the Second World War, establishment of predecessors of today’s EU after 1950

• 1947-52: Marshall Aid 

• 1949- Establishment of Council of Europe

• 1950-52: Establishment European Coal and Steel Community 

• 1950-54 European Defence Community/ European Political Community 

• 1955-58: Establishment European Economic Community/ Euratom 

Bretton Woods and European Recovery Program or Marshall Aid

• The economic order had been set up during WW2 

• It was a system that dated from 1944 for the regulation of cross border payment transaction 

• Europeans participated after 

• All the currency had a fixed exchange rate to the dollar 

• Dollar was then fixed to the price of gold 

• Conditions for the west world was created 

• June 1947- dollar deficit in Western European 

• They were no longer able to export 

• Americans wanted to help economically- they called upon Europeans to help distribute the money 

• 13 billion dollars but the companies that were in control of USSR were forced to turn down their share

Call for the establishment of welfare states and social security in the late 1940s 

• Communist threat both from the East within the west European countries 

• Poverty as a consequence of the crisis of the 1930- from which the WW2 has issued in part- still fresh in everyone’s memory

• General feeling that europeanisation of the economy would be a problem 

• This required the solution of the German Question 

Forms, or types, of European integration 

• Intergovernmentalism: different countries cooperate while keeping their own sovereignty 

• Federalism: development of  European federal state with a supranational government and parliament 

• Functionalism: pooling of sovereignty in a relatively undisputed field 

• Zurich speech Winston Churchill- Hague Congress 

  • Struggle between those who aimed at an intergovernmental europe and those who aimed at a federal Europe

May 9th 1950: Schuman declaration 

• Europe developed a new pan 

• Supranational cooperation in a “sectoral community”

  • Limited

  • Relatively 

  • But crucial area would lead to closer union among the peoples of EUrope 

  • Different actors advocated European integration for different reasons 

  • Coal was very important 

  • The goal was to create a unified Europe 

European Coal and Steel Community (1951-52)

“Supranational” court of Justice 

13/11

Part 1 : triumph of capitalism and the neoliberalization of European Communities, esp. EEC

“Neoliberalism”- market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatisation and austerity, state influence in the economy.

• West European state was replaced by a state that withdrew from society- individual free choice for people as consumers 

• Consumption was introduced in healthcare - which before remained a worry for the government but in the 1980s, it became a part of the free market 

• Important elements: de-regulation 

“Making markets”

• Market mechanism introduced in sphere of public utility services 

• State no longer seen as chair of negotiations between employers and employees but s market regulators 

• State run as corporate business 

• Less focus on social rights of groups, more on individuals as consumers 

Growing political aversion against corporatism and protectionist support for unprofitable mines 

• Unprofitable mines were supported by national government through tax-paying money

• Trade unions were supported by these workers still 

• 1984-85: year long strike against the closure of Britain’s collieries, which ended in a victory for Thatcher’s conservative government 

• Aversion against corporatism 

• Thatcher rejected the subsidisation of British coal mines, attempted to close British collieries 

• Shift from welfare states w a system of social security to neo liberal states 

Francois Mitterrand (1916-1996)

• Intellectual with a keep eye for political trends 

• His many faces:

  • From right-wing corporatist and “marechaliste” under Vichy (until early 1943)

  • To left- wing leaning member of the “Resistance” (from mid-1942)

  • To left-wing Socialist president

  • To one of the “founding fathers” of today’s neoliberal EU 

  • Social policies almost caused bankruptcy 

• In 1983, spendings cut

• He made a U-turn and now priority was given towards inflations 

• He adopted Neo-Libersation 

• He did not want this but became a European Neo-liberal 

Mitterrand’s second term (1988-1995)

• Efforts to promote EU integrations 

• Avoid West German economic domination of France by binding them into strong EU institutions 

Jacques Delors and the “neoliberal” Single European Act 

• Mitterrand’s right hand man 

• After that he was the president of European Commission 

• Remained in function until 1995 

• EU = after 1992-93 

• He can be given credit for that 

• In 1986, Delors put forward a new project- he presented a “white paper” in Brussels which resulted in the Single European Act which represented a harmonised Europe- free movement of people, goods and capital 

• He was applauded for this and found sponsorship 

• Even Thatcher could not oppose this, as it eliminated trade barriers  

Background Single European Act 1986/7 

• Enlargements required reform decision making 

• Dooge report 1985, institutional reform 

Institutional modifications Single European Act 1986/7 

• Cooperation procedure

• Qualified Majority Voting Council into force - usual type of decision making 

• Cooperation procedure: real power for the European parliament 

• Explicitly mentioned the council - Delors saw this as the future body

• Stronger position Commission 

EEC after Single European Act: 

• EEC now called “internal market”- customs union, a market in which non tariff trades are being dismantled after single European Act 

• Treaty of Maastricht of 1992/3: newly established EU was called an “economic and monetary union”. An “economic and monetary union” is an “internal market” plus common economic and monetary policy 

Liberalisation of tv broadcasting in the Netherlands

• Example of extension of ideological competition from the political sphere to the European judicial field after Single European Act 

• In media, economics national politics was set aside 

Political scientist Peter Mair 

• “People” had brought Hitler and Mussolini to power they cannot be trusted after 1945 

• One purpose of EU integration was to protect decision making process from national representative democracy 

Sociologist Wolfgang Streeck 

• EU’s am is to protect international financial markets from democratic politics 

• EU should be seen as a consolidation state 

• Expressed by trade agreement with Canada, CETA , mentions that national policies have the same effect as expropriation then the investors can make billions against the government

Historian Quinn Slobodian

• Around 1957, neoliberals advocated establishment of supranational institutions like EU communities to protect financial markets from redistribution of income and wealth by national democracies 

Ambivalence of EEC/ EU: Shield against, or catalyst of neoliberal globalisation 

• Are Europeanisation and neoliberal globalisation contradictory or complementary? 

