Show all/Hide all

7.2.1. How is the European (the EU) administered?

The EU is administered through a complex political system, based on the “sui generis” way of functioning. In effect, the EU is neither a federation of States or a simple example of intergovernmental cooperation.  Its structure is characterised by an original institutional framework combining elements of both approaches.

7.2.2. How many member states are there in the European Union?

As from1st. of January 2007 the European Union is comprised of twenty-seven countries with a total population of 485 million. Since the European project was first launched in 1951 by the six founding countries, others have joined in successive waves:

• 1st of January 1973:  Denmark, Ireland and the UK join the European Community  (accession treaties signed on the 22nd of January 1972).  However Norway, which had signed the treaty, did not ratify it;
• 1st of January 1981:  Greece joins (accession treaty signed on 28th of May 1979);
• 1st of January 1986:  Spain and Portugal join (accession treaty signed on 12h of June 1985);
• 1st of January 1995: Austria, Finland and Sweden join the EU     (accession treaties signed on the 24th and 25th of June 1984); Norway also signed the treaty but, for a second time, failed to ratify it;
• 1st of May 2004 Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia: join (treaties signed on the 16th of April 2003);
• 1st of January 2007: Bulgaria and Rumania join (accession treaties signed on the 25th of April 2005);

See map in Chapter 1.1. and for the Geography of Europe the site:
www.sheppardsoftware.com/country_europe-G2_drag-drop.html

7.2.3. What are the current criteria for joining the European Union?

“Any European State which honours the principle of freedom, democracy,
and respect for human rights and fundamental liberties, as well as the rule of law,  concepts which are common to the member states, can ask to become a member of the Union” (provisions contained in the Treaty of European Union).

However, since the fall of the Berlin wall and the iron curtain in 1989, the prospect of a broad enlargement to include the Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC) led the European Council to set new criteria for membership on the 22nd of June 1993.  So now candidates must satisfy the three “Copenhagen criteria”.

The political criterion: the presence of stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the primacy of the law, respect for human rights (where both genders are concerned!) and the rights of minorities, as well as their defence.

The economic criterion: the existence of a viable market economy, as well as the capacity to face up to the pressure of the competition and the market forces within the European Union (EU)

Finally the criteria of “acquis communautaire” here that is the capacity of the candidate country to undertake its obligations, adapting its administrative structures, and to subscribe to the political, economic and monetary objectives of the EU.

Bearing in mind the broad scope of the provisions and juridical acts which go to make up the “acquis communautaire”, mechanisms and periods of transition are often provided.   

The European Commission has the job of evaluating the state of advancement of the candidate country, as far as the “acquis communautaire” is concerned, and makes regular reports to the Council of Ministers.

When the candidate country satisfies the three criteria, negotiations proper can begin.

Nevertheless, at the start of the accession process, there are pre-accession strategies which aid progressive integration and technical adaptation.  These1 are the “European agreements”, the agreements of association which prepare for the accession of an associate country, and the “partnerships for accession”, which draw up national programmes of preparation for accession and determine for each country the priorities to be followed.  “Pre-accession financial aid” is also granted

The rapid expansion of the EU  in 2004 and 2005, as well as applications to join from Morocco and Turkey, raise questions about the limits of the EU.  There is a geographical aspect (written into the treaties) and a political and cultural aspect.  Geographically, the continent of Europe extends, in the words of General de Gaulle, “from the Atlantic to the Urals”, crossing countries like Turkey and Russia.  But right from Roman times the Mediterranean Sea was “Mare Nostrum” (“Our sea”), with its two shores forming part of the same political whole.  Some would wish to see the EU tightly restricted to the Geographical frontiers of the Continent.  Others would prefer it to extend as far as the confines of the influence of its culture: to where the impact of its civilisation is felt (see Conference of Bernard Coulie, Rector of the University of Louvain-la-Neuve).

“The originality of the Continent of Europe comes firstly from Geography, just as that of a family comes from its members as physical beings, but its character has been forged and determined by history, that’s to say by human beings in the course of time…..  It is a diverse Europe whose common heritages are, in particular, cultural”.  Jacques Le Goff in his “L’Europe raccontee aux jeunes”  (“Europe told to the Young.”)  Seuil 1996

About the accession criteria:
europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/accession_copenhagen_criteria_en.htm;
ec.europa.eu/enlargement/enlargement_process/accession_process/how_does_a_country_join_the_eu/index.en.htm

7.2.4. Why are the European institutions said to be supranational?

The supranational nature of European institutions is due to the independence of those institutions vis-à-vis the member states.

