Show all/Hide all

7.1.1. What is at stake in the building of Europe politically

In a little over half a century, the Union has established peace among the peoples of a number of countries which has grown steadily, so that now, in 2007, there are twenty-seven member states.

But how did we get this far?  How did the process of European political integration begin and then develop?

For a deeper look at the history of European integration, see:
www.europa.eu/abc/history/index.en.htm
www.europa.eu/news/eu-explained/070122 1 en.htm
www.ena.lu/europe
www.centre-histoire.sciences-po.fr/archives/fonds/UEF.html

7.1.2. How did the Council of Europe come about?

The Council of Europe is one of the first forms of European cooperation, which came into being in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War.

It was set up just after:

• The Organisation of European Economic Cooperation (OEEC), which was founded in 1948 to administer the American Marshall Plan aid and became the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 1960;
• The Western Union, instituted in 1948 by the Brussels Pact, a treaty of mutual military assistance among France, the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, which became the Western European Union (WEU) in 1954. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) stemmed from the  Brussels Pact.

The Council of Europe was founded in 1949 by the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, Ireland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

At first the idea was that it should be a supranational power, but this plan was quickly abandoned

It is an intergovernmental organisation the main aim of which is “rapprochement among its members” in order to defend the rights of man (not forgetting woman), promote cultural diversity in Europe and combat societal problems such as racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance.

It is an institution independent of the European Union (EU) and should not be confused with the European Council, the supreme political organ of the EU, which brings together the heads of state of all the member states of the EU, or with the Council of the EU, which used to be called the Council of Ministers and is made up of ministers from the governments of all the member-countries of the EU.

Made up of 46 countries in 2007, the Council of Europe sits in Strasbourg and it is to it that we owe the signing in 1950 of the European Convention protecting human rights and basic freedoms, as well as the creation of the European Court of Human Rights.

About the Council of Europe, see: www.coe.int/DefaultFR.asp           
About the WEU, see;: www.weu.int/Historique.htm
About the OECD, see:  www.oecd.org,home  

7.1.3. What is the significance of the “Schuman Declaration” of 9 May 1950 and the creation ECSC

The declaration of the Foreign Minister of the French Government, Robert Schuman*, taking up an idea of Jean Monet*,  was the first step in the process of European Integration.  Based on the sine qua non of Franco-German reconciliation, the declaration made on the 9th of May 1950 in the Clock room at the Quai d’Orsay (whence also “the Clock room declaration) proposed the pooling of Franco-German production of coal and steel,  two strategic sectors of the economy which had been used for the production of weapons of war.  In this way we saw the birth of the “Schuman Plan”, which started out with a specific purpose and went on to target the long-term goal of European federation.

Since then, Europe day is celebrated on the 9th of May every year

The Schuman declaration has a great symbolic significance:  war materials were transformed into the stuff of reconciliation, peace and union.  It led to the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), set up by the Treaty of Paris, which was signed on the 18th of April 1951, came into force for 50 years on the 23rd of July 1952 and expired on the 23rd of July 2002.

The ECSC was the result of the political will of personalities like Robert Schuman*,  Konrad Adenauer and Alcide de Gaspen, among others. It had six  member countries: Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany. It decided on the output and supply of coal of each country, on the basis of the “community method”, that’s to say the method whereby the decisions no longer depended solely on national governments. There was a real sharing of sovereignty, which was exercised jointly.  That, after all, is the essential idea of the term “Community”: pooling and the joint management of resources,  for an objective or in an interest defined and decided jointly.

This audacious idea, new at the time, was to meet with great success.

The first institutions of the ECSC were:  The High Authority (which, following the creation of the two other communities – the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Authority – would become the European Commission),  the Council of Ministers (representing the Countries), the Parliamentary Assembly (which was to become the European Parliament) and the Court of Justice.

