European government, politics and policy

Summary

Introduction

To most European citizens the Ninth of May will be a day just like any other. In Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, however, this is different. In these cities a sizeable number of people work for one of the institutions and organizations of the European Union (EU). If we follow the official historiography of the EU, their jobs found their origin in a press conference held sixty-five years ago by the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Robert Schuman. On 9 May 1950 he proposed a plan that laid the foundation for today's European Union by proposing to set up a European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).

In 1985 the leaders of the member states of the EU decided that it would be good to celebrate this day as Europe Day. But most citizens will not notice this. Maybe this is not surprising given the fact that the day marks a rather obscure event in history. After all, commemorating a press conference is quite different from celebrating a rebellion (like the USA's Fourth of July) or a revolution (such as France's Quatorze Juillet).

Despite its humble origins, the EU has in the meantime developed into a political system that seriously impacts the lives of these same citizens. Within a timespan of only sixty years it has established itself as a unique form of political cooperation comprising twenty-eight member states and 500 million inhabitants, with a combined income that is the world's largest. No wonder some observers have characterized the EU as a superpower, albeit a soft one: instead of conquering new territory by force as the old superpowers used to do, the EU has been able to expand because countries have been very eager to join and share in the assumed benefits of membership.

In this book we outline the current politics of the EU, but a brief overview of the way this organization has evolved is essential to better understand how it operates today. After all, many of today's political decisions will end up as historic events in tomorrow's books. A closer examination of the most significant political events that occurred in the EU's history gives us a first insight in the nature of EU politics today.

Summary

Introduction

On 8 December 2005, the European Commission published its Green Paper on obesity, the health condition more commonly known as ‘overweight’. The Green Paper outlined the prevalence and underlying causes of obesity within the European Union, identified possible EU actions to reduce obesity, and invited member state governments and stakeholders to submit comments. Earlier that year, the Commission had already launched the European Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health, which brought together representatives from industry, consumer organizations and health NGOs in order to arrive at mutual commitments to reduce overweight. On the basis of the responses to the Green Paper, the Commission released a White Paper with more concrete proposals in May 2007, which was embraced by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament and formed the basis for further initiatives in this field.

The sudden attention to the issue of obesity at the EU level was not self-evident. To begin with, why the EU? Overweight would not seem to be the most logical issue to be taken up by the EU. Cross-border aspects, the self-proclaimed rationale for EU initiatives, are not immediately clear in this case. Moreover, health (care) issues are firmly under the member state governments’ remit. The EU Treaty even explicitly prohibits harmonization of legislation on health grounds. In addition, why 2005? The problem of overweight, and the health conditions associated with it, was apparent long before that time. Why, then, did it take so long for the issue to be taken up?

These types of questions are questions about the EU's political agenda. The political agenda is the set of issues that policy-makers give serious attention to. At any given point in time, some issues are ‘on’ the agenda (that is, they receive attention), while other issues are ‘off’ the agenda (they receive no or very little attention). Understanding why issues are on or off the agenda is crucial for understanding policy-making, because paying attention to an issue is a necessary condition for doing something about it.

Summary

Introduction

In May 2014 the citizens of the twenty-eight EU member states headed to the polls to elect their representatives for the European Parliament. In the run-up to the elections the EP made every effort to mobilize as many voters as possible. Using the slogan ‘This time it's different’ it highlighted the fact that the political groups for the first time had put forward candidates for the post of Commission president. The winning political group would be allowed to nominate their candidate. For the first time citizens thus were able to influence the choice of the new Commission president, thereby making the elections more important and interesting to the voters.

These expectations were not fulfilled. With only 42.5% of the voters going to the polls, turnout was even lower than the previous all-time low of 43% that had been reached at the 2009 elections. Moreover, those people that made the effort to vote did not seem to be interested at all in electing the new Commission president. While the mainstream political parties still succeeded in holding on to a large majority of the seats, Eurosceptical parties on both the left and the right made important gains. Some of them, such as the UK Independence Party, the French National Front and the Greek Coalition of the Radical Left, actually won the elections, causing the BBC to qualify the outcome as a ‘Eurosceptic earthquake’.

The facts outlined above pose important questions about people's opinions on the EU as well as their behaviour in EP elections:

Summary

Introduction

When the crisis on the financial markets hit Europe in late 2008, this was generally seen as a grave test for the European Union. Would it be able to respond in the face of crisis? Would member state governments be able to overcome their longstanding differences of opinion on economic and financial policy in finding new solutions? And would the EU's institutional framework of budgetary and free-trade rules be able to withstand the flurry of national support measures and calls for economic protectionism that occurred throughout the member states? The situation became even more serious when the Euro itself came under attack from financial markets after fears had arisen that Greece, and possibly a number of other member states, would be forced to default on their (fast-rising) government debts.

As it turned out, the financial crisis proved a tremendous impetus for European cooperation. Even though member state governments took an unprecedented number of far-reaching measures (nationalizing banks, letting government debt rise in order to stimulate their economies), the lapse into protectionism and unilateralism did not occur. Instead, in most cases member state governments closely consulted on the steps to take and tried to find solutions that would keep up existing EU rules while taking account of the special circumstances.

The lead in all this was taken by the European Council. When fears of a Greek default mounted and interest rates for the Greek government soared, the other member states agreed to give financial support in order to prevent a collapse. The Greek government, in return, committed to rigorous spending cuts even in the face of strong domestic political resistance. At later stages, financial support was also given to Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Cyprus, and a permanent European Stability Mechanism was set up.

In addition, as we saw in Chapter 8, a number of proposals that had been too controversial before suddenly became realistic options. The Council and the EP reached agreement on the creation of a set of EU financial market authorities and the European Central Bank was made responsible for the supervision of banks in the European Union.

