No CrossRef data available.
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.
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.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2017
The impetus for this chapter is the extraordinary difficulties surrounding the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. It aims to provide a framework within which to explore trust in EU law. The question of trust has become even more significant since the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty with the emergence of the fiscal crisis in Greece and in the wider eurozone. This chapter initially seeks to locate the question of trust within the much-discussed notion of the democratic deficit in the EU, drawing on the work of Snell. It argues that the question of democratic deficit raises questions about trust in the EU, and that institutionalised distrust is what is required in order to secure appropriate trust in EU law and governance. It then examines the nature of trust before turning to two major crises of distrust in the EU: the Irish referenda on the Lisbon Treaty and the ongoing difficulties presented to the eurozone of the indebtedness of some of its members.
1 For a summary of the main democratic deficit arguments, see A Moravcsik, ‘The Myth of Europe’s “Democratic Deficit”‘ (2008) Nov/Dec Intereconomics 331.
2 Follesdal, A and Hix, S, ‘Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik’ (2006) 44(3) JCMS 533 Google Scholar.
3 See Weiler, JHH, ‘The Reformation of European Constitutionalism’ (1997) 35(1) JCMS 97, 115 in particularGoogle Scholar. The idea that the EU lacks a demos was articulated by the German Bundesverfassunsgericht in Brunner v European Union Treaty [1994] CMLR 57.
4 Majone, G, ‘Unity in Diversity: European Integration and the Enlargement Process’ (2008) 33(4) EL Rev 457 Google Scholar.
5 Moravcsik, A, ‘What We Can Learn From The Collapse Of The European Constitutional Project?’ (2006) 47(2) Politische Vierteljahresschrift 219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 Snell, J, ‘“European Constitutional Settlement”, An Ever Closer Union, and the Treaty of Lisbon: Democracy or Relevance?’ (2008) 33 EL Rev 619 Google Scholar.
7 This argument is also made by Follesdal and Hix, above n 2.
8 See Moravcsik, above n 5, 227.
9 Snell, above n 6, 622.
10 Ibid, 625.
11 See Burris, S, Kempa, M and Shearing, C, ‘Changes in Governance: A Cross-Disciplinary Review of Current Scholarship’ (2008) 41(1) Akron Law Review 1 Google Scholar, who argue that the institutional focus in the governance literature means that there is not enough focus on the human elements. They identify the human need to develop trust (and hope) as being particularly significant.
12 This section draws mainly on the collection of essays in Braithwaite, V and Levi, M (eds), Trust and Governance (New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1998)Google Scholar.
13 R Hardin, ‘Trust in Government’ in Braithwaite and Levi, above n 12, 12.
14 M Levi, ‘A State of Trust’ in Braithwaite and Levi, above n 12, 78.
15 Hardin, above n 13, 10.
16 Moravcsik, above n 5, 227.
17 Hardin, above n 13, 12.
18 Ibid, 23.
19 S Blackburn, ‘Trust, Cooperation and Human Psychology’ in Braithwaite and Levi, above n 12.
20 V Braithwaite, ‘Communal and Exchange Trust Norms: Their Value Base and Relevance to Institutional Trust’ in Braithwaite and Levi, above n 12; and Levi, above n 14, 79 and 80.
21 Braithwaite, above n 20, 46, 51, 53 and 65.
22 Levi, above n 14.
23 Hardin above n 13, 12.
24 O’Neill, O, A Question of Trust: The BBC Reith Lectures (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002) 3 Google Scholar.
25 P Pettit, ‘Republican Theory and Political Trust’ in Braithwaite and Levi, above n 12, 302.
26 For a principal/agent analysis, see Pollack, MA, ‘Delegation, Agency and Agenda Setting in the Treaty of Amsterdam’ (1999) 3(6) European Integration online Papers Google Scholar.
