Relationship between EU membership and the UK constitution

Focus of Today’s Lecture

European Integration and the UK: A historical overview

EU institutions – The EU and its Member States: Masters or servants?

What did we join? When? How? And why? What is the EU who runs it? Who
should run it?

Treaty of Lisbon ratified but effectively came into force only on 1 Dec 2009. So
the treaties in force are now the CTEU (consolidated version of the treaty on the
European Union) and the TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the EU) which have
replaced by the TEU (Treaty on European Union)and the ECT (Treaty Establishing
the European Community) but do note that many books will only refer to the old
treaties.

We are going to be looking at what the textbooks look at to be practical. There is

no detriment in an exam sense for not knowing about the Treaty of Lisbon
innovations but it doesn’t hurt.

Things to know by the end of it

 Identify the elements that triggered the ‘demand’ for European integration

 Highlight the most important historical events on the path of European

integration

 Interesting because if you don’t know what triggered it it’s hard to

figure out what’s coming next

 Identify the key elements of the historical attitude of UK Governments vis-

à-vis the integration process

The demand for European Integration

➢ An intellectual ideal before WW1...

• Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi publishes Pan-Europa in 1922

and launches the ‘pan-European’ movement a year later.

➢ … meets with the horrors of WW2 (35-60 million deaths).

• Some side effects of nationalism were clearly undesirable

➢ Unresolved issue of Ruhr and Franco-German relations

 • Both WW’s had taken place mainly because the dispute between
France and Germany on the coal/carbon and steel rich areas of the
region

➢ The Cold War and the ‘Soviet threat’

• Very much perceived as a threat to liberal ideas in Western Europe

and clearly European democracies (and the US) had an interest in
co leasing to put western Europe after ww2 on a track that would
maintain it as an economically liberal area of the world

➢ Managing the reconstruction effort: 1948, Marshall Plan and the

Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (later OECD).

• The states of western Europe and the us were thinking of setting up

supra national organisations to administer the reconstruction effort.

(i) The ‘supply’ for European integration:

 May 1950, The Schumann declaration: ‘...Europe will not be made all at
once (…) It will be built through concrete achievements. The coming
together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old
opposition of France and Germany. (…) The French Government proposes
that action be taken immediately on one limited but decisive point. It
proposes that Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be
placed under a common High Authority…’

 Schumann (foreign minister then) came up with his declaration very

much agreed with his counterparts in Europe/Germany? Check

 Limited loss of national sovereignty by some European states in

regards to the control of production of coal in a specific area but by
and large members of the 6 original states in the cold and steel
community in order to avoid conflict found it a useful resource

 April 1951: ECSC Treaty signed in Paris (European coal and steel treaty)

 1952 The European Defence Community signed

 The 1951 treaty spurred thoughts of further cooperation

 but is not ratified by the French Parliament in 1954

 After this failure European integration focuses on economics and nuclear

energy, rather than politics: Messina Conference 1954.

 The coal and steel model worked quite well so people felt why not
do the same in furtherance of managing nuclear energy research
and promoting free market ideals
  So this important conference launched the basis for further
integration

 1956: Spaak Committee recommends a European Economic Community

and a European Atomic Energy Community.

 EEC based mainly on free movement of workers, goods, services

and (check). Landmark treaty in regards of European integration

 Rome, 25 March 1957: The EEC and Euratom Treaties are signed between
France, Germany, Italy, and Benelux countries.

 1958 Treaties enter into force after ratification

 April 1965: Merger Treaty

 Bit of a bizarre treaty agreement. At the time there were at least 3

communities and thus at least at least as many governing
institutions. (coal and steel, atomic, eec)

 June 1965: De Gaulle (French president at the time) rebels against

Commission plans on CAP funding and leaves Council: the Empty Chair
crisis and veto on more QMV

 At some point he was quite upset they were going to put a cap on
the common agricultural policy budget.

 Till about a decade ago, a chunk of the EU funds were dedicated to

helping farmers; about 70% at htis time

 He stopped attending the councils and effectively prevent the law

making machine on the body as matters essentially needed an
unanimous vote

 January 1966: Luxembourg compromise, an ‘agreement to disagree’.