Schuman Declaration:
www.robert-schuman.org/anniversaire 9 mai2006/francais.htm  
www.europa.eu/asbc/symbols/9-may/decl_en.htm        

For the consequences of the Schuman Declaration: www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/archives/dossiers/schuman/index.html

7.1.4. Why did the European Defence Community (EDC) fail?

The European Economic Reconstruction and the political recognition of the Federal  Republic of Germany also posed the question of that country’s rearmament. France, through its Prime Minister Rene Pleven, proposed  the creation of a unified European army, under a single supranational authority.

On the 25th of May 1952 the Treaty setting up the European Defence Community was signed by the governments of six countries: Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany.

However, in the course of it’s ratification by countries, the French National Assembly voted against the EDC Treaty on the 30th of August 1954 and the plan for a European defence force was shelved.

There are many reasons for this failure.  Two of them are linked to the international context: the continuing war in Indochina; this influenced the opinion of the majority of French people, who felt that France’s army should not disappear: and Stalin’s death, which, opening as it did a period of international détente, made the matter of European defence and security less urgent.

The consequences of this failure are just as direct:: two months later Italy and the Federal Republic of Germany joined the Brussels Pact, which became the Western European Union (WEU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), or Atlantic Pact.

About the ECD:
www.ena.lu/europe/formation%20communautaire/communaute%20europeenne%20defense%201952.htm
www.armees.com/La-Communaute-europeenne-de.htm

7.1.5. How did we get to the Rome Treaties?

The failure of the European Defence Community (EDC) and the success of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) led to the political  leaders of the member states of the ECSC restarting the process of European integration in the economics and energy sectors.

At the Messina Conference on 2 June 1955, the Belgian Foreign Minister, Paul-Henri Spaak* was charged with the task of studying the file and preparing a report.  He played a leading role in the negotiations that would result in the Treaty of Rome.      

Two treaties were signed in Rome on the 25th of March 1957 by the six founder countries; Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany:  the Treaty setting up the European Economic Community (the EEC or Common Market)  and the Treaty setting up the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom). These came into force after ratification on the 1st of January 1958.

The objective of the EEC was very ambitious: to establish a common market, that’s to say a free exchange zone with the free movement of goods, people, services and capital.

To this end, the Treaty fixed a transitional period of 12 months so as to:

• institute common policies, particularly the agricultural policy (with a common agricultural market and prices), the trade policy and the transport policy;
• create a customs union by progressively reducing customs duties among member states and by applying a common external tariff for the free movement of goods;
• harmonise the economic and social policies of member states.

During the war, the people had been hungry, so the question of food supply was crucial this meant that the Common Agricultural Policy became a priority policy. Other reasons have been advanced for the interest aroused by the Treaty of Rome: for instance, at that time French agricultural production was increasing by  leaps and bounds, leading to large surpluses subsidised by a French purse that was not bottomless. It was said that the EEC had been set up to provide an outlet for these surpluses on the German market, while the Germans were seeing French and Italian markets open up for their surplus industrial production.  In exchange, Italy was granted aid to develop in the South of the country (il Mezzogiorno) outlets for the industrial products of Northern Italy that were suffering competition from German imports.  Whatever the real motives, it is agreed that the Rome treaties were born of the realisation  that all the combined problems of member states could be solved that way more easily than if each country was to try and do so on its own.

However, right from the outset, the EEC had a political objective:  “to establish the fundaments of an ever closer union among the European peoples”  (the preamble to the Treaty)        

For the history of the Rome treaties:
www.traitederome.fr/fr/histoire-du-traite-de-rome.html
ec.europa.eu/avservices/50/index_en.cfm

For the wording of the treaties:  europa.eu.int/eur-lex/fr/treaties/selected/livre2 c.html

For the celebrations of the 50th anniversary:
europa.eu/50/index_en.htm

7.1.6. Was the EEC a success at first?

The first results of the institution of the EEC are striking. Between 1958 and 1963 the combined gross domestic product (GDP) of all the countries of the European Economic Community increased by 30%.  Industrial production grew by 40% and trade within the Community more than doubled.  People were talking about a real economic miracle.  

As from 1965, with its large open market, the EEC became one of the world’s leading commercial powers.

There are many reasons for this extraordinary growth, particularly: the very low cost of energy and raw materials and cheap labour.  It also benefited from technological innovations because Europe was content to copy the United states.  