There are certainly some links with the national governments (including, fior instance, the possibility of officials of a country being assigned on detachment to the European administration), but, generally speaking, the European institutions pursue the common European interest. The European Commissioners, the members of the European Parliament (EP), the employees of the European Court of Justice and the officials of other European institutions all have a European mandate!  They are supposed to deal with the matters submitted to them and the staff under them without taking any account of their own country of origin.

7.2.5. What is the ““acquis communautaire””?

The “acquis communautaire”” consists of all the common rights and obligations which bind the member states, as well as the objectives of the European Union (EU).

This involves all the Community law, that’s to say: the consecutive treaties (“the primary law”), the acts produced by the community institutions (“the derived law”), and everything that arises from these: all the common policies and the jurisprudence of the Court, taken as a whole.

This is a total of about 26,000 juridical documents over some 80,000 pages!.  

About “acquis communautaire”:
europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/accession.acquis communautaire.en.htm                  

7.2.6. What are the various forms of European legislative acts?

There are five forms of European legislative acts or decisions: the regulation, the directive, the decision, the recommendation and the opinion.

The “regulation” and the “directive” are mandatory in their effect.  The “regulation” applies directly, whilst the “directive”  binds the member states as to the result but leaves the choice of the means to them.

The “decision” is not applicable to member states but to certain juridical or physical persons in all the member states.  It is mandatory and takes effect immediately.

The “recommendation” and the “opinion” are general in scope but not mandatory.

The Constitutional Treaty, which aims to simplify European legislation, recognises only two forms of legislative acts for the EU: the regulation, called “European law”, and the directive, called “European frame-work law”.  The other forms do apply but they are grouped under the headings of “Non-legislative Acts” and “Points of View”.

About the Community legal instruments:
europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/community_legal_instruments_en.htm                  
About the hierarchy of Community acts
europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/norms_hierarchy.en.htm;   
Data base giving access to the wording of all Community legal documents
www.bibhost.ulb.ac.be/CDE/bdd_cde.htm

7.2.7. How is Community Legislation drawn up?

The European decision-making process is founded essentially on “the institutional triangle” composed of the European Commission, guarantor of the general European interest, the European Parliament (EP), representing the peoples, and the Council of the European Union, representing the member states.

Normally, the Commission, which has the monopoly in proposing legal enactments, i.e. starting the legislative process, proposes a draft legislative enactment which is adopted by the Council and the European Parliament. The (European) Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has a consultative role, as does the Committee of the Regions (CoR).

The decision-making rules and procedures are defined by the treaties.  In this way, any proposal for a legislative act must of necessity be based on an article of the treaties, which constitutes what is called the “juridical basis”. This determines the legislative procedure to be followed.

The three main procedures are “consultation”,  “favourable opinion ” and “co-decision”.

In the consultation procedure, the EP is consulted and can formulate amendments. The Commission examines them and then forwards an amended proposal to the Council, which, finally, can adopt the proposal or make new amendments. If the Council amends a proposal, it must do so unanimously.  

The “favourable opinion” procedure, on the other hand, means that the Council must obtain the favourable opinion of the EP before adopting some decisions. The procedure is the same as for consultation, except that the EP cannot amend the proposal: it must either accept or reject it. Acceptance requires an absolute majority of the votes cast.

The most current procedure is that of “co-decision”, which involves a sharing of the legislative power between the Council and the European Parliament.  This fairly complex procedure provides for double reading by the two institutions, and the possible intervention of a conciliation committee should the two fail to agree on a new proposal.

Introduced by the Maastricht Treaty, the procedure of co-decision puts the European Parliament on an equal footing with the Council in the decision-making process.

About European legislation: eur-lex.europa.eu/en/legis/indx.htm    
About the decision-making mechanisms
europa.eu/institutions/decision-making/index.en.htm
For the procedure of codecision:
europa.eu/en/codecision/index.en.htm

7.2.8. What’s special about Community Law?

Community Law emanating from the treaties – “primary law” – and the legal enactments of the European institutions – “derived aw” – is characterised by two principles recognised by the Court of Justice, which guarantee the existence of the Community legal system.