• Did it start in 1958 as the economic middle ground between right wing negative integration and left wing positive integration

• Or is it purely a right wind free trade project

• Depends 

Part 2: End of Cold War and establishment of the EU 

Return of the German Q. 

• Connection with oil prices

• Gobrachev came to power wanted reform the economy 

• Wanted to stop the arms race 

• In 1989, communism collapsed 

• Gorbachev was super popular in the West but he was not so popular in Russia

• End of the Cold-War, the joining of the West and East Germany was discussed 

• Margaret Thatcher- the German Question 

• Kohl decrees that Thatcher said “we beat the Germans twice and they are back at it” 

• On 25 March 1990, she provided historians and politicians to a discussion at Chequers about German reunification 

• A united Germany would not fit so well in the West 

• After reunification “there would be a growing inclination to resurrect the concept of Mittel-Europa with Germany’s role being that of a broken between East and West”

• European communities were strengthened due to the reunification of Germany, within a year after the fall of the Berlin war, Germany was reunified 

• There were individual states that opposed unification of Germany but they had to give in due to the US, France and USSR supported this 

Introduction of the European Monetary Union: consequence of the German reunification? 

• Former Prof. Andre Szasz: french demand and German concession 

• EU Monetary integration was partly a response to the breaking up of Bretton system

• West Germany had dominated the European economics 

• To break the German dominance, European monetary union were made 

• The German Q came back to the table 

• Jochim Bitterlich, former head of the European Policy Department at the West Germany Federal Chancellor’s Office in late 1980s stated in 2022 - German unification and Euro were 2 parallel processes, not one following the other 

• All do agree that it was a French plan with German design: European central bank should be non-political with price stability as ts task, it was modelled based on the Deutsche Bundesbank 

Summit European COuncil in Rome, Oct. 1990

• Different organisations for European cooperation (both intergovernmental and supranational) should be brought under one roof 

• EU (maastricht Treaty signed in 1992, EU established in 1993)

Maastricht Treaty (1992):

• New policies added like a common single currency 

• UK opted of the 3rd stage of the European economic and monetary union as a condition for it’s adoption of the Maastricht Treaty 

• UK followed independent monetary policy and maintained the pound sterling 

EU: The Three pillars 1992-1993: 

Identification with democracy resulted in Copenhagen criteria (1993), rules that defined whether or not a country is eligible to join the EU: institutions guaranteeing: 

• Democracy 

• Rule of law 

• Human rights 

• Respect for and protection of minorities

• Functioning marketing economy 

• And cope with market pressures 

First Enlargement 1973: 

• Ireland, Denmark, England 

Second Enlargement: 

• Greece 

Third Enlargement:  

• Spain and portugal 

Third and a half: 

• East Germany

Fourth enlargement 1995: 

• Austria, Sweden , Finland

In 2004: Big Bang Enlargement: 

• 10 new member states 

1999: german Government and parliament move from Bonn to Berlin, former Eastern bloc becomes “central Europe”, return of North-SOuth division in Europe 

Part 3: Neofunctionalism and Liberal intergovernmentalism 

Theory 1: Neofunctionalism (Ernt B. Haas 1957)

• Spill-over- integration of particular economic sectors will lead to the integration of related economic sectors, and eventually will lead to political integration (mentioned before)

• Main actor is the supranational centre in Brussels

Theory 2: Liberal Intergovernmentalism (Andrew Moravsik 1998) 

• Main actors are governments of the member states 

• European Communities and EU are the product of a series of negotiations between nation states with conflicting economic interests 

• There are no internal dynamics and there’s no spill-over

Neofunctionalism is not the same as Monnet’s functional method liberal intergovernmentalism shouldn’t be confused with neoliberalism:

• Monnet’s functional method: 

  • strategy to create the conditions for the Europeanisation of political decision-making 

  • ECSC and Euratom examples of functionalist or sectoral communities 

• Neofunctionalism: 

  • Theoretical description of process of European Integration 

• Neoliberalism: 

  • Political aim of rolling back state power by establishing IMF, World Bank and EC/ EU after Single European Act of 1987 in order to protect market system 

• Liberal intergovernmentalism: 

  • Theoretical explanation of the European integration process by emphasising the continuous important role of national government

• Liberal intergovernmentalism vs Neoliberalism: in Neoliberalism, politicians give power to supranational organisations and in Liberal Intergovernmentalism, the power remains within the national government 

1. Enlargement 

Enlargement after the end of the Cold War: 

• Different geopolitical situation 

• Neutral w-European states joined (Austria, Finland, Sweden) in 1995 

• Austria pledged neutrality 

1993: CPH Criteria for EU membership 

• Political criteria: institutional stability as a guarantee of a democratic and constitutional system, protection of human rights and of mnínorities 

• Economic criterion: functioning market economy as well as the capacity

• Acquis criterion: candidateäs ability to take obligations that come with the membership

• 1997 Luxemburg: Compliance with political criterion as necessary condotion fot the candidate status and the opening of negotiations 

• ‘New Approach’ launched in 2011

Eastern Enlargement: from 15 to 27 

• 2 phases: 2004: Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia & Slovenia - economic weaken member states and many jooning at the same time 

• 2007: Romania and Bulgaria 

Key Points: 

• Strong symbolic dimension: ‘return to Europe’ 