The social consequences of this sudden growth were also very important, particularly in the less developed regions: marked urbanisation, growing social tensions and a lot migration to the more dynamic and prosperous regions.  These tensions can also be explained by the fact that the economy was becoming European whilst political control remained at a national level.

Effectively, the implications of a real common market with the free movement of goods, a customs union and European price fixing called for the creation of a political Community capable of handling what was involved in terms of monetary matters, transport and energy and defining a common economic policy.
  .
To be sure, within the European project, the member states were also pursuing their own interests, but at the same time the extraordinary vitality of the EEC  interested other European countries, which brought up the subject of enlargement.  By 1961 three applications for membership and eight for “associate” status had already been made.

7.1.7. What is the origin of the “empty chair policy”?

Whilst the first steps towards European integration may have been a success on the economic level,  there were certainly differences among the six partners, as far as politics was concerned.

There was a clash of two different ideas about the very nature of the process of European unification.  On the one hand, there was France, which under General de Gaulle, recommended simple cooperation among states, of the intergovernmental* or con-federal type.  This concept was nevertheless to be seen within a vision of Europe as a third force, standing independent between the two great powers.  On the other hand, there was the model of integrated Community institutions, a view shared by the other five partners.

These divergences provoked a grave institutional crisis.  On the 30th of June 1965, rejecting the idea of the qualified majority* vote, although it was in fact provided for by the articles of the European Economic Community  (the EEC),  the French President decided to practise the “empty chair policy”: France would no longer take part in the meeting of the Council of Ministers, so blocking the European decision-making process.

On the 30th of January 1966, following difficult negotiations, the six member-countries agreed on the “Luxembourg Compromise”, whereby France agreed to take its place in the Council again in return of the maintenance of the rule of unanimity when vital interests of a member-country were at stake.

The consequences of this compromise were to be very negative for the process of integration.  This agreement just strengthened the right of veto of member-countries and meant that very frequent use was made of votes requiring unanimity; it also profoundly upset the institutional balance sought by the treaties, marginalising the role of the European Commission.

For the “empty chair policy”:
www.ena.lu/europe/succes-crise/politique-chaise-vide.htm

For the “Luxembourg Compromise”:
europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/luxembourg compromise_en.htm

7.1.8. What does “European Political Cooperation” (EPC) signify?

“European Political Cooperation”  (EPC) is another example of the difficulty encountered by the member-countries in moving forward in the European political process in the ‘60s and ‘70s.

EPC was instituted by the Davignon Report*, adopted on the 27th of October 1970 by the foreign ministers of the six member countries. It was created to harmonise and coordinate the positions of the member states on the big questions of international politics through the exchange of information and consultation from time to time. However, it was outside the framework of the Community.

It is not, then, a common foreign policy, but a political agreement outside the Community institutions. This state of affairs would be codified in a treaty by the “Single European Act?”, without, however, enabling foreign policy to become a Community responsibility.

For the history of EPC and the CFSP:
www.europarl.europa.eu/facts/6_1 _1 _en.htm
www.diplomatie.gouv.fr./fr/article-imprim.php3; article-41008   
        

7.1.9. What were the consequences of the financial and oil crises?

The political development of the Community was also slowed by the serious economic and monetary crises of 1968 and 1969, because the member states responded to them by implementing a host of national measures and solutions,  rather than with joint action.

Elsewhere, the suspension of the dollar’s convertibility into gold, decided by President Nixon in August of 1971, put an end to the system introduced by the Bretton Woods agreements and, since this had the effect of establishing a floating exchange rate system, it opened up a period of world monetary instability.  This induced the main European countries to sign on December 18 1971 in Washington an agreement with the United states, providing  for margins of fluctuation against the dollar for national currencies.  This was the source of the “monetary snake”,  instituted by the Council of Ministers in March 1972 with the aim of controlling the fluctuation of European currencies (see chapter 1.2.2).