These are the principle of “direct applicability” and that of “the primacy of Community law” over national law.

Direct applicability means that Community law is directly applicable to Community institutions, to the member states and to the people of the European Union (EU).  In this way, members of the public have the possibility of invoking before a national court a right given to them through a Community legal enactment.

The principle of the primacy of Community law means that a European legal provision takes precedence over any national law, either anterior or posterior, even if a constitutional rule is involved.

The transposition of European legislative enactments into national law can be vitiated by consequent delays which are regularly denounced  by the European Commission.

The ABC of Community law.
europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/labout/abc/index.htm
Brochure on Community law:
ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/eu_documentation/02/txt.en.pdf
About the application of Community law
ec.europa.eu/community_law/eulaw/index_en.htm

7.2.9. What are the main European common policies?

The common policies of the European Union (EU) refer essentially to the first pillar of the EU, that’s to say, the pillar that functions according to the Community method*. This involves the intervention of the main European institutions: the Commission,  the Council and the European Parliament acting in co-decision,  the Court of Justice and the two consultative institutions, the EESC and the CoR.

The policies of the first pillar differ from the other policies and actions conducted and taken by the EU within the framework of its CFSP, its European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP),and also in the realms of the JHA. For these domains, corresponding respectively to the policies of the second and third pillars, the EU provides for specific instruments and a preponderant role for the member states, and therefore for the Council, as compared to the other institutions (the Commission and the EP).

In this way, among the common policies are to be found all those adopted since 1952, including the Economic and Monetary Union  (EMU), particularly the Customs Union, the single market, the trade policy and that relating to competition. One of the oldest is the Common Agricultural Policy (the CAP), already reformed once in 2000 and due for another reform between now and 2013.

Among the policies of solidarity, and important place is occupied by the regional policy which has put in place several instruments of regional aid aimed at developing backward regions, the renovation of certain industrial zones and helping to get young people into jobs.   Also very important are the social and employment policies.

As far as foreign relations are concerned, we mustn’t forget development aid, humanitarian aid and the widening of the trade policy.

And then, at different depths, we should mention the policies of transport, scientific research, the environment, fisheries, health and energy and action taken in the fields of education and culture.

About European policies
europar.europa.eu//factsheets/default_en.htm

7.2.10. What is “European governance” today?

The term “European governance” refers to the whole set of rules of operation, instruments, institutions and other players that provide for the decision-making and ensure that these decisions are implemented at a European level.  In other words: who does what and how.

Today the system of European governance, initially designed for a community of 6 countries, is acknowledged as having serious limitations,  which the European decision-makers must confront urgently:

According to Professor Koen Lenaerts, Judge  at the European Court of Justice, the governance of a political system must fulfil two criteria:

• “internal” legitimacy, i.e. the capacity of the person in the street, directly or indirectly,  to influence decisions – whence the expression “democratic deficit” of the EU, which indicates the imbalance existing between the European Parliament representing the people and the other institutions at the heart of the decision-making process; 

• “external legitimacy” i.e. the capacity of the system effectively to meet the expectations of the people.

7.2.11. Does the European structure suffer from a democratic deficit?

You often here people talking about a “democratic deficit” with reference to the way the European institutions function.  This is the result of various factors,  especially:

• the complex way in which decisions are made in Europe;
• the lack of transparency;
• the decision-making mechanism still being tilted too much on the side of the Council (the member states) and the Commission;
• The power of European Parliament still being limited, as compared to  that of the Council;
• The unanimous vote method in many fields, which allows one country to block a common decision so as to hold on to a decisive advantage;
• A communications policy that has long been deficient and directed  downwards from on high (the “top-down” method) rather than from the ordinary person towards the European institutions (“bottom-up”).

But that doesn’t mean that the institutions as such don’t have sufficient democratic legitimacy. .The process of  European Integration has been evolving continuously right from the outset.  