 Basically meant that president De Gaulle would sit in the council

and French representatives would participate and take an active
part in the law making of the EEC but if they felt issues were
sensitive, the right to vveto that proceeding was more or less
acknowledged

 1973 - The ‘First enlargement’ (UK, Eire and DK)

 Uk and 2 other European countries join the EEC

 The 1980s and the ‘Mediterranean enlargement’:

 1981 Greece

 1986 Spain and Portugal

 1987 SEA comes into effect. More powers and competencies to EC to
establish a Single Market by 1992

 Single European Act 1986 comes into effect. Huge change, a

Frenchman decided he would take the role of president of the
European Commission but only if changes were made to simplify
the law in many areas and decide things by majority not by
unanimity

 Targets to pass a huge amount of legislation and establish the

single market by 1992

 November 1989: Fall of Berlin Wall, followed in 1990 by German

unification

 1992: Maastricht Treaty establishes a European Union based on Three

Pillars. Introduction of co-decision

 Ambition of the EC to expand eastwards

 Introduced another 2 big areas of community thingy placed outside

the thingy; justice and home affairs and foreign security policy.

 (check the 3 pillars. But do take note the 3 pillar union has been
superceded by the Lisbon treaty)

 1993 EU Treaty comes into force

 Copenhagen criteria for further enlargement: democracy and HR

protection, market economy and EU acquis

 Enlargement eastwards, cooperation on all EC/EU matters produced

over the previous 40 or so years. Quite hard for many of the Eastern
European states to come into line with this.

 1995: Austria, Sweden and Finland join the EU

 1997: Treaty of Amsterdam is signed. Further expansion of EU

competencies

 More and more areas of law now falling under the exclusive
competence of the EU or the shared competence of member states

 2000 EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights

 To ensure new member states took HR seriously, it of course had to

respect them itself.

 2001 Nice Treaty is signed and enters into force in 2002 after Irish
referendum

 Same trend; no major changes but the same trend of further

expansion of EU competence. Nothing huge though.
  2002 The Constitutional Convention opens in Brussels

 They became more ambitious after that. They thought maybe they
could have a European constitution so they set up the constitutional
convention

 May 2004: the Central and Eastern European Enlargement. 10 new MSs
join the EU

 The big enlargement. 10 new MS’s from the former communist

states and those under soviet influence. (8MS + 2 small islands
from the med who were not under communist rule)

 October 2004: Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe is signed in

Rome

 May - June 2005: France and the Netherlands vote against the Constitution
in national referenda. ‘Period of reflection’ proclaimed. (lasted for a few
years)

 January 2007 – Romania and Bulgaria join EU

 March 2007 – ‘Berlin Declaration’ on a new Treaty

 Huge diplomatic effort on the part of mostly the German and French
in order to have an agreement to move forward and take a deeper
look at the constitutional treaty, remove the controversial bits and
bring forward European progression in a new treaty (even if it could
no longer be called a constitutional treaty)

 December 2007 – ‘Treaty of Lisbon’ signed

 June 2008 – Rejection in 1st Irish Referendum

 Ireland has a constitutional obligation to have a referendum on

European treaties

 Became a bit of a problem but the Irish saying no is not quite like
the French and Dutch saying no. Since big states were keen to go
ahead with it, there were negotiations with Ireland. Some protocols
and guarantees over sensitive areas were signed.

 October 2009 – Approval in 2nd Irish Referendum

 Dec 2009 – Treaty of Lisbon enters into force

UK attitudes to European integration

 The stereotype

 ‘Fog in Channel: Continent Cut Off’ cultural approach?

  Britain is insular by its own geography and it tends to be kind
of politically isolated.

 ‘It is not going to work, but if it does we can always join later’
attitude?

 Allegedly, British populations have adopted this approach.

E.g. view of the Euro and stuff.

 Sept 1946 - W. Churchill ‘United States of Europe’ speech against ‘federal

project’ and in favour of ‘United Europe’

 He was sceptical of a federal project but in favour of a united

Europe which is what sparked the interesting political debate
between unionist and federalists.