In this unstable situation, on top of the difficulties due to the first enlargement of the Community in 1973, any attempt at political integration was doomed to failure

This instability, aggravated by the effects of the oil crises in 1973 (and then 1979) necessitated the convergence of (members’) economies and a monetary union, as a zone of European monetary stability whose rigorous policies would strengthen the links of solidarity among the member states.

7.1.10. How did the “Spinelli Project” come about and what was its result?

It was in 1984-86 that  the European dynamic really picked up again. First of all through the Spinelli Project for a Treaty to found a European Union, and then through the Single European act of 1986.

Before the Spinelli Project there had been other plans for changing the Community into a European Union.  Generally speaking, these were intended to meet the need to adapt and improve the working of the institutions of the Community.  As examples, we can mention the Vedel Plan* of 1972, the Tindemans Report* of 1976 and so-called “report of the three wise men” in 1979.. However, none of these plans brought about any specific reforms or achievements.

The Spinelli Project, on the other hand, was a real plan for European Federation.  It envisaged the three Communities (the European Economic Community, Coal and Steel and Atomic Energy) being replaced by a single entity, the Union, with an implication that its responsibilities would be extended to the areas of foreign and defence policy, among others.  The responsibilities would be shared between the Union and the member states making a distinction between the joint responsibilities (the implementation of the internal market, for instance), which were proper to the Union, and the concurrent responsibilities (international relations, for instance), which would be shared between the Union and the countries and exercised by the countries at first.

The Project also provided for an important institutional change.  Spinelli proposed that the European Council should become the Presidency of the Union, that the Commission should represent the government of the Union, being responsible before both chambers of the Parliament:  The European Parliament, representing the citizens of the Union, and the Council of Ministers, the second federal chamber, representing the member states of the union and within which the countries would no longer have the right of veto.

On of the original aspects of the plan was the way it would be adopted. The treaty would come into force after being ratified by a majority of the member states, so long as their population made up two thirds of the total population of the Community.

On the 14th of February 1984 the Spinelli Project was adopted by the European Parliament by a majority of more than two thirds of the votes.  It would remain at the project stage, because the member states would not adopt it, but this project re-launched the process of European construction.

About the Vedel Plan:
www.ena.lu/europe/1969-1979-crises-relance/rapport-vedel-1972.htm

About the Tindemans report:
www.touteleurope.fr/fr/union-europeenne/ue-au-fil-du-temps/les-personnages-cles/leo-tindemans-1922.html:

About the “report of the three wise men”:
www.ena.lu/europe/1969-1979-crises-relance/rapport-trois-sages-secret-justifie-europe.htm

About Altiero Spinelli:
www.touteleurope.fr/../ue-au-fil-du-temps/les-personnages-cles/altiero-s[pinelli-1907-1986.html:

Extracts from the Spinelli project:http://www.franceurope.org/pdf/projet_Spinelli.pdf

7.1.11. What is the contribution of the Single European Act?

On the basis of a white paper presented by the Commission over which Jacques Delors* presided, the Community decided to complete the building of a large-scale internal market by the 1st of January 1993. The Single European Act (SEA), which was signed on the 17th and 28th of February 1986 and came into force on the 1st of July 1987, started a process of removal of barriers - physical (internal frontiers), administrative and fiscal – through numerous legislative provisions.

In this way, the four freedoms provided  for by the Treaty of the European Economic Community (the EEC) – the free circulation of people, goods, capital and services – were to be realised through the elimination of frontiers within Europe. That’s the single Market.
Whilst the free movement of goods and capitals may have been achieved around 1990, the same cannot be said of the large market in finance and services, which is still a “work in progress” at the beginning of the XXIst century.

As far as the institutional reforms are concerned, the SEA limited itself to timid modifications as compared to the Spinelli project*.  In order to adopt the directives required for the establishment of the internal market, recourse to a qualified majority* in decision-making was extended to new sectors.   Moreover, the “cooperation procedure”, strengthened the responsibilities of the European Parliament, by involving it in the legislative responsibility, through double reading.   

Despite their limits and shortcomings, the Spinelli project and the SEA
 re-launched the political development of the Community  towards the objective of European Union, of which the intention was to achieve a fusion in the areas of economics and politics.