Under the democratic constitutions of most member states of the EU, parliament has priority when it comes to legislative power, i.e. the power to make laws, but that’s not the case with the EP at the European level.  It has had to fight over the sixty or so years of integration in order progressively to win responsibilities, including legislative power, which it now exercises jointly with the Council – under an arrangement called co-decision – and budgetary power.  The election of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage in 1979 has been an important step forward in consolidating representative democracy at a European level (see chapter 5.2, Representative Democracy).  Nowadays the European Parliament is still pressing for its powers to be strengthened, particularly through the extension of co-decision to all realms of Community action.

Other questions arising from “democratic deficit” are still current.  For example, how to involve the national parliaments more in the debate on European integration, by strengthening links with European Parliament, going beyond the “Conference of Organisms Specialising in Community Affairs” (COSCA).  Or again, how to give the “Charter of Fundamental Rights” a constraining character (see Chapter 5.4).  And, more generally,  the question of whether Europe needs a basic document, i.e. a constitution – federal or not – clearly defining the objectives, the means and the organisation of the power at the heart of the European Union (the EU), and if Europe should have an elected President (either of the Commission and/or of the Council)..

These questions, which form part of the debate on the future of the EU, are still unanswered.  However, the Constitutional Treaty signed in  Rome on the  
29th of October 2004 has made several provisions reinforcing the democratic character of the EU. Since it hasn’t been ratified, these provisions are not yet in effect (see Chapter 7.3)

About the definition of “democratic deficit”
europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/democratic deficit_en.htm

For an analysis by Prof. Moravscik about the myth of the “democratic deficit”
www.princeton.edu/-amoravcs/library/mythe.doc

7.2.12. Does the EU meet the expectations of its citizens?

For Europe to be able really to respond to the preoccupations of the people living there, it needs to be close to them.

The public has a right to expect that decisions should be readable (for instance, do we know how to find our way amidst the multitude of documents produced by the institutions?), comprehensible (are we sure we properly understand what’s involved in the decisions taken?),  transparent (in the reasons for a decision can we distinguish between national interests and common interest?) and legitimate (are we in a position to interact and participate actively in the European legislative process?).

Is it true that the EU has become an economic giant with feet of clay because of the difficulty that it has in playing an active and responsible role on the world scene?   The Economic and Monetary Union (the EMU) has not met the expectations of the public because economic growth has been late in responding to the advantages offered by the introduction of the euro.  Only the maintenance of the intrinsic value of the new European currency, the stability of the European Monetary System (see 1.3.1) and the growing international role of the euro (see 1.3.3) are recognised by the experts as positive European contributions.  The imbalance between the economic aspect of the EMU (administered through simple coordination of the policies of the member states) and its monetary side (organised on the basis of a federal type way of functioning) has serious implications in terms of coherence and development.

An improvement in living standards is a fundamental and legitimate expectation for people to have.  This situation has improved in 2006, but it is too early to be sure that this trend will be maintained in the future.

Polls by Eurobarometer show that the people in the street think that Europe must regain its position as a world power and they feel that responsibility for foreign affairs must fall to it. Well, for that to happen, the EU should establish a real, effective Common Foreign and Security Policy, as well as a common defence policy.  This development, also outlined in the Constitutional Treaty, continues to be refused by the member states.

7.2.13.. What is the controversy between small and large countries?

The EU is made up of small and large countries.  The latter (Germany, France UK, Italy and Spain), representing 300 million people, some 80% of the total population of the EU, think that the present arrangements whereby each country, be it large or small, has a very similar weight (number of commissioners, vote in the Council, etc.) are not democratic. A region like Bavaria, with 12.1 million inhabitants, has less power than the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg with its population of 443,000.  Among the new members are Poland, with 38.6 million inhabitants, and  Malta, with 382,000.  The Committee of the Regions (CoR), on which the different regions can play a more identifiable role, has only a limited consultative role in the overall set up of the European institutions.

The Treaty of Nice (see 7.1.15), has made important institutional adaptations (the distribution of votes among the countries on the Council of Ministers, the number of Euro MPs, the number of members of the Commission) so as better to reflect the situation after the new accessions in 2004.  In this way, since 2005 the European Commission has had one commissioner per country, and the large countries no longer have a “second  commissioner”.

The controversy between small and large countries can find a lasting solution only under a bicameral system:  a chamber representing the people, in which the number of members depends on the size of the population, and a second chamber representing the states, with one member per country.   .