27 Art 48 TEU; Dougan, M, ‘The Treaty of Lisbon 2007: Winning Minds not Hearts’ (2008) 45(3) CML Rev 617 Google Scholar.
28 Harlow, C, ‘Law and Public Administration: Convergence and Symbiosis’ (2005) 71 International Review of Administrative Services 279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
29 Teubner, G, ‘Juridification: Concepts, Aspects, Limits, Solutions’ in Baldwin, R, Scott, C and Hood, C (eds), A Reader on Regulation (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998) at 405 Google Scholar.
30 Normanton, EL, The Accountability and Audit of Governments (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1966)Google Scholar.
31 Hardin, above n 13, 12.
32 Pettit, above n 25, 297.
33 O’Neill, above n 24, 57.
34 Power, M, The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
35 O’Neill, above n 24, ch 3.
36 M Peel, ‘Trusting Disadvantaged Citizens’ in Braithwaite and Levi, above n 12, 325.
37 O’Neill, above n 24, 50.
38 Mashaw, JL, ‘Accountability and Institutional Design: Some thoughts on the Grammar of Governance’ in Dowdle, MW (ed), Public Accountability; Designs, Dilemmas and Experiences (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006)Google Scholar.
39 Ibid, 120.
40 Pettit, above n 25, 306.
41 Ibid, 308.
42 J Braithwaite, ‘Institutionalizing Distrust, Enculturating Trust’ in Braithwaite and Levi, above n 12.
43 See Dryberg, P, ‘Accountability and Legitimacy: What is the Contribution of Transparency’ in Arnull, A and Wincott, D, Accountability and Legitimacy in the EU (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002)Google Scholar; Harlow, above n 28, who has suggested it has been elevated to a principle of administrative law in the EU. There is some debate as to whether this is in fact the case: for an overview, see Craig, P and de Búrca, G, EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials, 4th edn (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008) 562–67Google Scholar. See also Lenaerts, K, ‘“In the Union we Trust”: Trust-Enhancing Principles of Community Law’ (2004) 41 CML Rev 317 Google Scholar.
44 O’Neill, above n 24, ch 4.
45 J Braithwaite, above n 42, 347.
46 Stefanova, B, ‘The “No” Vote in the French and Dutch Referenda on the EU Constitution: A Spillover of Consequences for the Wider Europe’ (2006) 39 Political Science and Politics 251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
47 See de Búrca, G, ‘The Drafting of a Constitution for the European Union: Europe’s Madisonian Moment or a Moment of Madness?’ (2004) 61 Washington and Lee Law Review 555 Google Scholar; Magnette, P and Nicolaïdis, K, ‘The European Convention: Bargaining in the Shadow of Rhetoric’ (2004) 27(3) West European Politics 381 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stuart, G, The Making of Europe’s Constitution (London, Fabian Society, 2003)Google Scholar (an account by a member of the Convention Praesidium).
48 Craig, P, ‘The Treaty of Lisbon, Process, Architecture and Substance’ (2008) 33 EL Rev 137 Google Scholar; Laursen, F, ‘The (Reform) Treaty of Lisbon: What’s in it? How Significant?’ (2009) 9(1) Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, University of Miami Google Scholar.
49 Crotty v An Taoiseach [1987] IR 713. If the reform alters the essential scope or objectives of the EU then a referendum is required. See Costello, C, ‘Ireland’s Nice Referendums’ (2005) 1 European Constitutional Law Review 357 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pech, L, ‘National Report for Ireland Preparing the European Union for the Future? Necessary Revisions of Primary Law after Non-ratification of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe’, 23rd FIDE Report in Koeck, H and Karollus, M (eds), Preparing the EU for the Future? Necessary Revisions of Primary Law after the non-ratification of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, FIDE XXIII Congress, vol 1 (Vienna, Facultas.wuv/Nomos, 2008) 213 Google Scholar.
50 See the detailed analysis in Seeger, S, ‘From Referendum Euphoria to Referendum Phobia—Framing the Ratification Question’ (2008) 10(4) European Journal of Law Reform 437 Google Scholar.
51 For a discussion of the Nice Treaty referenda, see C Costello, above n 49.
52 Eg, see the view of the then Sinn Fein MEP Mary Lou McDonald, ‘Renegotiate Lisbon instead of rerunning it’ Irish Times, 2 December 2008.