 The Europe we live in today is a bit of a mix of the 2 doctrrrines

 Churchill did think there had to be supra national bodies overseeing

the ppprrroperty of integration but loss of property should be kpt to
a minimum

 May 1947 – W. Churchill launches the ‘United Europe Movement’

 Treaty of London 1949 and establishment of Council of Europe

 Separate from EU. Produced the European convention on HR

 It’s true Britain has some political sensitivities but the point is it
doesn’t fit the 2 criticism tightly

An alternative view - A clash of visions?

 UK (and Scandinavian countries) was suspicious of ‘supranationalism’

 ‘Supranationalism’ was key for Schuman

 A continental problem? ‘For Schuman and Monnet, European integration

meant, essentially, Franco-German integration’ [Desmond Dinand (2005),
p. 25]

 He says that for s and M it meant... the UK was a bit at the

periphery of continental thoughts and European integration

 So much so that when S came up with the S decleration, the british

diplomats and the british foreign minister were given only a few
hours notice while it was negotiated with other big countries

 ‘Schuman’s decision to give the British government no more than a few

hours’ notice of his groundbreaking declaration vividly illustrates French
indifference to British involvement in the future coal and steel community’
[Desmond Dinand (2005), p. 26]
Continental hostility?

 Economic pressure (and Atlantic encouragement) to join the common

market project

 Apparently Kennedy was very keen on the UK joining the EEC

 1961 McMillan (Tory) Government applies for EEC membership

 1963 de Gaulle vetoes UK application!

 1967 Wilson (Labour) Government applies again but… there was a second
veto

 1970 – Heath (Tory) Government applies for a third time

 ‘there is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty; what

is proposed is a sharing and an enlargement of individual national
sovereignties in the general interest’ (1971 Gvt White Paper ‘The UK and
the European Communities’: para 29)

 Just remember that this is 1971 and later on, take a look at the fact
that by the 1960s, the ECJ was taking a hardline view on enforcing
EC regulations

 Labour discomfort vis-à-vis EEC Membership

 Felt EC was a near liberal project

 European Communities Act 1972 and UK membership in 1973

 Tories lost after this.

 February and October 1974 - Labour electoral pledge to call for a

referendum

 Yes v No campaigns

 Tories were overwhelmingly in favour of a yes. And the labour

government were more or less split into 2. Wilson, the PM was in
favour of EC membership but a good chunk of his party including
influential politicians were not in favour of it

 June 1975 – Yes vote wins with 67% support and a 65%

 Mrs Thatcher had just taken over the Tory party. Came to the front
as a forceful politician precisely and that campaign

Mrs Thatcher and the Tories: from Europhile to Euroskeptic

 The ‘British Budgetary Question’ and the 1984 Rebate

  Some given back to the UK as the question is they were giving too
much and getting back too little specially due to the lack of famers
in the UK

 Eurosocialism and the Delors Commission 1985

 Around 12 member states at the time and about 10 had socialists

governments who were trying to pursue social objectives for the EC

 The Maastricht Treaty negotiations and the ‘F-word’ (federal)

 The Major Government, the EU Treaty, and the Social Policy, EMU, and
Schengen opt-outs

 Major government asked for a number of opt-outs starting the trend

where Britain would opt out from certain agreements

Labour and the EU – from skepticism to Europhilia

 Delors Commission and Social Europe

 Delors 1988 TUC speech

 European social policy as a bulwark to Thatcherism/neo-liberalism and the

erosion of labour rights and social rights in the UK

 Tony Blair and UK’s influence in European affairs

 Probably the first british politician to realise britian was losing

influence in Europe with all the opt outs and stuff

 So he felt they had to becme more full members

 So in the 1997 treaty of Amsterdam, Britain opted in to most things

21st Century Britain - A shift towards Euroskepticism?

 Tony Blair and the Constitutional Treaty

 Asked for a referendum. Never actually had to call it as the dutch

and the French sank it. Point is he was sceptical.

