Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Browse subjects
  3. Politics and International Relations
  4. European government, politics and policy
  5. Content listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

6068 results in European government, politics and policy

Page 161 of 304

  • 6 - Interest groups and interest representation

  • from PART II - Key actors in EU politics: citizens, interest groups and political parties
  • Herman Lelieveldt, Sebastiaan Princen, Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Book:
    The Politics of the European Union
    Published online:
    28 May 2018
    Print publication:
    09 July 2015, pp 128-150

  • Summary

    Introduction

    On 17 June 2013, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso and US President Barack Obama announced the start of negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The negotiations were meant to lead to a comprehensive treaty, which would further liberalize trade and investment between the EU and the US and thereby foster economic growth. It covered not just import tariffs and other direct trade barriers, but also targeted domestic regulations that could hinder trade or impair investments.

    The conclusion of the TTIP was strongly supported by large firms and business groups on both sides of the Atlantic, which stood to gain from increased trade and investment opportunities. They pushed for an ambitious and quick agreement and made their views known to European and US policy-makers by publishing position papers and organizing meetings and conferences that were attended by business representatives and government officials from the EU and the US.

    A wide range of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) opposed the TTIP, arguing that it would undermine health, safety, consumer and environmental standards in the EU. Moreover, they criticized the ‘intransparent’ and ‘undemocratic’ character of TTIP negotiations, which they claimed were dominated by business interests, to the exclusion of NGOs and elected representatives. In letters to European Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht, they voiced their concern and called for a public debate.

    In their attack on the TTIP, NGOs sought to involve European citizens and mobilize public opinion. They were helped by the fact that, in the course of 2014, draft negotiating texts were leaked to the press. On 11 October 2014, a range of NGOs organized a ‘European Day of Action’ against the TTIP and two other trade agreements, with different types of protest, such as marches, seminars, flash mobs and concerts, scheduled in twenty-two countries throughout Europe.

    In this way, a heated and highly polarized debate between proponents and opponents developed, in which the two sides used different approaches in attempts to influence the negotiating process and the ensuing agreement.

  • 4 - Legislation and decision-making: putting the institutional puzzle together

  • from PART I - Setting the scene: origins, analytical perspectives and institutions
  • Herman Lelieveldt, Sebastiaan Princen, Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Book:
    The Politics of the European Union
    Published online:
    28 May 2018
    Print publication:
    09 July 2015, pp 76-106

  • Summary

    Introduction

    In December 2012, the European Commission presented a proposal for a revision of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), a piece of legislation that regulates the production, sale and packaging of tobacco products in the EU. The old directive from 2001 needed to be replaced because in 2005 the EU had become party to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, requiring stronger rules to discourage people from smoking. A new directive was also necessary to deal with new developments such as the emergence of e-cigarettes as a new product that had so far escaped regulation.

    After its release, the proposal went to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament for decision-making. Within the Council, it was discussed in the ‘Employment, Social Policy, Health, and Consumer Affairs Council’, which includes the ministers of health of the member states. Within the European Parliament, the responsible committee was the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. The proposal was also discussed in four other parliamentary committees. While the proposal was being discussed in the Council and the EP, formal opinions were issued by two advisory bodies: the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The Commission also received opinions from seventeen national parliaments, seven of which raised severe objections against the need to regulate this at the EU level.

    In June 2013 the health ministers in the Council reached a ‘political agreement’ after making several changes to the proposal from the Commission – for example, by asking it to not ban menthol cigarettes. Soon thereafter the European Parliament debated the proposal and indicated which amendments it wanted to see adopted in order to make the proposal acceptable. It gave its rapporteur, Linda McAvan, a mandate to negotiate on its behalf with the Council and the Commission. After a series of informal meetings representatives from the EP, the Council and the Commission reached agreement in December 2013. The EP approved this agreement in its session in February 2014, whilst the Council approved it one month later, thereby formally adopting the proposal. The speed at which the EU managed to adopt this piece of legislation was remarkable. Despite the complexity of the issues on the table and the many changes that were suggested by member states and MEPs, it had taken only fifteen months to get the new TPD adopted.

  • 1 - The historical development of the EU

  • from PART I - Setting the scene: origins, analytical perspectives and institutions
  • Herman Lelieveldt, Sebastiaan Princen, Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Book:
    The Politics of the European Union
    Published online:
    28 May 2018
    Print publication:
    09 July 2015, pp 3-26

  • 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.

  • 9 - Agenda-setting

  • from PART III - EU policies: agenda-setting, decision-making and implementation
  • Herman Lelieveldt, Sebastiaan Princen, Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Book:
    The Politics of the European Union
    Published online:
    28 May 2018
    Print publication:
    09 July 2015, pp 208-229

  • 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.

  • 5 - Public opinion and political participation

  • from PART II - Key actors in EU politics: citizens, interest groups and political parties
  • Herman Lelieveldt, Sebastiaan Princen, Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Book:
    The Politics of the European Union
    Published online:
    28 May 2018
    Print publication:
    09 July 2015, pp 109-127

  • 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:

  • • How do citizens evaluate the EU and how have their opinions changed over the years?

  • • Which factors explain citizen evaluations of the EU?

  • • How have citizens voted in EP elections and referendums on European integration and how can we explain their voting behaviour?

  • • What do these developments tell us about the possibilities for further integration?

    • In this chapter we show that the EU has, for much of its existence, not figured very prominently in the minds of many citizens. This lack of saliency – not being prominent in people's minds – allowed the member state governments and their politicians to move on with European integration without worrying too much about citizen opinions. The introduction of direct elections for the European Parliament did not make the EU more important in the views of voters.

  • 12 - Reflecting on the EU as a political system

  • from Conclusions and reflections
  • Herman Lelieveldt, Sebastiaan Princen, Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Book:
    The Politics of the European Union
    Published online:
    28 May 2018
    Print publication:
    09 July 2015, pp 277-297

  • 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.

  • 8 - An overview of EU policy-making

  • from PART III - EU policies: agenda-setting, decision-making and implementation
  • Herman Lelieveldt, Sebastiaan Princen, Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Book:
    The Politics of the European Union
    Published online:
    28 May 2018
    Print publication:
    09 July 2015, pp 179-207

  • 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.

Page 161 of 304