53 J-C Piris, DG in the Council’s Legal Service, quoted in Tallberg, J, ‘Bargaining Power in the European Council’ (2008) 46(3) JCMS 685, 689Google Scholar.
54 Tallberg, above n 53.
55 Quinlan, S, ‘The Lisbon Treaty Referendum 2008’ (2009) 24(1) Irish Political Studies 107, 116CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
56 Ibid, 111. See also Millward Brown IMS, ‘Post-Lisbon Treaty Referendum Research Findings September 2008’, available at <http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/Publications/Post%20Lisbon%20Treaty%20Referendum%20Research%20Findings/post%20lisbon%20 treaty%20referendum%20research%20findings_sept08.pdf>, accessed 8 July 2010.
57 Gray, M and Stubb, A, ‘Keynote Article: The Treaty of Nice—Negotiating a Poisoned Chalice’ (2001) 29 JCMS Annual Review 1 Google Scholar.
58 de Búrca, G, ‘The European Constitution Project after the Referenda’ (2006) 13 Constellations 205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
59 Quinlan, above n 55, 112.
60 Millward Brown IMS research report, above n 56. Quinlan, above n 55, 117. This euroanxiety position was also present at the time of the Nice referenda: see C Costello, above n 49, 368.
61 [2008] OJ C115/1 (5 May 2008).
62 See [2007] OJ C306/1.
63 In Ireland, a version was provided quickly online by the Irish Institute of International and European Affairs, a think tank.
64 Set up by The Referendum Commission Act 1998, with its role now governed by the Referendum Act 2001. The Government is not allowed by law to spend public monies on the conduct of a referendum following McKenna II [1995] 2 IR 10. See C Costello, above n 49.
65 Halberstan, D and Möllers, C, ‘The German Constitutional Court says “Ja Zu Deutschland!”‘ (2009) 10(8) German LJ XXX Google Scholar; Hoffman, L, ‘Don’t Let the Sun go down on me: the German Constitutional Court and its Lisbon Judgment’ (2009) 5 Journal of Contemporary European Research 480 Google Scholar. For the case itself, see Lisbon Case, BVerfG, 2 BvE/08 from 30 June 2009, available at <http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bvel>, accessed 8 July 2010.
66 The President delayed signing and eventually The Czech Republic negotiated an opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights after the President had suggested that if it ratified the Charter, the Republic could be subject to property claims from descendants of Germans expelled after World War II. There were also two cases before the Constitutional Court. For the first see Bříza, P, ‘The Czech Republic: The Constitutional Court on the Lisbon Treaty Decision of 26 November 2008’ (2009) 5 European Constitutional Law Review 143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kratochvil, P and Braun, M, ‘The Lisbon Treaty and the Czech Republic: Past Imperfect, Future Uncertain’ (2009) 5 Journal of Contemporary European Research 498 Google Scholar. For an English translation of the judgment, see <http://angl.concourt.cz/angl_verze/doc/pl-19-08.php>, accessed 8 July 2010. For the second judgment of 3 November 2009, see the press release: <http://www.usoud.cz/view/2144>, accessed 8 July 2010. In Poland, the Parliament had ratified the Treaty in April 2008 but the President had delayed signing, and this delay was extended once the first Irish referendum delivered a negative vote. Eventually, the President signed the treaty in October 2009. See Zwolski, K, ‘Euthanasia, Gay Marriages and Sovereignty: Polish Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty’ (2009) 5 Journal of Contemporary European Research 480 Google Scholar.
67 See, generally, Quinlan, above n 55.
68 Ibid, 112.
69 Case C-341/05 Laval un partneri [2007] ECR-I 11767. See Houses of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs, 7th Report the Lisbon Treaty and Workers Rights, September 2009, available at <http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees30thdail/j-europeanaffairs/reports_2009/20090910.doc>, accessed 8 July 2010.
70 23% were shown to have voted ‘No’ on the second occasion because of concern for it. Neutrality has also been a feature in earlier referenda: see Costello, above n 49, 368.
