Staging European Union Democracy: Discussion Paper Prepared for the 'Round Table on a Sustainable Project for Europe'. EPIN Working Paper No. 10, December 2003

Much of the malaise surrounding EU democracy can be accounted for by the fact that there is no effective staging of political debate between the European Parliament and EU executive power. This paper explores the options to increase the visibility of political choices in the European Union, to open ways to have political positions challenged and, thereby, to improve the staging of the democratic process. It starts from the relationship between the European Parliament and the Commission as this is the relationship that has come to resemble most the dynamics of representative democracy at the EU level. In turn, possible reforms are then explored to strengthen the articulation of political alternatives in the European Parliament, to allow for a well-calibrated politicisation of the Commission and to subject EU executive powers beyond the Commission to democratic accountability. The paper concludes with 20 concrete recommendations for reform – some of which would preferably still be taken on board by the current Intergovernmental Conference, but most of which can be followed up upon by the European actors in the years to come

Should the EU have a president with two hats? (Pro and contra) : yes

Politiker, Europäische Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion, Funktionäre, Politisches System, Politicians, European Economic and Monetary Union, Officials, Political system

Towards Effective and Accountable Leadership of the Union: Options and Guidelines for Reform. EPIN Working Paper No. 3, January 2003

[From the Executive Summary]. The success of the Convention on the future of the EU will to a great extent depend upon on its answers to the institutional questions. Among these questions, the issue of EU leadership plays a crucial role. In this paper, we identify three challenges for the re-organisation of leadership in the Union: 1. Union leadership has to be more effective. The Union’s growing responsibility for truly governmental tasks (e.g. EMU, CFSP, JHA) makes this an imperative. Enlargement will further add to this necessity. 2. Leadership in the Union should contribute to the democratic character of the Union. Indeed, leadership reform may offer an opportunity to increase the engagement of the people and the visibility of the Union. 3. Leadership reform should not fundamentally distort the Unions institutional balance. The Union is no longer a normal international organisation but neither is it a sovereign political system. Leadership reform must maintain the precarious balance between on the one hand the European general interest and on the other the diversity of national interests. In view of these three challenges, we consider the two main strands of debate that touch upon the issue of leadership in the EU: first, the debate on the election of the Commission President and, secondly, the different proposals for reforming the Council Presidency

Enlargement: A Process rather than a Point in Time. CEPS Policy Briefs No. 51, 1 April 2004

The 1st of May 2004 is being marked by numerous important political events, speeches and festivities. This is appropriate in the sense that on that day ten new member states join the EU. However, “all” that happens on May 1st is that the EU’s acquis communautaire becomes the law in the new member states. In order to make this happen, a decade of intense preparations on both sides was necessary and it will certainly take another decade before the full consequences of this enlargement will be felt. Enlargement should thus be viewed as a process, and not a single event taking place on one day. For a think tank with the motto ‘Thinking ahead for Europe’, enlargement is old news. CEPS researchers have been analysing the many issues surrounding enlargement for at least the last dozen years, when it seemed only a distant dream. Over time the debate has shifted from the basic question of whether countries that had been forced to live under communism for so long would actually be able to qualify for EU membership to the basic policy issues: What will it cost? How will it affect our security? These are the basic issues surrounding any large political project. The following pages provide a brief overview of the main findings of CEPS research on enlargement over the years. We start with an evaluation of the importance of enlargement in quantitative terms (GDP, population, etc.) and then turn to an evaluation of its broad economic impact, which is likely to be small for the old members, but large for the new members. This leads us to issue of the cost of enlargement (for the old EU-15), which is also rather small. The answer to the question ‘what is in it for us’, which is often posed in the old member countries, is thus perhaps disappointing: very little either way, in purely economic terms, there are small costs and small benefits, with probably as small net effect. Here the time dimension becomes important as the benefits will increase over time, faster than the potential costs through the EU budget. We then turn to another issue that has received a lot of attention lately concerning the free movement of labour, drawing attention to the fact that large-scale migration is unlikely at any rate. Finally, we assess the widespread concern that an enlarged EU (of 25 or 27 members) will cause gridlock in the policy-making processes of the EU institutions