 April 2004 - the referendum pledge

 2007-2008 - The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights ‘protocols’

 Talk about bringing it into the treaty and making it a formal base
the uk negotiatied (inter predated???) opt outs

 The rise of euroskeptic parties

 2005-2009 - The Tories out of the EPP-ED and part of the ‘European
Conservatives and Reformists’
  Very eurosceptical formation sitting int eh European parliament with
some other parties from eastern European parties some of which
have been accused of being facist

 European influence v Sovereign marginalisation?

 Europe is going through a difficult phase. We may be going through

another period of euro scelerasis in spit of the treaty of Lisbon the
question si really whether Britain wants to maintain its influence in
the decision making process and the more you opt out the more
influence you lose.

Learning objectives for Lecture 14/II

1. Identify the main institutions and bodies composing the EU, and
their key functions

2. Identify the main theories describing and explaining the relationship

between the EU and its Member States

The Institutional Framework of the EU

Article 7(1) of the EC Treaty:

“The tasks entrusted to the Community shall be carried out by the following
institutions:

- a EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

- a COUNCIL,

- a COMMISSION,

- a COURT OF JUSTICE,

- a COURT OF AUDITORS.

Note: for the Lisbon treaty there are the same ones with a few more added. E.g.
a European omdudsmen.

Other than the top 4 agove, there’s a lot of talk of the European council that
worked parallel with the above 4 but has been inserted into the official list by the
treay of lisbon

 We will also discuss the European Council (A 4 TEU, now fully integrated in
the official list of institutions (Article 13 of the new CTEU).

 The European Commission (A 211-219 ECT, now A 244-250 TFEU)

Composition:

 College of Commissioners
  The Commission bureaucracy (23000 – 24000 civil servants); it’s a huge
body but consider even the greater London authorities has about 20, 000
employees

This is not the law making body, it is the bureaucracy; the administration body of
the union.

The College of Commissioners:

 Political top. The top bereucrats/top politicians in what is arguably the

most supranational body we have discussed. Perhaps tied with the ECJ

 27 (27 member states) Commissioners headed by the President of the

Commission, currently (portugese) Mr José Manuel Durão Barroso
(mandate renewed for 2009-2014)

Appointment criteria and procedure:

 A 213 ECT: ‘shall be chosen on the grounds of their general competence

and whose independence is beyond doubt’

 A 214 ECT:

 President is nominated by EU Council (QMV)

 Decision made through majority move (qmv qualified mv)

 Nomination of President requires approval by European Parliament

 Council (QMV) with President-designate nominate the 26 members

of the Commission (The country from which the president comes
doesn’t get to put anyone else forward)

 College of Commissioners is approved by EP

 Council finally appoints President and Members by QMV

 Very mixed procedure.

 The new composition and procedure (A 17-18 CTEU) is very similar post-
lisbon, but from 2014 the new Commission should consist of 2/3 of MS
only

 They say that the commission can’t keep expanding. 12 members

12 comms. 27 states, 27 comms so if in the future we have 40
member states should we have 40 commissioners?

Role of Commission (A 211 ECT, by and large confirmed by A 17 CTEU):

 Guardian of the Treaties

 If a member state breaches community law, they have a right to

take action and bring the country before the commission in the ECJ
  Agenda setting powers

 Initiator of legislation (monopoly in EC pillar)

 They make proposals for legislation/regulation. They can’t approve

it themselves but they have the power to initiate the law making
process. Eventually if it’s accepted, it becomes law

 Policy formulation

 ‘Executive’ functions (when implementing powers have been conferred by

Treaties or Council)

 In a similar way that British politicians can pass SI’s if enable to

 Regulatory powers in respect of public undertaking compliance with EC

competition law (A 86(5) ECT)

The Council (A 202-210 ECT – now mostly A 16 CTEU)

Composition:

 ‘A representative of each Member State at a (high) ministerial level (so

typically ministers)’

 Notice: Council meets in different ‘configurations’ determined by the

matters on the agenda (e.g. General Affairs and External Relations
Council, Ecofin Council, Social and Consumer Affairs, Agriculture and
Fisheries…)

 There are 9 Council ‘configurations’

 They tend to aggregate areas of competence of the commission

 Both legislative and executive and policy making nature

 Shares powers with the EP and also some with the commission

 Rotation system between MS to establish who holds the Presidency of the

Council (A 203 ECT) that lasts 6 months.