71 Its poor performance in the subsequent European Parliament elections meant it did not play a role in the second referendum.
72 53.4% against; 46.6% in favour; with a turnout of 53.4%: see Dinan, D, ‘Institutions and Governance’ in Copsey, N and Houghton, T (eds), JCMS Annual Review of the European Union in 2008 (Chichester, Wiley, 2009) 113 Google Scholar.
73 Houses of the Oireachtas Sub-Committee on Ireland’s Future in the EU: Challenges, Issues and Options, November 2008, available at <http://euaffairs.ie/publications/Finalversion-Sub-Comm-Report-full.pdf>, accessed 8 July 2010.
74 For a discussion of the second referendum, see Tonra, B, ‘The 2009 Irish Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (2009) 5 Journal of Contemporary European Research 472 Google Scholar.
75 European Council, Presidency Conclusions 18/19 June 2009, revised version, Brussels, 10 July 2009, available at <http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/danube/documents/council_conclusions.pdf>, accessed 8 July 2010. See also Kingston, S, ‘Ireland’s Options after the Lisbon Referendum: Strategies, Implications and Competing Visions of Europe’ (2009) 34(3) EL Rev 455 Google Scholar.
76 Commission, Eurobarometer, Lisbon Treaty Post-referendum Survey Ireland 2009, available at <http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_284_en.pdf>, accessed 8 July 2010; D Dinan, above n 72, 119.
77 R Hyman, ‘Trade Unions and “Europe”: Are the Members out of Step?’ LEQS paper no 14, November 2009.
78 Coughlan v Broadcasting Complaints Commission and RTE [2000] 3 IR 1. For a critique of the three most significant Irish Supreme Court decisions on the conduct of referenda, see Barrett, G, ‘Building a Swiss Chalet in an Irish Legal Landscape? Referendums on European Union Treaties in Ireland and the Impact of Supreme Court Jurisprudence’ (2009) 5 European Constitutional Law Review 32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
79 Braithwaite, above n 42; Pettit, above n 25, 299.
80 Multi-level governance allows debate to move beyond the binary intergovernmental/ supranational divide to take account of the complex, multi-layered decision-making processes of the EU. For a critical analysis of multi-level governance and its application to the EU, see George, S, ‘Multi-level Governance and the EU’ in Bache, I and Flinders, M (eds), Multilevel Governance (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004)Google Scholar. See generally Bernard, N, Multilevel Governance in the European Union (Amsterdam, Kluwer Law International, 2002)Google Scholar.
81 MK Jennings, ‘Political Trust and the Roots of Devolution’ in Braithwaite and Levi, above n 12.
82 Hardin, above n 13.
83 For a discussion of output and input legitimacy and the challenges posed by the former for the EU, see generally Scharpf, F, Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
84 Follesdal and Hix, above n 2., Hix, S., What’s Wrong with the European Union and How to Fix It (Cambridge, Polity Press, 2008)Google Scholar.
85 Quinlan, above n 55.
86 Moravcsik, above n 5.
87 For an overview of the legitimacy debates, see Lord, C and Magnette, P, ‘ E Pluribus Unum? Creative Disagreement about Legitimacy in the EU’ (2004) 42(1) JCMS 183 Google Scholar.
88 Ehin, P, ‘Competing Models of EU Legitimacy: The Test of Popular Expectations’ (2008) 46(3) JCMS 619 Google Scholar.
89 See, eg, S Cody and J Kelly, ‘Will Workers Have Greater Rights if the Treaty is Ratified?’ Irish Times, 21 September 2009. J Hauster, ‘Lisbon Clauses Justify No—SF’ Irish Times, 15 September 2009.
90 Cappeletti, M, ‘Is the European Court of Justice “Running Wild”?’ (1987) 12 EL Rev 3 Google Scholar.
91 See, generally, Alter, KJ, Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an International Rule of Law in Europe (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001)Google Scholar.
