Sebastiaan Princen

The Politics of the European Union: Public opinion and political participation

Introduction In the first week of June 2009 the citizens of the 27 EU member states headed to the polls to elect their representatives for the European Parliament. Although the BBC heralded the event as the ‘biggest transnational election in history’, the majority of the almost 400 million eligible voters stayed home. With only 43% of them going to the polls the election continued a trend of declining turnout ever since members for the EP were directly elected for the first time in 1979. According to the Financial Times , those who did go to the polls ‘clearly opted for the safety of the right, because of the global economic downturn’. Many of the centre-right parties won seats or lost only a little, whilst many of Europes social democratic parties suffered heavy losses. In the UK the Labour Party came in only third with a mere 15%. In Hungary the MSZP – the Hungarian socialist party – was almost halved and only gained 17% of the votes, a vote share similar to that of the Dutch labour party (the PvdA). The elections showed a strong performance of nationalistic, Eurosceptic parties, like the Dutch Freedom Party, the Hungarian Jobbik Party and UKs Independence Party, each of them gaining more than 10% of the votes.

The Politics of the European Union: The historical development of the EU

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 todays 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 USAs Fourth of July) or a revolution (such as Frances 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 worlds 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 todays political decisions will end up as historic events in tomorrows books. A closer examination of the most significant political events that occurred in the EUs history gives us a first insight in the nature of EU politics today.

The Politics of the European Union: Interest groups and interest representation

Introduction On 17 June 2013, European Commission President Jose 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.

The Politics of the European Union: Political parties and the European Parliament

Introduction In March 2009 David Cameron, the leader of the British Conservative Party, announced that the Conservatives would form a new political group in the European Parliament after the EP elections of June that year. In doing so, the Conservatives would break away from the Christian Democrat European Peoples Party (EPP), with which it had been allied in the EP for almost two decades. The relationship between the Conservatives and the EPP had always been strained, as the Conservatives were much more Eurosceptical than the (traditionally strongly pro-EU) ‘continental’ conservative and Christian democratic parties assembled in the EPP. Before joining the EPP group, the Conservatives had cooperated with like-minded parties in the ‘European Democrats’ (ED) group. When the British Conservatives decided to join the EPP political group in 1992, they only did so as an ‘associated party’. In 1999, this associated status was made more visible by adding ‘ED’ to the name of the EPP group in Parliament. Still, the British Conservatives continued to disagree with the EPP ‘party line’ on many important issues and frequently threatened to withdraw from the EPP-ED group altogether to form their own political group. Camerons decision to set up a new political group attracted a lot of criticism within his own party. Several Conservative Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) voiced their discontent with the move, fearing that the Conservatives would lose influence in the EP. They were joined by former Conservative commissioners Leon Brittan and Chris Patten, as well as the (Christian Democratic) President of the European Commission, Jose Barroso. Nevertheless, on 22 June 2009, eight parties, including the Conservatives, presented their new political group under the name European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). A few months later, they also created the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists (AECR), a political party at the European level. The story of the Conservatives and the EPP raises a number of questions about the role of political parties in the EP and EU politics in general. Why did the Conservatives stay in the EPP political group for almost twenty years when there were so many differences of opinion? When Cameron did create a new group, why did a number of prominent party members voice their opposition?

The Politics of the European Union: Legislation and decision-making: putting the institutional puzzle together

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.

The Politics of the European Union: The institutional framework

Introduction For a long time many observers have lamented the lack of a clear personification of the EU. Take, for example, the European Council – the institution that brings together the Heads of State and Government of the member states. It traditionally made use of a rotating chairman, who came from the member state that happened to hold the Presidency of the EU, a responsibility which lasted for only six months. Because this chairman was the face of the EU when it came to meeting heads of state of other countries, someone like the president of the USA would have to deal with no fewer than eight different EU ‘Presidents’ during his or her four years in office. The Lisbon Treaty tackled this problem by creating the more permanent post of President of the European Council. This new position ensures more continuity in chairing this institution and facilitates more lasting relations with other countries. In 2014 the European Council had to appoint a successor to its first president, Herman Van Rompuy, who would be stepping down in December after completing his two terms in office. Already over the summer Van Rompuy started extensive consultations with all the members in order to find a candidate that would have the support of all. In the end the members of the European Council agreed on appointing Donald Tusk, the prime minister of Poland, as their new president. Apart from the fact that Tusk had successfully led two subsequent coalition governments and was a much respected leader, it certainly helped that he came from a ‘new’ member state. After the presidency of the Belgian Van Rompuy, there was general agreement that it was long overdue to now let a candidate from one of these countries occupy this post. This chapter will show that the appointment of Tusk tells us a lot about the character and nature of the EUs institutions. The choice of Tusk was a deliberate one to counterbalance the dominance of candidates from the old member states in key positions. And although he could have been elected through a majority vote, the outgoing President Van Rompuy deliberately strived for a unanimous choice.