About the single European act: http;//europa.eu/scadplus/treaties/singleact_en.htm

7.1.12. Why have a European Union?

In the years 1989-90 two elements, one internal and one external, were to impel the Community to embark on a new stage.

On the one hand, the logic of the single market required the completion of integration in the economic and monetary fields by the 1st of January 1993.

On the other hand, the fall of the Berlin wall, followed by German reunification on the 3rd of October 1990,, and the Eastern and Central European countries’ progressive return to democracy profoundly changed the situation on the continent and its political structure.  The institutions of the Community, as well as the member states, had to face up to a new challenge: How could the Community respond adequately to the new developments and to the demands of  European public opinion and the international community for a greater capacity of intervention and decision without strengthening its internal structure and without putting in place a real common foreign policy.

Up to 1989 the process of European unification happened largely as if “in vitro”, protected by the bipolar balance of powers in international politics.  But, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 and the changes in the overall situation, the process of unification could no longer advance automatically.  It was becoming increasingly dependent on political will.

The transformation of the Community into a more integrated, structured European Union which could achieve a fusion in the realms of economics and politics became a necessity   

7.1.13. What were the aims of the Maastricht Treaty and what did it achieve ?

Following the upheaval of 1989 and the new challenges with which the institutions of the Community and the member states were confronted, two intergovernmental conferences  (IGCs) began in Rome in December 1990 – one on economic and monetary union (EMU)  and one on political union.

The member states negotiated a new treaty, the Treaty on the European Union,  also called the Maastricht Treaty..  It was signed on the 7th of February 1992 and came into force on the 1st of November 1993.

The Masstricht Treaty set an ambitious programme, of which the main points were:

• the establishment of EMU by 1999, with a three-stage calendar which was to lead to the realisation of a single European currency;
• the creation of new common policies;
• the institution of a European citizenship;
• the establishment of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)
• the establishment of a form of internal security, in the field of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA);
• the carrying out of reforms of the way institutions work, particularly the simplification of legislative procedures, the extension of recourse to a vote by qualified majority, the strengthening of the powers of the European Parliament (power of co-decision in certain legislative areas);
• the introduction of the “principle of subsidiarity”*;
• support for community solidarity, by strengthening structural funds and setting up a European Fund of Economic and Social Cohesion;
• the creation of the Committee of the Regions.

About the Maastricht Treaty: http;//europa.eu/scadplus/treaties/maastricht_en.htm

7.1.14. What are the “three pillars” of the European Union?

The negotiations that preceded the signing of the Maastricht Treaty revealed differences of opinion concerning the structure of the European Union (EU).

Two concepts were opposed right to the end. On the one hand, the idea of unitary political development progressively integrating foreign policy among the community policies. This is the “tree” model:  bit by bit, new branches grow from the one community trunk. On the other hand, there is the maintenance of the separation between economic community integration and cooperation in the field of foreign policy. This is the “Greek temple” model, in which the Community and foreign policy are two separate pillars.

By integrating into the existing community system new forms of intergovernmental cooperation, especially in the fields of the CFSP and the JHA, the Maastricht Treaty has installed a new structure, the EU, articulated about “three pillars”  with a dimension as political as it is economic.

The three pillars correspond to different political domains and different decision-making mechanisms.

The first pillar – also called the “community” pillar – takes in all components of the European Community (the EC), as well as all the policies followed since 1952, including the EMU: the common agricultural policy, the customs union, the single market, transport, development aid, aid to the regions, competition, social policy, scientific research, health, energy, the environment, etc.

The community pillar functions according to the community method*, which involves the intervention of the main European institutions: the Commission, the Council, the Parliament and the Court of Justice.     

The second pillar concerns the CFSP and is based on the coordination of the policies of the member states. The main power remains that of the states, and the role of the Community institutions is very minor.