92 See, eg, the position of the Polish Constitutional Court in Kowalik-Baňczyk, K, ‘Should We Polish It Up? The Polish Constitutional Tribunal and the Idea of Supremacy of EU Law’ (2005) 6(10) German LJ 1355 Google Scholar.
93 Brunner v European Union Treaty [1994] CMLR 57.
94 Key early cases are Case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft v Einfurh-und Vorratstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel [1970] ECR 1125; Case 4/73 Nold v Commission [1974] ECR 491; and Case 44/79 Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz [1979] ECR 3727. More recently, see Case C-112/00 Schmidberger v Austria [2003] ECR I-5659; and Opinion 2/94 on Accession by the Community to the ECHR [1996] ECR I-1759.
95 The key German cases where this debate was discussed are Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr-und Vorratstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel (Solange I) [1974] 2 CMLR 540; Re Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft (Solange II) [1987] 3 CMLR 225; and Brunner v The EU Treaty [1994] 1 CMLR 57. See also the decision of the BVerfG in the Bananas case, decision of 7 June 2000-2BvL 1/97, discussed in Peters, A, ‘The Bananas Decision 2000 of the German Federal Constitutional Court: Towards reconciliation with the ECJ as regards fundamental Rights Protection in Europe’ (2000) 43 German Yearbook of International Law 276 Google Scholar. The most recent case relates to the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty: see Lisbon Case, BVerfG, 2 BvE/08 from 30 June 2009, available at: <http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bvel>, accessed 8 July 2010, discussed in D Halberstan and C Möllers, above n 65.
96 See Case 26/62 NV Algemene Transporten Expeditie onderneming van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen [1963] ECR 1; Case 6/64 Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585; and Opinion 1/91 on a draft agreement relating to the creation of the European Economic Area [1991] ECR I-6097. For a discussion of pluralism, see McCormack, N, Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State and Nation in the European Commonwealth (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
97 The Strategy had as its objective making the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010, defined in terms of sustainable economic growth, more and better jobs, greater social cohesion and environmental protection: see European Council, ‘Presidency Conclusions’, Press Release: Lisbon 24/03/2000, No 100/1/00; and European Council, ‘Presidency Conclusions’, Press Release: Göteborg 15/6/2001, No 200/1/01.
98 Described by de Búrca and Scott as the wide range of processes and practices that have a normative dimension but do not operate primarily or at all through the formal mechanism of traditional command-and-control-type legal institutions: see de Búrca, G and Scott, J, ‘Introduction: New Governance, Law and Constitutionalism’ in de Búrca, G and Scott, J (eds), New Governance and Constitutionalism in Europe and the US (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2006) 2 Google Scholar.
99 Hodson, D and Maher, I, ‘The Open Method as a New Mode of Governance: The Case of Soft Economic Policy Co-ordination’ (2001) 39(4) JCMS 719 Google Scholar.
100 Harlow, above n 28.
101 de Búrca, G, ‘The Constitutional Challenge of New Governance in the European Union’ (2003) 28 EL Rev 814 at 824Google Scholar.
102 For example, Arts 119 TFEU (in relation to economic policy coordination) and 145 TFEU (employment policy).
103 On hybridity, see de Búrca and Scott, above n 98, 6. On how it is found in EMU, see D Trubek, P Cottrell and M Nance, ‘“Soft Law”, “Hard Law” and EU Integration’ in at G de Búrca and J Scott (eds), above n 98, 93 and Maher, I, ‘Economic Governance: Hybridity, Accountability, and Control’ (2007) 13(3) Columbia Journal of European Law 679 Google Scholar.
104 Snyder, F, ‘The Effectiveness of European Community Law: Institutions, Processes, Tools and Techniques’ in Daintith, T (ed), Implementing EC Law in the United Kingdom: Structures for Indirect Rule (London, Wiley, 1995) 64 Google Scholar. In general see Senden, L, Soft Law in European Community Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2004)Google Scholar.