• Strong asymmetry of power & sensitive elements - they will not fall back into any ideas of communism 

Impact on EU: 

• Austria benefitted for example as markets expanded with it 

• Institution and policy reform required 

• Transitional arrangement, e.g. free movement- appease the fear; citizens from new member states weren’t allowed right away to work in the countries before

Rule of law after enlargement: 

• potential membership is great incentive to democratise for candidate countries 

• No incentive to stay democratic once they joined 

• Big conundrum: democratic backsliding in Poland and Hungary

• EU recovering fund: you can only get this money if you stay democratic 

• Helpless when they are undemocratic 

Future enlargement:

• Enlargement off the table for a long time 

• Changing geopolitical situation and Putin’ invasion in Ukraine- stimulus for new enlargement 

• Plan: Ukraine and 9 other countries to join by 2030 

• If others join, they will stay away from Russia 

• Candidates: Albania, Bosnia, Moldova, Montenegro North Macedonia,Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine 

• Kosovo & Georgia do not yet have candidate status 

3 stages of membership accession: 

• Official candidate status

  • When country complies with political criterion 

  • No negotiations yet 

• Formal accession negotiations

  • Adoption of established EU law 

  •  Reforms to meet all membership criteria 

• Membership: 

  • Once all negotiations and reforms are completed 

2 Ever Closer Union: treaty reform 

• More and more member states joined because there were many member states negotiation with each other 

• 1987: single European Act 

• 1993: maastricht 

• 1999: amsterdam

• 2003: nice 

• 200: treaty of lisbon

1997: Treaty of Amsterdam

• Consolidated existing treaties 

• Differentiated integration- opt-outs for UK, IE, DK: member states can not join if they don't want to or are able to 

• Strengthening foreign policy 

• Preparing for enlargement 

• High Representative for common foreign and security policy 

• They wanted all the leaders to bike over the Amstel 

Why a constitutional treaty? 

• 2001.2003: European convention for Developing a constitutional treaty 

• Not a constitute but a constitutional treaty 

• Strengthen citizen rights 

• Which countries rejected the treaty: france and netherlands 

• France rejection 55.6%

• Period of reflection: 2005-2007 

Treaty of Lisbon (Reform Treaty)

• 90% of reforms in ECT 

• BUT not names “constitution”

• Amending existing treaties rather than creating 

• Additional op outs 

• Ince only reform, no referendum necessary 

• Rejected by Irish voter in 2008 but approved second vote 

• Last ratification: Czech Republic in 2009 

• In effect since Dec 2009 

• Replaced by 3 pillars with EU as overall legal structure 

• QMV: 

  • Extended use 

  • Double majority: 55% of Member States representing 65% of the EU population 

• Democracy: more powers to EP and parliaments; citizen initiatives, Charter of FUndamental Rights 

• Permanent president of European Council 

• External Action Service 

• Article 50, Brexit Clause 

Future reforms?

• Amid new enlargement round, ambitions for treaty reforms 

• MEP’s submitted proposal for treaty reform 

  • Towards more bicameral system 

  • More power to EU 

  • Pan European referendums 

3. Politicization of the EU and Euroscepticism 

• Post Maastricht Blues

  • After maastricht, euroscepticism 

  • Not necessarily true

  • Since maastricht though there are PARTIES but there was always people that were eurosceptic 

  • Voters now influence politics more 

• Public opinion on EU integration 

  • Permissive consensus in early stages

  • EU support varies across countries 

  • Euroscepticism- First used by Thatcher

  • Party-based euroscepticism vs public euroscepticism 

  • Party-based has risen now, but public existed before 

• What is politicization?

  • Increase in polarization of opinion, interest or values 

    • 3 indicators: awareness, mobilization, polarization 

  • 3D concept 

    • Salience of the EU 

    • Expansion of actors involved in monitoring/debating EU policy

    • Polarization: actors and opinion 

    • Can vary independently 

  • No- votes in European referendums:

Brexit referendums: 

• OM Cameron promises referendum if conservatives win in elections 

• Nationally, 52% vote to leave 

• A divided country: Scotland and Northern ireland and the young and better educated vote to remain along with London 

• Big distribution 

• Some said if Brexit happened a few years later, outcome would be different since there were mostly young who wanted to stay and the old would “die out”

Brexit Leave Campaign: 

• Supported by UKIP and Right-wing newspaper 

• Leave Campaign focus: 

  • Immigration 

  • Extra funding of NHS 

  • Freedom to forge less onerous international trade agreements 

  • Project fear 

  • Rejection of expert opinion 

• Supported by main political parties and some national newspaper 

• Remain campaign focus 

  • Negative economic implication of leaving 

  • Down-played immigration issue 

• Proposals to limit migration from EU in the future at odds with principle of the free movement of people enshrined in the EU treaties 

• Brexit negotiations under article 50

  • Eu council delegated BRexit negotiations to COmmission 

  • Negotiating principles: 

    • EU to speak with 1 voice 

    • Phased approach 

    • Ensure the integrity of the internal market 

    • Commitment to the Good Friday agreement and peace in Northern Ireland 

EU campaign points of leading parties:

• PVV wants a binding referendum over Nexit, and “0 Dutch Euros to Europe”

• VVD wants less veto powers, strict rules for budget and enlargement, and more geopolitical power to EU 

• GL/PvdA wants a more social Europe and implement the Green deal 

• NSC wants more veto power, against “transfer union”

Supranationalism vs Intergovernmentalism 

European Commission: Promoting the common interest

• Overview: 

  • Guardian of the treaties 

  • Executive of the EU

  • Distinct from Council-innovative 

  • Ex-High Authority of ECSC 

  • Embodies Jean Monnet’s vision of a “functionalist bureaucracy”