 The whole structure is assisted by the General Secretariat, the civil

servants of the Council

 Council is the main (co-)legislator (with EP) and decides on budget. Votes
usually reflect size of MS.

 Votes of each MSs reflect relative size (so the bigger you are as a state the
more votes you have in the law making process and the QMV votes.
However, smaller states tend to have a weight in the vote that
disproportionately reflects the population)

European Parliament (A 189-201, now 14 CTEU)

  Initially know as the ‘Assembly’, but since 1979 its members are elected
by European citizens.

 This and the fact that the EP is more and more involved in European
lawmaking has meant that in terms of democratic legitimacy, the
law making process has become richer and more respectful in
regards of the democratic process.

 Currently it is composed of 736 MEP.

 There is an aim to reduce the number with successive treaty

amendments. Before this, there were 758.

 Number of MEP reflects size of country (Germany 96, F 74, UK, I 73…).
Smaller countries tend to be over-represented (e.g. Germ 1MEP/828k,
Malta 1MEP/80k, UK 1MEP/767k).

 EP is the other main co-legislator and exercises some control over the
executive (Commission)

 Both in terms of appointment and scrutiny over its activities

 MEP are organised in cross-national groups reflecting ideological divisions

(The European People’s Party is currently the largest with 265 MEP).

 E.g. a Tory MEP won’t sit with British Tory MEP’s, he’ll sit in a cross
European party grouped by ideals

 In practice however, British MEP’s don’t forget they’ve been elected

by the British constituencies so you often get a mix of European
ideology and domestic pragmatism

 But their voting patterns do not always reflect political affinities

(sometimes national interest can prevail)

 Most of EP activities take place at a Committee level, rather than in

plenary sessions.

 They work in smaller committees, ocassionaly some have to be

ratified in the assembly but it doesn’t work throgu planary sessions

 Its powers have grown considerably over the past two decades

European Court of Justice

(now the Court of Justice of the EU; since Lisbon)

Composed of

 The Court of Justice

 27 judges and 8 Advocates General appointed by MSs for 6 years

(renewable once)
  AG’s don’t adjucate but provide advice. In line of the French
tradition of having advisors who provide the interest of the states in
disputes between public and private parties at a high level

 The Court of First Instance (now the ‘General Court’; post-Lisbon)

 27 judges appointed by MSs (also renewable)

 Main task: ensure uniform application of EU law (more in the next few
weeks!)

The European Council (A 4 TEU)

 Not to be confused with the Council (the body with many configurations)
(or with the Council of Europe! Now includes countries like turkey and
Russia which aren’t in the EU)

 Some people thought just having the council wasn’t enough. They
wanted something that was outside the eec institutional framework
that was more informal where they could conduct discussions with
advisors and other top politicians informally without being watched
over and bound by the rigors of the other bodies

 There is a lot of debate over whether it is an enemy of European

supra nationalism or a great aid in European integration

 There are many sticky issues which have been resolved in European
Council meetings

 Established informally and outside the Treaty framework in 1974

 It brings together the heads of state or government assisted by foreign

affairs ministers and by a member of the Commission

 Provides the general political guidelines for the future

 Four meetings a year to solve the most delicate questions (e.g. budget)

 2 formal and 2 informal

 Major changes with Lisbon (A 15(5) CTEU). It now has a permanent

President elected for 2 ½ years.

 Fully recognised as a European institution. Also, it was realised that

rotation every 6 months didn’t allow for enough continuity in the
works.

Main theories on European Integration and Governance

1. Neo-functionalism

1. Great emphasis on supra national institution and dynamics

 2. Intergovernmentalism

1. Thinks that intl. organisations have been concluded by

treaties set up by member states so we can always make up
a new treaty if we don’t like what hte eu is doing and show
them whos boss

3. Multi-level Governance

1. Neo-Functionalism

 First theory of European integration

 Developed by Ernst Haas in late 1950s

 Desire to avoid mistakes produced by nationalist degeneration

shown in the wars

 Aims of the theory:

 Understand how EEC had emerged

 Understand how it is going to develop

 Key elements of theory:

 States are not single and unified actors (not just the executive).
Their actions are influenced by several pressures, e.g. national
bureaucracies, societal interests, MNCs

 Supranational institutions and actors are the key players.