Party Stances in the Referendums on the EU Constitution: Causes and Consequences of Competition and Collusion

This article examines political party behaviour around the referendums on the EU Constitutional Treaty in 2005. Starting from the presumption that this behaviour needs to be analysed in the light of the domestic government-opposition dynamics, a set of hypotheses on the causes and consequences of party behaviour in EU Treaty referendums is developed and reviewed for the EU member states in which a referendum was held or anticipated. As it turns out, with the exception of some right-conservative parties, all mainstream parties endorsed the Constitutional Treaty. However, because significant proportions of opposition party supporters are bound to go to the ‘No’ side, government parties are eventually crucial in securing a majority in favour of EU Treaty revisions

The sediment of reason : basic rights in Germany and Great Britain

Defence date: 3 May 1997Examining Board: Prof. Karl-Heinz Ladeur (EUI/Universität Hamburg - co-supervisor) ; Prof. Massimo La Torre (EUI) ; Prof. Steven Lukes (EUI/Università di Siena - supervisor) ; Prof. Albrecht Wellmer (Freie Universität Berlin)First made available online 2 February 201

The Treaty of Lisbon: Implementing the Institutional Innovations. CEPS Special Reports, November 2007

After a long period of internal introspection and deadlock over the Constitutional Treaty, the EU can now see some light at the end of the tunnel. If successfully ratified, the new European Treaty agreed by the Head of States and Government in Lisbon may provide the appropriate institutional tools for the EU to function with 27 member states. However, the success of institutional innovations depends not only on legal provisions, but also on the way in which the provisions are implemented. Indeed, even a cursory examination indicates that the implementation of the new proposals is unlikely to be easy, and in some cases could be a source of serious difficulties in the future. In the absence of serious analysis aimed at this latter question, three Brussels-based think-tanks have joined forces in a collaborative effort to fill this gap. Our aim is to highlight potential problems and, where possible, to suggest ways to avoid or attenuate their negative effects. The analysis has focused on seven main institutional and policy domains: the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Presidency of the Council, the qualified majority voting in the Council, the role of national Parliaments, enhanced cooperation and foreign policy. These issues have been intensively debated in working groups composed of researchers, external experts, and practitioners in the field. This report reflects the substance of that collective effort

Next level citizen participation in the EU:Institutionalising European Citizens’ Assemblies

Citizens’ assemblies have gained popularity as instruments of effective and meaningful citizen participation. In the complex transnational context of EU policy-making, citizens’ assemblies can bring citizens and policy-makers closer, promote truly transnational political debates and improve the quality of the EU democracy and policies. But how can citizens’ assemblies be introduced into the EU legal and institutional framework, and its policy processes? What functions should citizens’ assemblies perform? And how should their work be organised to ensure they are democratic, well-functioning and effective instruments of policy-making and citizen participation in the EU? This paper provides answers to these questions by introducing a model for the institutionalisation of European Citizens’ Assemblies. It describes the processes, main bodies and institutions that need to be involved and explores how citizens’ assemblies can be integrated into the EU’s institutional and legal set-up. The proposed model has several distinct features. First and foremost, it is citizen-centred. EU institutions put forward their ideas, but it is randomly selected citizens that steer the process. As members of a Citizens’ Board, they define the agenda for a Citizens’ Assembly by selecting topics and questions, organise deliberations and monitor the implementation of results. Second, the model describes how to connect European Citizens’ Assemblies directly to the EU’s policy-making process. It proposes an Interinstitutional Agreement on deliberative law-making between the EU main institutions as the legal foundation of European Citizens’ Assemblies. It also illustrates how the deliberative cycle of European Citizens’ Assemblies can be effectively connected to the EU policy cycle. The model for European Citizens’ Assemblies is a concrete response to the lessons from the Conference on the Future of Europe. It draws on the experience of the Conference’s European Citizens’ Panels and suggests a format that would make this experience permanent and more impactful. The model presents a logical next step forward—a step that is necessary to move onto the next level of EU citizen participation