• Role of the Commission: 

  • Agenda setting and proposing legislation to Parliament and the Council 

  • Manage and implements EU policies and budget 

  • Enforce European law (with the COurt of Justice) 

  • Represent the EU on the international stage 

• Functions of the Commission 

  • Two functions: 

1. Political executive wing: commissioners and staff 

2. Administrative wing: Commission directorate generals and services 

• Commission president: political leader of the commission: 

  • Has permanent secretariat: Secretariat- General 

  • Power to reject: Commissioner nominees 

  • Power to re-allocate portfolios & reshuffle 

  • Primus supra pares 

• The college of commissioners: 

  • 1 commissioner per member states 

  • Each with portfolio

    • Sectrol: Trade, Energy, Home Affairs etc 

    • Functional: budget 

  • Plans to reduce to ⅔ by 2014 but not implemented 

  • Consensus reached through debate and bargaining 

  • Principle of collegiality- voting rare 

European Commission: structure

• Appointment of the Commission: 

  • 2 step process

1. Appointment of the Commission’s President 

2. Appointment of the Commissioners 

2a. Proposition of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy 

2b. Proposition Of the other Commissioners

2c. Appointment of the Commission 

‘Splizenkandidater’: to be discussed in class on EP= European Parliament 

The Cabinet: Commissioner’s private office

• Key role in forwarding Commissioner’s ideas 

• Monitors work in other Commissioner’s departments 

• Staff interact vertically and horizontally 

• Regular Chefs de Cabinet meetings chaired by SG 

• Interface with outside world 

• Traditionally national clusters but increasingly supranational composition and culture 

  • Redefinition of relationship between national governments and commission

• Functions of the Commission: 

  • Two functions: 

    • Political executive wing 

      • Commissioners and staff 

    • Administrative Wing

      • Commission directorates generals and services 

• DGs and Services: 

  • Part of the admin/ bureaucratic level 

  • Divided among departments called “directorate-generals” or services 

  • Each DG is in charge of a particular area. 

  • DGs prepare legislative documents, these documents only become official after being “adopted” by the College 

  • DGs manage the adopted programs and policies 

• Organisation of the commission 

  • Commissions administration 

    • In total, c. 30,000 commission officials 

    • C.12,500 AD officials 

      • Most prestigious 

      • Involved in policy-making and policy management 

      • Competitive recruitment process based on merit “Concours”

      • National quotas 

  • Geographical balance

    • Multinational chains of command 

    • Nationality historically an issue for appointment to higher levels, now much less 

• How “supranational” are commissioners really?

  • Q commissioner/member state; battle over portfolios

  • “Reliable” national politicians with national careers

  • Gehring and Schneider: providing the commissioner increases national budget allocation 

• External Relations

  • Special case: foreign affairs and security policy represented by the high representative 

  • Until Lisbon, High Representative was part of Council 

  • In CFSP still under mandate of council 

Intergovernmental or supranational? 

Intergovernmental

• National government are motors of integration 

• Commission’s authority is delegated 

• Commission facilitates IG cooperation 

• Power decided by treaty negotiations 

• Commission actors pursue national interests 

Supranational: 

• Commission influences European Council and IGC outcomes 

• Day-to-day. Commission interprets vague treaty-based framework 

• Commission actors tend to have a supranational identity 

European Council: 

• Founded in 1974, 1987 first mentioned in the treaties 

• Since 2009 official institution of the EU 

• Heads of state and government

• Founding idea: no civil servants!

• Meet four times a year 

• General political directions and priorities 

• Agenda setter, no legislative function 

European Council Meeting 

• High profiles summits of political leaders 

• Attended by European Commission Pres and High Representative 

• Breaks deadlock over politically charged issues 

• Key role during 2 decades of eurosclerosis ‘

President of the European Council

• role exists since 2009 

• Elected by the European Council with qualified majority 

• For 2.5 years 

• Renewable once 

Charles Michel:

• President of the European Council 

• Former prime minister of Belgium 

• Member of Renew Europe 

• Predecessors: 

  • Donald Tusk

  • Herman van Rompuy 

High representative: 

• High representative of the union for foreign affairs and security policy 

• Visible International legal personality 

  • Blurs boundaries between council + commission 

  • Posts EU as credible global actor 

  • High- level diplomacy through European External Action service 

• European Council appoints HR for 5-year term 

Rotating presidency: 

• Every 6 years, other member states has presidency

  • Plans, schedules & chairs Coreper and working groups 

• Highly coveted 

  • Balances power between big and small countries 

  • Great agenda setting possibility 

  • However, Huge workload 

• Enigmatic Identity 

  • Collective european solutions vs national interests 

• Permanent president of European Council 

  • Loss of power 

Council of EU

• Legislative body 

• Formerly “council of ministers”

• Meetings of national ministers 

• Eg. ECOFIN council Foreign affairs council 

• Frequency varies 

  • Importance of portfolio

  • EU competencies

• Meetings of over 100 people 

COREPER: 

• Committee of permanent representatives 

  • Two permanent representatives per member state

• Preparatory body of the council 

  • Intense negotiations: de-facto decision. Makers 

  • Weekly meetings to prepare work of the council 

• Unique vantage point 

  • Horizontally; work across all EU affairs 

  • Vertically: work between ministers and experts 

• Permanent representatives 

• Criticized for lack of transparency 

Inter-institutional relations: 

• Interactions with commission

  • Main pulse and dynamic of European integration 

  • Both strained and smooth 

  • Empty chair crisis of 1965 

• Interactions with European parliament 

  • Originally one sided 

  • Towards a bicameral federal political system 

EP in EU: where is it? 