105 There is some debate as to whether the procedures under EMU can in fact be identified as OMC; see Wincott, D, ‘Beyond Social Regulation?’ (2003) 81(3) Public Administration 533, 538CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
106 On economic policy, see Arts 119–126 TFEU; and for monetary policy see Arts 127–135 TFEU. Articles 136–145 TFEU deal with transitional arrangements and provisions conferring powers to enact additional measures for States within the eurozone.
107 European Council, Extraordinary Meeting Economics and Financial Affairs, Brussels, 9 and 10 May 2010, Provisional Press Release, 9596/10.
108 Amtenbrink, F, The Democratic Accountability of Central Banks: A Comparative Study of the European Central Bank (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 1999)Google Scholar.
109 The members of the eurozone are: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia and Spain.
110 Art 119 TFEU.
111 Pisani-Ferry, J, ‘The Debate over the Economic Governance of the Euro Area’ (2006) 44(4) JCMS 823, 832Google Scholar.
112 The Stability and Growth Pact consists of a range of measures, including Arts 121 and 126 TFEU and Protocol 12 as well as the Council Resolution on the Stability and Growth Pact, [1997] OJ C236/5, Council Regulation 1467/97/EC of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure, [1997] OJ L209/6 and Council Regulation 1466/97/EC of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies, [1997] OJ L209/1. These two regulations were amended in 2005: see Report by the Council to the European Council, Improving the Implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact Annex II Presidency Conclusions of 23 and 24 March 2005. Most recently, see Council Regulation 479/2009/EC on the Application of the Protocol on the Excessive Deficit Procedure Annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community, [2009] OJ L145/1.
113 Art 12, Regulation 1467/97/EC, [1997] OJ L209/6.
114 Case C-27/04 Commission v Council [2004] ECR I-6649.
115 Council Regulation 1056/2005/EC amending Regulation 1467/97/EC, [2005] OJ L174/5; Council Regulation 1055/2005/EC, amending Regulation 1466/97/EC, [2005] OJ L174/1.
116 LG Mora and JN Martins, ‘How Reliable are the Statistics for the Stability and Growth Pact?’ (2007) Notas Estadísticas No 4, Bank of Spain.
117 See Hodson, D and Maher, I, ‘Soft Law and Sanctions: Economic Policy Coordination and Reform of the Stability and Growth Pact’ (2004) 11(5) Journal of European Public Policy 806 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
118 See, eg, the report by the Council to the European Council, Improving the Implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact Annex II Presidency Conclusions, 23 and 24 March 2005, at 1.3.
119 Commission Recommendation for a Council Opinion on the updated Stability Programme of Greece, 2010–2013, Brussels, 3.2.2010 SEC(2010) 94 final, at § 2.5.
120 Council Regulation 479/2009/EC on the Application of the Protocol on the Excessive Deficit Procedure Annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community, [2009] OJ L145/1.
121 Specifications on the Implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact and Guidelines on the Format and Content of Stability and Convergence Programmes endorsed by the ECOFIN Council on 10 November 2009.
122 Art 126 TFEU.
123 Dabrowski, M, ‘The Global Financial Crisis: Lessons for European Integration’ (2010) 34 Economics Systems 38, 45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; D Hodson and I Maher, above n 99, 801.
124 See Schelkle, W, ‘The Theory and Practice of Economic Governance in EMU Revisited: What Have We Learnt about Commitment and Credibility’ (1996) 44(4) Journal of Common Market Studies 669 and, indeed, all of the articles in this special issueCrossRefGoogle Scholar.
125 Commission, Economic Crisis in Europe: Causes, Consequences and Responses, European Economics 7/2009, Luxembourg; S Sgherri and E Zoli, Euro Area Sovereign Risk During the Crisis, IMF Working Paper (2009) WP/09/222, 6. See generally, Hodson, D., ‘The EU Economy: the Euro Area in 2009’ (2010) 48 Journal of Common Market Studies Annual Review 225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
126 Dabrowski, above n 123, 4.
127 ECB Monthly Bulletin, May 2010. The ECB has not just bought Greek government bonds see e.g. A. Bradbery, ‘ECB Buys Irish Government bonds to Calm Markets’ Wall Street Journal, August 13 2010.