 Integration progresses through a ‘spillover’ dynamic.

Spillover

 Functional spillover

 Since the economy is interconnected, integration in one sphere

creates pressure for integration in other areas.

 E.g. abolition of tariff barriers to free movement of goods might lead

MSs to introduce non-tariff barriers to protect domestic economies
from foreign products, therefore generating the pressure for
regulating non-tariff barriers as well…

 Political spillover

 Process of integration has created new powerful actors with their

own agenda

 Integrated policy areas produce national and supranational groups

and institutions that have a vested interest in supranational
 integrationist discourses (e.g. EC institutions, European Social
Partners…)

 Give any body a budget and they will want to expand it and to do so
they need to expand their competencies. (see the pdf by simon
hicks for a more detailed explanation)

Criticisms of the theory

 Based on a deterministic process of integration.

 Intergration impossible due to spillovers. The moment you have a

commission it’s going to become master and so on... too
deterministic

 Based on an inherent disaffection vis-à-vis the unitary notion of State.

 Anti-nationalist feeling. Product of ww2

 Clearly in the mind of the political elites that built Europe (Monnet,
Schumann…)

... But there were problems…

President De Gaulle and the Luxembourg crisis of 1965

2. Intergovernmentalism

 Developed as a reaction to neo-functionalism

 Still proof that whenever member states cracked their whips could
be heard. So many felt the first theory was missing the point

 Member States are seen as the key players of the process. (treaty
produced by member states who want to give concrete answers to
concrete problems they can’t solve on their owns and the E institutions
are a mere facilitator of these aims)

 EC represents the coming together of MS to pursue a set of interests that

it was easier to tackle in an intergovernmental fashion than exclusively
though national action

 EC as a facilitator

 Main author: Andrew Moravcsik

 But then why did MSs gave and give away so many of their sovereign
prerogatives? Why do we have expansion after expansion of EU
competancies?

 Explanation: (basically, nat govts.d ont decide everything at one place.

Usually the answer to questions coming from pressures. May come from
unions lobysits, the people etc... in a way the govts. Are agents of these
 principles because they want to be reelected. So they will try and sort out
with other govts problems they cannot solve satisfactorily domestically. Of
course there are always several solutions to a problem when gots.
Negotiate. The supply is gg to be decided thru the negotiations between
govts but the demand is a mix and mostly derives from the domestic
arena.

 demand for integration: shaped by domestic preferences of

economic and social actors (principals) identifying the benefits of
(further) supranational integration.

 Gvts (agents) want to retain powerè shape their foreign policies

accordingly. But there are several ‘potentially viable agreements’.

 Council and European Council (and Gvts) are key players

 Supply of integration through intergovernmental action (e.g. Treaty

reforms and budgetary agreements) once MSs engaged in
negotiations have weighted the benefits and costs of collective
action against the gains and costs of autonomous action.

3. Multi-level Governance

 Integration is a ‘polity creating process in which authority and policy-

making are shared across multiple levels of government - subnational,
national and supranational’ (Marks, Hooge and Blank 1996)

 Idea that European machinery has become so complex u cant point

at national or supernational elemtsn. It’s a mix of all the feedbacks,
demands and supplies

 This theory very much represents the law making process in

particular of the European institutions

 EU system is too complex to become the captive of a single actor.

 MSs may transfer sovereign powers for a number of reasons (strategic or

ephemeral)

 Role of referenda after Maastricht; constitutional treaty and Lisbon.

 European citizens are part of the process

 Once a power has been transferred, MSs lose substantial amount of

control

 Complex policy and law-making process is impossible to monopolize

 Complex nature and composition of EU institutions

 Complex relationship and interactions between supranational institutions

  Complex relationship and interaction between national and supranational
institutions and bodies.

Role of transitional lobbies

Normative aspects of these theories

 Who should run Europe?