• France wanted to have some piece of the European cake hence the Strasbourg 

Evolving EP: 

• 1951: common assembly of ECSC 

  • Added democratic legitimacy 

  • 78 members appointed from national legislature 

  • 1979: first direct elections to EP 

  • EP used direct elections to ask for more power 

  • Today: equal legislative and budgetary partner to the Council 

  • Scrutinize and hold the Commission to account

• Treaty of rome: 1957

  • Coverage extended to three communities 

  • Increased right of consultation but council not be obliged to take account of Assembly’s position 

  • Right to propose elections by direct suffrage 

Power and influence in 3 key areas 

1. EU Budget: 

• Budget treaties of 1970 & 1975 

  • Right to amend/ reject and sign off books 

  • Consulted re. Appointments in Courts of Auditors 

  • Rower re. non -compulsory spend only (20%)

• Persistent conflict between Council and EP 

  • Resolution via multiannual financial perspective 

• Lisbon removes non compulsory distinction 

  • EP and Council as bicameral budgetary authority 

• Central tool: priorities, direction and how money is spent 

• Multiannual Framework (MMF) result of long political process 

• 2021-2027 MFF and NextGenerationEU (total 1.8 trillion euros)

  • First proposal by commission in May 2018 

  • Revised 2020 due to Corona 

  • July 2020 agreed by member states 

  • December 2020 agreed by EP 

2. EP and the Commission 

• Dismissal 

  • EP enjoys right to dismiss whole commission 

  • Never happened, but Santer commission resigned (1999)

• Appointment

  • 1992 Maastricht & 1997 Amsterdam: formal right to veto President-designate & whole COmmission 

  • 2007 Lisbon: direct role in appointing President 

  • EP interview and proves individual COM candidates 

• Scrutiny 

  • Limited to invitation to explain & justify decisions 

  • Commission submits annual work programme to EP 

• Ex. 2004 Rocco Buttiglione e 2019. EP rejects French, Hungarian and Polish candidate 

3. EP’s increasing legislative powers:

• Consultation procedure (1979)

• Cooperation procedure 

  • Introduced by 1986 SEA 

  • Second reading and conditional veto 

  • Closer collaboration with commission 

• Co-decision (renamed Ordinary Legislative Procedure by Lisbon Treaty)

  • Introduced by 1992 Maastricht Treaty 

  • Third reading; unconditional veto; conciliation process 

  • From Article 15, today it covers 85 policy areas 

  • EP and council as co-legislators 

• EP has shaped legislation va the OPL 

  • Eg. increasing environmental standards, promoting civil liberties, improving consumer rights 

• Changing inter-institutional relations 

  • Small negotiating teams from EP and council 

  • Trilogues (EP, Council, COM)

  • Legislation concluded on first reading 

  • However, implications for transparency 

• Efficiency vs Legitimacy 

4. Internal politics of the EP 

• Strong committees and weak parties 

• Political groups 

  • Link between Brussels and national level parties 

  • need 23 MEPs to create a group 

  • Seven cross-national groups 

  • Largest groups 

    • European People’s Part (EEP): centre-right 

    • Social & Democratic Alliance (S&D): centre- left 

Key positions: 

• President 

  • Chairs Plenary and represents the EP 

  • Allocation decided by party elites 

• Vice President 

  • Support the President and help run the parliament  

• Committee chairs  

  • Set calendar and agenda of meetings 

  • Participate in OLP inter-institutional negotiations 

EP president Robert Metsola

• In office since 2022

• After death of Daide Sassoli

• Youngest president, third woman, first Maltese 

• Member of EPP 

Committees

• Over 20 standing committees 

• Divided functionally into policy areas 

• Repository for policy expertise 

• Legislation mainly discussed in committees 

• Appoint teams for intra/inter-institutional negotiations 

Rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs 

• Draft committee reports 

• Shape positions adopted by their political groups 

• Central to negotiation team for talks under OLP 

Legislative process: trilogues 

• Commission + EP + Council together 

• Lack of transparency, but much faster 

Parliament at Work: PLenary 

• Multilingualism: 24 Languages = 552 combinations 

  • Effects on debted & the public 

• Plenary for public position taking; specifics aöready discussed within committees 

• Keeping check on committees 

• Final say about reports 

Policy-making instruments

• Primary legislation 

  • treaties : direct effect 

• Secondary legislation 

  • Regulations: direct effect on member states 

  • directive s: transposed by member state and national regulations with minor deviations allowed 

  • Decision: mainly issued by EC and binding for select stakeholders 

Soft law instruments: 

• recommendations and opinion: not enforceable, mainly political and declaratory in nature 

• Green papers and communications 

• self/ co-regulation 

• Open method of coordination: guidelines, benchmarking, exchange of best practice 

How do these instruments come into being? 

