The European Union

www.europa.eu.int

Copyright © 2002 by David P. Baron and Romain Wacziarg. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

What is the future of nonmarket strategy in EU?

The broadening of the EU will produce a greater heterogeneity of interests. Will cooperation and consensus deteriorate? That is, will local interests begin to dominate? (Do they today?) Will geographic representation matter more?

Will this lead to more US-style nonmarket activity; i.e., activity that is broadscale, publicly visible, and directly competitive?

Will calls for greater direct democracy change the institutions (e.g., more power to the EP) making representational strategies more important?

Will political integration deepen or fragment?

Major EU institutions*

Initiates legislation

Main EU executive body

Enforces EU Treaties

Negotiates trade agreements

Executive and legislative functions

Weighted voting; different rules for different decisions, determined by treaties

Regulations, decisions, directives

Directly elected by voters in member nations.

Political groups (parties)

Evolving powers, responsibilities

Commission(20)

Council of Ministers (15)

Parliament(626)

Approves, can censure

Appoints Consults, advises,amends, vetoes

* European Court of Justice omitted

Dimensions and differences

Seek oversight, delay, amendments

Indirect lobbying (e.g., COREPER, thru home country)

Early informational lobbying (esp. initiators)

Strategy: rules of thumb

Congress, its committees and parties

NoneExecutive Branch: The Cabinet and Bureaucracy

US Counterpart

Simple majoritySimple majority Qualified majority Unanimity

ConsensusDecision rules

Constituents IntegrationistRelative preferences

Few; low-med.In member statesMany, highStaff; expertise

Political Groups, Committees (weak)

Policy-specific Ministries

Directorates General

Division of labor

ParliamentCouncilCommission

Member states

EU Decision Making

The authority of the EP has increased (Maastricht 92, Amsterdam 97); not yet an equal player

1999 the EP threatened the Commission with censure; entire Commission resigned

Debate over the “democratic deficit”– that is, “democratic supervision” is not the same as

“democracy”

The future is uncertain– EP seeks greater authority (reduce the democratic deficit)

– Debate on political integration is intense

Legislative Procedures in the EU Consultation Procedure

– Commission prepares a proposal; EP gives opinion (non-binding); Council votes

– Used for agriculture, justice, home affairs issues Assent Procedure

– EP has veto, single reading, no amendments– Used for new members, international agreements, structure

of ECB, etc. Co-decision Procedure

– Created by the Maastricht Treaty (effective 1993)– Extended by the Amsterdam Treaty (effective May 1999)– Applies to free movement of workers, internal market,

technological R&D, the environment, consumer protection, education, culture and health.

– EP has a veto - no override

Voting Weights at the Council

3 votesDenmark, Finland, Ireland

4 votesAustria, Sweden

2 votesLuxembourg

5 votesBelgium, Greece, Netherlands, Portugal

8 votesSpain

10 votesGermany, France, Italy, United Kingdom

Meets as ministerial councils; Council of Europe meets twice a year

Uses qualified majority and unanimity

Overrepresentation of small countries

How will these be adjusted when new member states join EU? (Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Estonia, Slovenia + Cyprus) (next in line are Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Turkey)

Unanimity and qualified majority rule

preferencesin Council

qualified majority (62 of 87)

unanimity (87 of 87)

Qualified majority rule and unanimity rule make it difficult to change the status quo.

Repeated play among a small number of decision makers allows for vote trading across issues.

Vote buying is possible; compensating losers usingstructural funds.

Ambiguities in the EU System

Subsidiarity -- EU government is to take action only if the objective cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states. Where is the line?

Do the member states fully implement the Directives? (In 1997 the EU initiated 1,436 infringement proceedings against member states for violating treaties or failing to implement directives.)

Will the present institutions be adequate for a broader union?

Will “democratic deficit” concerns result in more direct democracy? For example, will “democratic supervision” be replaced by a fully-empowerd European Parliament?

EU Institutions, Constituencies, and Access

Commission EU-wide perspective (integrationist)

DGS, commissioners, staff

Council member states member states gov, COREPER, working groups

European Parliament

citizens political parties, committees, MPs

Economic and Social Committee

interests representatives, associations

Institution Constituency Access

Organization of Interests in the EU

The organization of interests at the level of the member states reflects the characteristics of parliamentary government; i.e., parties and ministries are the focal points. -- industry associations -- peak organizations of associations: BDI in Germany (40,000 businesses, represents 85% of German business) -- confederations of employers; BDA in Germany, CNPF in France in some countries (e.g., Germany) associations have formal consultative rights with governmentEU-wide industry organizations: -- industry peak organizations; CEFIC (chemical associations of 14 member states); relatively homogeneous interests -- Confederation of Food and Drink Industries; relatively heterogeneous interestsEU-wide umbrella organizations -- UNICE (speaks for European industry) -- American Chamber of Commerce in Europe (does careful homework)Individual companies are increasingly active; e.g., Philips

Organization of Lobbying: CEFIC

CEFICCEFIC

G(14 associations in the Member States)

G Member States

CommissionCOREPERCouncilEP

Parties

legislativeprocess

representsCouncil