128 Art 127(1) TFEU: ‘The primary objective of the European System of Central Banks … shall be to maintain price stability.’ The Treaty also prohibits any bail-outs see Art. 125 TFEU.
129 A Council Decision is to be drafted on the basis of Arts 126 and 136 TFEU. For a summary of the measures agreed to by Greece, see Comments by H Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, on Greece and Solidarity in the Euro Area, Brussels, 5 May 2010, available at <http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/114223.pdf>, accessed 8 July 2010.
130 C Atkinson, Press Briefing, IMF, 6 May 2010, available at <http://www.imf.org/external/np/tr/2010/tr>, accessed 8 July 2010.
131 Eurogroup, Statement on Support to Greece, 2 May 2010, available at <http://www. consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/100502-%20Eurogroup_statement.pdf>, accessed 8 July 2010.
132 Arts 126 and 136 TFEU. The conditions of the austerity package include an increase in VAT from 21 per cent to 23 per cent; significant cuts in bonuses, pensions and subsidies to the public sector, changes in the schemes on retirement age including an increase in the official retirement age to 67 years. Finally, there was also to be a loosening of restrictions on the cirucmstnaces surrounding laying-off employees.
133 Statement by the Heads of State and Government of the Euro Area, Brussels, 25 March 2010, available at <http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/113563.pdf> accessed 8 July 2010.
134 See, eg, ‘Greek Storms Spreads Across Europe’, Investment Adviser FT Business, 10 May 2010.
135 European Council, above n 107.
136 See, eg, ‘Stocks, Euro Soar on EU Rescue Package’, Agence France Presse (English), 10 May 2010.
137 A Willis, ‘EU Ministers to Debate Controversial Eurozone Reform’, EU Observer, 17 May 2010, available at <http://euobserver.com/?aid=30080>, accessed 8 July 2010.
138 A Willis, ‘EU Miffed by Unilateral German Ban on Short-Selling’, EU Observer, 19 May 2010, available at <http://euobserver.com/?aid=30104>, accessed 8 July 2010.
139 D Scally, ‘Merkel Insists Treaty Changes are Essential’, Irish Times, 13 May 2010.
140 H Mahony, ‘Barroso says German calls for Treaty Change are ‘Naïve’’, EU Observer, 25 May 2010, available at <http://euobserver.com/9/30129/?rk=1>, accessed 8 July 2010.
141 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Central Bank, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Reinforcing Economics Policy Coordination Brussels, 12.2.2010 COM(2010) 250 final.
142 See, eg A Willis, ‘Barroso urges Reform as Shine Fades on Bail-out’, EU Observer, 11 May 2010, available at <http://euobserver.com/?aid=30059>, accessed 8 July 2010.
143 EC Commission, Europe 2020: A European Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, available at <http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf>, accessed 8 July 2010, which was endorsed by the Council in March: see European Council, Conclusions on Europe 2020, 3003rd Economics and Financial Affairs Council, Brussels, 16 March 2010, available at <http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/113395.pdf>, accessed 8 July 2010.
144 In its Communication on economic policy coordination, the Commission has advocated even tighter surveillance than proposed under EU2020, showing the fluid nature of the political climate in the crisis see above n 141, at III.2.
145 Dabrowski, above n 123, 51.
146 Commission, above n 125, 17.
147 T Connelly, ‘We Do Not Sacrifice Ourselves for the Rich’, Sunday Business Post, 9 May 2010.
148 J Strupczewski and I Wissenbach, ‘Eurozone Agrees Emergency Steps to Contain Crisis’, Reuters, 7 May 2010.
149 As well as Greece, the IMF and EU have provided loans to Latvia, (see e.g. the Supplemental MOU between the EU and Latvia, July 2010 http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/financial_operations/balance/pdf/mou_add3_bop_latvia_en.pdf (viewed 31 August 2010); Romania (see e.g. Supplemental MOU, February 2010) and Hungary (see e.g. MOU between the EU and Hungary 17 November 2009 http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication13495_en.pdf (visited 31 August 2010).