• Collaboration between supranational and intergovernmental being 

• Co-decision or Ordinary legislative Procedure 

  • The procedure that EU strives for since it’s very transparent 

  • Exception remains 

  • Most decisions go through this process 

Forward planning, agenda-setting 

• All european institutions are involved 

• Not just done by one but is a combination 

• From the bigger agenda, each and every year a new strategic era is made 

• Ex. communication from the commission to the european parliament, te council, the european economic and social committee and the committee of the regions: shows how it goes through all the different committees

Legislative proposal: 

• Throughout the year 

• European commission takes the lead 

• Consult with a variety of experts- everyone whose interrelated in the initiative 

• Ex. legislative proposal for migration: people from parliament and everyone whose interested would come into this 

Voting procedures: 

• Council of the EU/ ministers: Qualified Majority Voting 

• Trilogues: 

  • Plenary or committee negotiating mandate 

  • Council or COREPER negotiation mandate 

Implementation 

• Member states: monitored by European COmmission and European Court of justice 

• Regulation, urectivem decision, recommendation EU commission assists in the transposition of EU directive into national laws 

• Evaluation: European commission 

• European semester: 

  • New socio economic governance architecture architecture ro coordinate national policies without transferring full sovereignty to the EU level 

Court of Justice of the EU 

EU Central Bank and EMU 

European Court (EU Courts): 

• European Court of Justice, Luxembourg

• European General Court, Luxembourg 

• European Civil Service Tribunal

• European Court of Auditors 

Council of Europe: 

• European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg

• European but not part of the EU  

UN: 

• International Court of Justice, The Hague 

• Settles legal disputes by states 

International Courts: 

• International Criminal Court, the Hague 

• Independent I.O., 120 MS 

• War crimes 

Composition of European Court of Justice: 

• 1 Judge per member state 

• 8 doctor general 

• Judges hear cases and adopt decisions 

• First female judge in 1999, no retirement age 

• Appointed for 6 years, can be reappointed; often criticised about the appointment of the judges since it’s not clear the process

• Lisbon treaty improved upon this 

• Advocate General: 

  • Non-binding opinions to judges 

  • 5 from 5 largest member states, 3 rotating 

  • Treaty of Lisbon increased number to 11 

• Registrar: 

  • Procedural and administrative duties; 6 year term 

• Chambers: 

  • Chamber of 3-5 judges 

  • Grand Chamber of 13 Judges 

  • Full court in exceptional cases

ECJ: Procedure

• Written and oral stage 

• Final decision adopted by a majority:

  • No mention of dissenting opinion to maintain anonymity

  • Judgement published in EU’s official Journal 

  • The decisions are final 

European General Court: 

• Formerly known as the Court of First instance 

• Independent status since the Nice Treaty 

• Aim was to help out the European Court of Justice 

• Focuses of legal issues such as Administrative law. The judges are appointed the same as the European Court of Justice except there are no Advocate Generals. 

European Civil Service Tribunal 

• Created in 2024: 

  • For cases involving European administration 

• Judges:

  • 7 judges 

• Cases can then be appealed further to the European General Court

Activities of the ECJ: 

• Aims that EU law is observed in interpretation and application 

• Jurisdiction: 2 main tasks 

  • Direct actions 

    • Any legal persons, member states or EU institutions can appeal on the basis of EU law not being followed 

      • Infringement proceedings: If a member state fails to fulfil EU obligations 

      • Annulment procedure aka Action for judicial review: exactly what it sounds like, review legality of acts 

      • Action for damages: Compensation for individuals or member states due to EU’s illegal activity

    • Example: ES Lecturer Stefan Salomon litigated against Austria’s Schengen controls: free movement of people, if you cross a Schengen border then you cannot be checked. He was checked in a Schengenn border; Austria payed a fine

References to Preliminary ruling: 

• Not individuals but national courts who ask for advice/ opinions of the ECJ to decide on the case 

• In theory, non-hierarchical but in practice it absolutely is as it becomes difficult for the national court to go past the European courts. 

• Used to issue important political decisions:

  • Central in shaping legal order of EU 

• Important in development of key legal principles e.g: direct effect; supremacy 

Judicial politics: 

• Treaties and constitutions as “incomplete contracts”

• Courts can exploit vagueness to shape policy outcomes 

• Judges should be neutral in theory but most have their own political biases 

• EU especially prone to judicial politics

  • EU law is vague as member states can’t agree on the nitty-gritty 

  •  No constitution; treaty of Lisbon is the closest but it does not have the status of the constitution 

  • EU decision making process involves many actors which means that there is more room for manoeuvre 

  • Used this liberty to push EU law in a pro-European direction 

  • ECJ ruling often in favour of consumer rights, gender equality etc 

  • ECJ acts as policy maker unofficially

  • Concerns about ECJ being too political; the EPP has become the almighty power in the EU and is very well represented in the European Council so it’s not problematic that the ECJ counterweights that by introducing a more liberal and progressive bias

  • Weakens separation of powers

Judicial politics “integration through law”

• In “Eurosclerosis” (stagnation of EU integration during the 1960s) ECJ emerges as a motor for integration 

• 3 landmark rulings:

  • Often seen as “de facto constitution” of the EU 

  • Van Gend en Loos ruling 1963: direct effect 

    • imported chemicals from Western Germany to the Netherlands where they were asked to pay import taxes at Dutch customs which they objected to on the grounds

    • Dutch company invoked EU law against Dutch customs authority 

    • ECJ was asked for preliminary ruling: does EU law apply? 

    • ECJ decided that individuals can invoke EU law b/c the community constitutes a new legal order

    • Against the will of majority of member states w

    •  EU law is similar to domestic law then international law 

    • EU law is “law of the land” in member states 

  • Costa vs Enel ruling: supremacy of EU law over national law 

    • Italian court asked for preliminary ruling as there was a contradiction between Italian and european law 

    • ECJ rules that EU law is superior than Italian law, by creating the EU, member states limited their sovereignty 

    • Supremacy applied to all EU norms 

  • Cassis de Dijon ruling 1979: mutual recognition 

    • French liquor with 15-20% alc 

    • German company wanted to import this and sell it but German law stated that liquor must have 25% alc and hence cannot be sold as liquor but does not align with European law of free trade 

    • ECJ: if a product is marketed as one thing in one member state, you are automatically allowed to sell it under the same name in any other member state unless there are specific reasons against common welfare. 

Current challenges: 

• Neutrality v Judicial politics: 

  • Challenges separation of powers 

  • Judicial politics has decreased due to workload 

• Eastern enlargement: 

  • New judges from diverse legal traditions 

  • Increased workload 

• Accession to European Court of Human Rights 

  • Human rights not strongest aspect of ECJ’s Work 

  • Political and legal autonomy will be compromised 

  • ECJ has reacted to Europskepticsm shown through recent ruling where the ruling could’ve been pushed more towards integration. Ex: not as easy to access welfare state services in different member states if one works there. 

Economic & Monetary Union: 

• Single currency: The Euro 

• Single monetary authority: European Central Bank 

  • Responsible for euro 

  • Determines monetary policy 

• Single monetary policy: 

  • Sets key interest rate 

  • Money supply 

  • Credit conditions 

• Institutional asymmetry of EMU 

  • Developed monetary union (role of ECB)

  • Less developed economic union, no economic government 

European Central Bank: 

• Founded 1 June 1998 

• Located in Frankfurt/ Main 

• After German Bundesbank 

Where is the euro used?

• Euro area: 20 EU member states 

• EU member states that DO not use it 

  • Do not YET comply with convergence criteria: Bulgaria, Czechia, Hungary Romania, Poland

  • Makes sure not to comply with convergence criteria: Sweden and Denmark has an opt out 

Conditions for Optimal currency area (OCA)

• Countries are sufficiently integrated economically 

• Transfer payments 

• If sufficient labour market mobility across countries

  • Then it makes sense to have 1 currency 

Economic explanations for EMU

• EMU suitable if Optimal Currency Area (OCA)

  • Most argue EU is not an OCA- EMU bad move 

  • Some take broader view of OCA- less critical 

  • ‘Endogenous’ OCA theory: self-fulfilling prophecy 

Economic explanation 

• EMU dependent on central bank credibility 

  • Financial markets must have confidence 

  • Some argue that ECB has full independence & has clear treaty-based mandate 

  • More confidence than individual central banks 

Why did member states decide to create the common currency? 

• Competition to the US: they wanted to establish Euro as the second currency and even more important than the dollar 

• Facilitate trade amongst member states 

• Insuring stability by having 1 central bank that manages inflation 

• More political integration: less conflict 

Political explanations: 

• Neo-functionalism: 

  • Spillover from single market from trading etc 

  • Importance of supranational actors 

• Intergovernmental: 

  • France keen to control Germany and Germany benefited from regime simila to nation 

  • Symbolic power of joint currency 

Convergence criteria: theory 

Agreed in Maastricht Treaty 1991 

• Price Stability: inflation rate < 1.5% above best performing member state 

• Budget deficit < 3% of GDP 

• Accumulated public debt < 60% of GDP

• Successful participation in ERD for the past 2 years 

• Interest rate for gov bonds < 2% - above rate of 3 top member states

EU Law Making 

1. Source of EU Law: Air regulations for example is a source of EU law 

• Primary law (EU Treaties): Means that it prevails over the others even the international law

• General Principles of EU Law: inform the interpretation of EU law

• International Law: 

• Secondary Law: legal act approved based on the treaty; derived from primary law

• Implementation of EU Law: technical rules like the authorization of products like vaccines. Adopted through implementary measures 

1.1 The treaties 

• Protocols (binding): 

• Annexes: 

• Declaration (non binding): more political 

Primary Law: Treaty on European Union TEU and TFEU 

TFEU: Union policies and internal actions 

• Amount of power EU enjoy is dependent on the different areas 

• List of areas the EU can act 

2. Competences: principle of conferral: 

• Essential for any federation; whenever there is a sharing of power

• Key constitutional pact 

• Member states agreed that EU has power in x y and z 

• Mentions the boundaries which are agreed upon and the EU must act within through areas 

• This is foundational as member states have limited their own sovereignty 

• In a federal state, rule is the opposite, the competences of the state are enumerated but those that are unnamed are with the central government whereas in the EU they remain with the member states 

• Practical implications: if one wants to make sure that the EU remains within the boundaries, one must ask about the basis of any legal act that the EU is adopting- legal basis 

• Legal basis confers the power on the EU 

• Every legal act needs to have a legal basis although, these basis are vague and are interpreted so

EU competence types: 

• Exclusive competentives: custom unions, competition rule, monetary policy; the EU has the most power here over the member states

• Shared competences: Internal market, environment, consumer protection. EU acts when necessary but member states take care of it but once the EU adopts an act in n area, member states cannot adopt any other acts

• Complementary competences: supplementary competences, power of the EU is weaker, it can support member states. Ex. economic policy: EU cannot guide member states for national economic policy but the EU plans the European semester where the member states share their plans and then that is reviewed. Soft power. 

• CFSP 

How to establish whether the EU can legislate? 

• Find competences in art. 4-6 TFEU 

• Then find the legal basis in Part three TFEU

What if no specific legal basis fits? 