The third pillar concerns cooperation in the field of JHA,  including police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and is also based on coordination among the member states.. Nevertheless, in instituting the Space of Freedom, Security and Justice, the Treaty of Amsterdam has shared the fields of JHA between the first and the third pillars, so using the bridging-clause of progressive “movement towards community control” provided for by the Maastricht Treaty.  This is the case with certain fields of competence (visas, asylum and immigration) which have been made community matters.

The IGCs* finally opted for the pillars model, which remains to this day (2007) the basic structure of the EU,  although it also developed a strong move towards community responsibility in the third pillar, through the reinforcement of bridging clauses  

7.1.15. What are the achievements of the Treaty of Amsterdam?

The Maastricht Treaty itself envisaged that it would be reviewed in 1996,  particularly for the purpose of strengthening the instruments whereby the CFSP and the JHA were functioning.

The ICG began on  the 29th of June 1996 in Turin and culminated in the Treaty of Amsterdam, which as signed on the 2nd of October 1997 and came into force on the 1st of May 1999.

The Treaty of Amsterdam introduced new fields of competence and new objectives for the EU:

• to put employment and the rights of the individual at the heart of the EU;
• to do away with the last barriers to the free movement of people and reinforce security;
• to make the voice of the EU heard better in the world;
• to reform the European institutions with a view of the enlargement of the EU.

On this last point – the reform of the institutions - the results did not match the attempts, bearing in mind the breadth of the enlargement being prepared..

On the other hand, the Treaty of Amsterdam considerably strengthened the concept of security (safety), by deciding to set up a Space of freedom, security and justice and by integrating the “Schengen Agreement” into the Treaty. This Agreement, which was signed in 1985 and came into force in 1995 in the countries which had subscribed to it, allows nationals of member countries of the EU to move about without undergoing police checks at frontiers.  The Agreement also provides for the strengthening of controls at the external frontiers of the EU, as well as strengthened cooperation among judicial systems and police forces.

In the realm of JHA, the Treaty, in a prudent manner (that’s to say with a limited role for the European Parliament and the Court of Justice, and only for a transitory period of five years) made many responsibilities fields for community action: asylum and immigration, civil and commercial judicial cooperation, visas.  Only police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters was still dealt with in the intergovernmental way.

As far as the CFSP is concerned, the Treaty of Amsterdam created the post of High Representative for the CFSP, thus assuring more coherence and a higher profile. It also strengthened existing instruments and sketched out a European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).  The first High Representative of the CFSP was Javier Solana*.

Finally, the Treaty of Amsterdam introduced the idea of  “reinforced cooperation”, which allowed some member states to go further along the path of integration without being blocked by more reticent countries.

About the Treaty of Amsterdam: europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/s5000.htm       

7.1.16. What was the contribution of the Treaty of Nice?

The meeting of the European Council in Luxembourg in 1997 decided to enlarge the European Union  (EU) by1 twelve countries: the former popular democratic republics of the Soviet Block (Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Rumania and Slovakia), the three Baltic states emanating from the break-up of the Soviet Union (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), one of the republics of the former Yugoslavia (Slovenia) and two Mediterranean countries (Cyprus and Malta).    

This was an enlargement on an unprecedented scale, which called for new bases of the functioning of European institutions.

It was for improving the way the EU was functioning with a view to this broad enlargement that a mew treaty, replacing the previous ones, was signed at the European summit in Nice on the 23rd of February 2001.  It came into force in February 2003.

The Nice Treaty made some important adaptations to the institutions, concerning in particular:

• the number of members of the European Commission: one commissioner per country as from 2005( up to then there had been one commissioner for each small country and two for the big ones); when the EU would be comprised of twenty-seven member states, the Commission would have to have less than 27 commissioners;
• the number of members of the European Parliament;
• the new distribution of the votes within the Council of Ministers;

Other novelties concerning:

• the procedure for appointing the President of the Commission, appointed by a qualified majority of member states;
• voting by qualified majority in the Council of Ministers, which was extended of a new series of subjects, excluding fiscal questions and those linked to Common Foreign and Security Policy ( CFSP);
• simplification of recourse to the system of reinforced cooperation.

About the Treaty of Nice: europa.eu/scadplus/nice_treaty/index.en.htm