lecture 8 - decisionmaking Flashcards
EU as quasi federal state?
American scholars often try to understand it this way, but it doesn’t really work
- European Commission as executive (it can initiate)
but: can’t implement, can only monitor - Council of Ministers as legislative branch (problem democratic accountability: they are really empowered tegenover national MP)
but they are executive in MS
what kind of decisions?
policy-setting = secondary legislation
- history-making = treaties (usually decided at Intergov. Conferences + sometimes Council decisions also seen as treaties as some are really important (e.g. response to Russia))
determine what institutions can do and how they make decisions - policy-setting = secondary legislation (regulations, directive decision): ordinary legislative procedures
- policy shaping = implementing legislation: administrative law
+ soft law (guidelines, codes of conduct, communications)
!administrative law puts into practice what comes from secondary legislation.
!! it is not secondary legislation, it is implementing legislation
EU competences
Lisbon Treaty art. 2
- exclusive: decisions can only be taken at EU level
e.g. trade agreements, competition - shared: decisions at EU level but also at national level (more and more shared competences)
e.g. environment - supportive: EU commission can bring together MS to discuss and support in exchanging ideas, but MS individually decide
can be the most effective: MS really take ownership -> implement it well
policy-making vs decision-making
policy-making:
- community method: important for exam
commission proposes, EP and Council decide, Court adjudicates - intensive transgovernmentalism (CFSP): MS in charge, make the most important decisions, whilst commission is always in the room
- centralised decision-making (competition policy, Eurozone interest rates): decision-making competences delegated to the EU
- open method of coordination (OMC): no legislation in Brussels, EU Commission supportive of MS decision-making
decision-making
- in Community method
1. ordinary legislative procedure (co-decision)
2. consent procedure
3. consultation procedure - in CFSP: intergov. and unanimity
community method: 4 decision-making procedures
consent procedure e.g. enlargement
!no amendment rights: can only say yes or no
cooperation procedure not longer in use
ordinary legislative procedure: EP wanted to be consulted throughout the whole project, threatened to veto if not
(co-decision procedure was the old name)
!!in time: more and more agreement/adoption in first reading -> length legislative procedure is decreasing
(still: it takes time: ~16 months now with 1st reading)
ordinary legislative procedure - first reading
first reading
EP can amend or accept
Council can decide by QMV if the Commission likes the EP amendments
council decides by unanimity if the Commission does not agree with the amendments
second reading ordinary legislative procedure
third reading ordinary legislative procedure
conciliation procedure tries to find agreement/consensus
‘‘trialogues’’ are less formal meetings with same purpose (see chapter)
Council voting in the OLP
- simple majority = 14 member states vote in favor
- qualified majority = 55% of MS, representing at least 65% of EU population, vote in favor
- unanimous vote = all votes are in favor
usually QMV, but it depends on policy
in reality: mostly consensus (whenever they can, they try to reach agreement): norm of consensus-building
how the EP decides in the ordinary legislative procedure (OLP)
“working parliament”-> Committee with a rapporteur and a “shadow” raporteur
plenary =
- simple majority in the first reading
- absolute majority later on = 353 out of 705
OLP - bang goes the theory
informal procedure in advance of first reading (as it is easiest to pass legislation in first reading)
informal early agreements: try to agree on text early on
President assurance letter: Council confirms it agrees
EP adopts -> Council adopts
what is the problem?
- we lack transparency
- accountability problems
-> still informal trilogue meetings, but some rules: what they have to share
Foreign affairs decision-making
Commission does not have right of initiative, it can do it together with High Representative
agenda-setting / policy proposal
- High Representative / EEAS
- MS - Council or European Council
decision-making (no “laws” on how to)
- unanimity in Council (decision) & constructive abstention (abstain without stopping policy from going through)
- for international agreements: consent EP
implementation
- programming decision by Commission / EEAS
- MS
!when it comes to security, there is diff policy
so what?
- MS and EP are equally involved in the OLP
- role of gov. empowers them at their national level (bc they act as legislative in EU + executive at home)
- European Commission does not “decide”
(so: national excuse: Brussel decided is not true)
trialogues considered as problematic by some: not transparent + more diff. to exert democratic accountability
* = debate: efficiency vs transparency*
to sum up
- decision-making procedure evolved over time: since 1993 co-decision, since 2009 OLP
- formal rules are based on treaties + there is clear competence division
- legal basis referring to the competences of the Union matter as it prescribes the mode of decision-making (e.g. QMV and not unanimity)
- informal procedures are far more efficient BUT have less transparency and less democratic accountability
- CFSP is still an odd one out with its transgovernmentalism and unanimity as the main voting rule
What is an absolute majority in the EP?
353 out of 705 votes