• Exclusive & shared competences 

• Complementary competences 

• Subsidiary legal basis for internal market, Art. 114

• Only measures necessary for the functioning of internal market 

• Subsidiary legal basis for all Treaty Objectives 

• Unanimity required in the Council 

Structural principles: principle of subsidiarity : article 5 (3) + protocol n2 

• Content: 

  • Area of shared competence 

  • Union can act only if the objectives pursued by the measure such that it cannot be achieved at member state level due to for instance coordination or scale 

  • And can be better achieved at this Union level

• Ratio Legis: taking decisions close to citizens 

• Procedural spects: 

  • Political control: protocol 2 (National parliaments)

  • Judicial control 

Procedure: 

• Legislation is proposed by European Commission

• Transmitted to other EU institutions and national parliaments 

• Individual opinion 

• Special legislative 

The principle of proportionality: 

• EU will only take actions to achieve its aims and no more 

• Why do we have it ? Public power should not overreach in individual rights and member states rights 

• It asks questions that can get rid of arbitrariness so if there is an arbitrary problem, the proportionality helps uncover this

• Conditions: 

  • Appropriateness: Is this measure appropriate?, measure is adequate to it’s goal 

  • Necessity: no alternative available that would be less restrictive but efficient 

  • Proportionality in a strict sense: balancing

• Secondary Law: types of legal acts 

  • Regulation (Legally binding)

    • As close as it gets to the law; how we understand law in the context of the member states

    • General application (indeterminate number of situations- for all actors)

    • Each article of the regulation has the same legal value

    • Directly applicable in all Member states, no national implementation needed. Once GDPR is published in the official journal it becomes law.

  • Directive (Legally binding)

    • General application- apply to everyone 

    • Not binding on individuals but are binding on the Member states with regard to a final result. Ex. the air quality needs to be x by 2026 and achieve it however you want 

    • They require action by member states to be effective 

    • The Member states have the freedom to implement whatever they see fit to achieve said goal 

    • No direct effect

      • Deadline: set by each directive, 

    • Obligation is unconditional and sufficiently precise 

  • Decision (Legally binding)

    • Google fined 1.5 million euros due to breachment of the EU law 

    • Also happen in sanctions 

    • Applied to an individual: Individual act (precise addresses)

    • Binding in all its elements 

    • Direct application 

Recommendations and Opinions: 

• “Soft law”

• Invitations addressed to MS or individuals to conform with an adopted line of conduct 

• Non binding 

EU Foreign policy 

24th Feb 2022: Press statement on Russia’s aggression against Ukraine 

Precursors to current EU External Policy: 

• European Defence Community (1952): Common army amongst the Member states, efficient to protect western Europe from the USSR which was considered as an ‘external threat’. Emergence was blocked by the French parliament because it would mean that the US would withdraw their army from Europe. 

• European political Cooperation (1970): European community to act as one in different institutions. This was intergovernmental and the decisions made would be agreed upon by all member states but did not hold the member states accountable 

Towards a ‘Political Union’- context of the Maastricht Treaty (1992)

• Civil wars in Yugoslavia 

• Globalization- focusing into East Asia

• Disillusion of the USSR also enhanced the instability in Europe

• US played a large role in helping situations in Yugoslavia

• Further coordinating their foreign policy together 

• Influence of European states crumbled away due to rise of new powers- China for example 

• Protect economic interests of EU- fascination of integration 

Political Union: 

• Political identity: the reunification of Germany and the USSR debate about political identity began. 

• Enlargement: Other European states also wanted to the EU which forced the EU to think about the new values which the new member states would have to adhere to 

Maastricht Treaty and the Birth if the Common Foreign and Security policy: 

• Maastricht introduced integration elements like the Euro 

• Common asylum policy introduced 

• In Art 3 (5): basis of the EU’s foreign policy - peace, security, solidarity and mutual respect

• Adherence to these norms can be disputed as well as the statement that the EU is a normative power 

Commons strategies, joint actions, common positions 

• Commons strategies: external policies in terms of priorities, common interest and the principle that guides the action of the EU. Global strategy helps to guide common action in the context of common, foreign and security policy 

• Joint Action: ex. election observation. Common positions are agreed upon in certain areas. Instruments through which common, foreign policy is operated. All member states have to agree and unanimity is required 

St. Malo Declaration (1998)

• The EU failed to respond effectively in Yugoslavia as well as the Kosovo crisis

• It states that a common security and defence policy must be established in the EU, the member states agree and it came into force in 2003 

Treaty of Lisbon (2007/09)

• Mutual assistance clause: obliged member states to provide support if a member state is under attack 

The CFSP: Highly Intergovernmental Policy Area 

• Key role in CFSP for the European Council and Foreign Affairs Council  

• EU member states remain key actors 

  • Right of initiative 

  • Possession of veto power 

Role of the European Council in the CFSP: 

• Defines strategic outlook of the EU 

• Adopts common strategies 

• Provides guidelines to Foreign affairs Council  

The Foreign Affairs Council:

• Makes formal decisions like sanctions 

• Chaired by High representative of the Union for Foreign Policy 

High representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy: 

• Following the Lisbon treaty, she is also part of the commission 

• Vice-president of the European Commission responsible for EU external action 

• Right to submit join proposals in all areas of eternal action 

• Head of the European Defence Agency 

• Responsible for implementation of Common Foreign and Security Policy

Limited influence of European Commission over CFSP: 

• Provision of development assistance and humanitarian aid 

• European commission plays a limited role as CFSP is not part of the ordinary legislative procedure  

• Supporting industrial cooperation in defence through EU Defence Fund- Andrius Kubilius- first commissioner to be given the portfolio of defence

• Commission has played an increasingly important role by providing humanitarian aid 

Limited influence of European Parliament over CFSP: 

• Kept informed and consulted on CFSP issues 

• Has a say on the Budget  allocated to civilian CSDP missions 

• Can influence civilian operations but overall has little power 

Proposals for a more effective EU: 

• EU s a security provider - 2018, defence president pushed for European army in order to defend against Russia and reduce military dependence on US which was criticised by many Eastern European states who wanted NATO to prevail 

• European Defence Union 

• Removal requirement for unanimity in CFSP decision-making