Summary

Introduction

When you work in a factory, EU law is everywhere. To begin with, the European Union has set a wide range of standards in the field of working conditions. For instance, an EU directive specifies the safety standards for the equipment you work with. Another directive regulates safety and health signs at work. Depending on the type of industry and the type of work you do, you are protected by specific legislation relating to dangerous chemicals and exposure to noise or radiation. Your maximum number of hours at work is covered by the Working Time Directive. Moreover, if your company goes bankrupt, or if it is taken over by another company, your rights as an employee are protected by EU law.

At the same time, the EU's role in this field is largely confined to adopting legislation and setting standards. To begin with, the actual implementation of the policies is left to member state governments. Moreover, although the EU is very active in the field of regulatory policy (promulgating norms and standards), it is much less involved in distributive policies (financing facilities) and redistributive policies (affecting the distribution of income and wealth). EU legislation may protect safety at work, but if an accident occurs and you become disabled, your entitlement to a disability benefit is determined by national law. The EU plays no role in determining the eligibility criteria or the height and duration of the benefits. And if you receive a benefit, it is funded by the government or an insurance scheme in your country, not the EU.

Occupational health and safety is just one of many areas in which the EU is active. Yet, as we saw above, there are also areas in which the EU plays a much smaller role. This chapter seeks to sketch the broader picture within which the subsequent chapters on agenda-setting, decision-making and implementation of EU policies can be placed. After reading this chapter, you should know what types of policy the EU makes, in which areas it is important and in which areas it plays a smaller role, and how the role of the EU in policy-making has evolved over the past decade.

Summary

Introduction

In the spring of 2007 the Italian city of Naples experienced an acute breakdown of its rubbish collection system. Because waste landfills were full, rubbish collection became impossible and piles of trash quickly built up in the streets of Naples. Although the region of Campania had been struggling with its waste management system for years, the situation proved to be especially urgent this time. Residents started burning the rubbish in order to alleviate the smell of rotting material, transforming the city's streets into a grim scene with dark clouds of smoke and pedestrians covering their faces to avoid the smell. The crisis not only made headlines in the world news but also incited action on the part of the European Commission, which accused Italy of not living up to the terms of the Waste Framework Directive. A month later the Commission sent a formal warning to Italy because it had ‘failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive by not putting in place an appropriate network of disposal facilities ensuring a high level of protection for the environment and public health in the Campania region’.

Although the Italian government succeeded in addressing the most urgent problems – for example, by sending its waste by train to waste incineration facilities in the German city of Hamburg – the Commission later that year still considered Italy to be in violation of the terms of the Directive. After a final warning in January 2008 the Commission started a case against Italy before the Court of Justice, because it had not provided a satisfactory plan for the disposal of its waste nor presented a timetable for putting in place such facilities. In March 2010 the Court of Justice issued a ruling in which it concluded that Italy had indeed failed to fulfil its obligations. Although the Italian authorities responded to this ruling by making progress in their waste management, the Commission felt that it was still not complying fully with the Directive. The Commission therefore started a new court case in June 2013: this time it asked the Court to impose a daily fine of no less than €256,819 for every day the Italian Republic would not comply with the original ruling of the Court.

The story of Italy's waste problem illustrates how difficult it can be to put EU legislation into practice, a process called implementation.

Summary

Introduction

On 8 February 2013, after twenty-four hours of negotiations, the European Council agreed to the EU's Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for the period 2014–20. The Financial Perspectives lay down the size of the EU budget for each year as well as the contribution of each member state and the distribution across major spending categories. This forms the framework within which annual budgets are adopted.

Finding a compromise had been a difficult process because the Financial Perspectives had to reconcile a number of highly diverging interests. To begin with, all member states had had to cut their budgets in the wake of the financial crisis. At the same time, unemployment levels had risen across the EU, leading to a search for ways to stimulate economic growth and, thereby, employment. The ideas about how to do that varied markedly.

In its initial draft, published in June 2011, the European Commission had proposed a rise of the EU budget to 1.08% of the EU's Gross National Income (GNI). The extra money would be spent on research as well as increased investments in infrastructure in the fields of telecom, energy and transport.

The response by the member states followed the lines that were familiar from previous negotiations on the budget. On one side, a group of member states named ‘Friends of Better Spending’ argued for cuts in the overall EU budget and a reduction of spending on agriculture and cohesion policy to the benefit of policies they deemed important for innovation. This group included most member states that were net contributors to the EU budget (see Table 8.3 in Chapter 8). Even before the first Commission proposal, in December 2010, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom had already sent an open letter to the Commission demanding a reduced budget.

On the other side was a group called ‘Friends of Cohesion’, which included some fifteen member states that benefited from the cohesion funds. They argued that cohesion policy was crucial for economic growth and employment and should therefore not be cut in the new MFF. During the course of 2012, this group issued several statements to this effect and made it their priority during the negotiations.

European government, politics and policy

Refine search

Refine search

Actions for selected content:

6044 results in European government, politics and policy

1 - The historical development of the EU

Summary

List of controversies

2 - Analysing the EU

Conclusions and reflections

Contents

Key terms and concepts

9 - Agenda-setting

Summary

PART II - Key actors in EU politics: citizens, interest groups and political parties

List of tables

List of fact files

5 - Public opinion and political participation

Summary

12 - Reflecting on the EU as a political system

Summary

8 - An overview of EU policy-making

Summary

List of country abbreviations used in tables and figures

Index

Acknowledgements

11 - Implementing policies

Summary

10 - Decision-making

Summary

EPR volume 7 issue 3 Cover and Back matter

EPR volume 7 issue 3 Cover and Front matter

European government, politics and policy

Refine search

Refine search

Actions for selected content:

Save Search

6044 results in European government, politics and policy

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary