How is EU cooperation on the Covid-19 crisis perceived in member states? CEPS Commentary 21 April

The crisis caused by the spread of Covid-19 has demonstrated how difficult European cooperation can be, especially in policy areas where the EU has only a legal competence to support member states. Some commentators have suggested that this marks the death knell of European integration, and even the most optimistic of them recognise it as one of the greatest challenges the EU has ever faced in terms of crisis management and demonstrating supranational added value. In general, all member states were initially inward-looking in their reactions; they unilaterally closed borders and focused on crisis management at home. European solidarity has largely been absent. Ultimately, however, the lockdown realities across Europe are quite similar. This instinctive self-preservation tells only one side of the story, however. As the virus affected all EU countries – albeit at different stages on the infection curve – it began to threaten the basics of the European economy and its financial system. In this second phase of the crisis there is a need for crisis management at the European level. But the measures decided so far appear marginal – at least in terms of their impact on public opinion in member states, as the EPIN country reports show. All that the EU’s 27 national leaders were able to agree upon so far was a joint bid to improve the procurement of personal protective equipment, increased funding for vaccine research, and relaxed regulatory enforcement. The Commission has also proposed the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative (CRII), to be financed through unused cohesion policy funds, but this requires approval by member state

Institutional Rebalancing: the ‘Political’ Commission. CEPS Policy Priorities for 2019-2024. March 2019

When Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker came into office in 2014 he labelled his Commission as ‘political’ and thereby created much confusion inside and outside the institution. What is a ‘political’ Commission? This contribution answers this question by first shedding theoretical light on the concept of ‘political’, and second by answering what it means in practical terms for the Juncker Commission to be ‘political’. It furthermore examines the effect on the inter-institutional balance, i.e. the Commission’s relation to the European Parliament and the European Council. This paper finds that the ‘political’ Commission is not a new concept but instead a gradual development since the post-Maastricht era, which aimed to make the Commission less technocratic and more democratic; whereby ‘political’ entailed increased accountability to the European Parliament. The paper furthermore identifies the prioritisation of policies and the application of an internal top-down approach as the crucial ‘political’ elements in Juncker’s Commission. Lastly, the paper finds that – in times of growing importance of intergovernmental decision-making and the (European) Council as a central decision-maker – this is not fertile ground for the concept of a ‘political’ Commission and the federal vision of EU democracy that it carries

The problem with the Spitzenkandidaten system. CEPS Commentary, 21 February 2018

The lead candidate, or so-called Spitzenkandidaten procedure, is posing something of a conundrum to its proponents. Its core problem – namely that member states do not buy into it – won’t be solved by any of the reform ideas that have recently been floated. In all likelihood, Heads of State and Government will grudgingly agree to continue the process in the European Parliament (EP) elections in 2019. But crucially they will not promote it towards their citizens, which is necessary if the system is to work

EU parliamentary democracy: how representative? CEPS Policy Insights No 2019/07, May 2019

To what extent does the European Parliament really represent EU citizens? This paper first briefly introduces the most crucial characteristics of the EP (with regards to its internal organisation, its rights and tasks, as well as the electoral procedure), and then highlights the most important differences between the EP and its national counterparts: how national parties translate into European groupings; the (dis)connection between the European executive and legislative branches; and electoral (dis)connections. Finally, it investigates the idea for institutional reform introduced to improve the representative character of the EP – the Spitzenkandidaten procedure. It finds that the attempt to transform the EU (as a hybrid sui generis entity) into a full fledged parliamentary system does not make the EP a better representative of the EU electorate

The Commissioners’ Group on External Action – Key political facilitator. CEPS Special Report No. 125/December 2015

The reactivation of the Commissioners’ Group on External Action (CGEA) is one of the most important institutional initiatives in EU foreign policy-making since the merger of the position of the High Representative for CFSP with that of Vice-President of the Commission and the creation of the European External Action Service. In this report the authors examine the mandate and organisation of the CGEA and note that, in its first year of activity, the Group has injected much-needed political pragmatism into the way the Commission contributes to EU external action, thereby facilitating inter-service cooperation both within the Commission and with the EEAS. They argue that the CGEA has in fact become the logical counterpart to the Foreign Affairs Council, which allows the HRVP to deliver on her duty to assist the Council and the Commission in ensuring a comprehensive approach to EU external action, as indeed consistency in its implementation

Crisis decision-making: How Covid-19 has changed the working methods of the EU institutions. CEPS Policy Insights 30 Jul 2020.

The Covid-19 pandemic has caused the dynamics of the EU institutions to change. Much attention has been paid to the functioning of the EU institutions at the highest political level, but less so at the working levels of the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament (EP). What was the nature of EU action in this time and how well did the decision-making machinery work? This contribution analyses all three main institutions by: a) describing how decisions are usually made; b) exploring how they were made in corona times; and c) assessing how well the individual institutions were equipped and able to adapt to these unusual circumstances. It finds that the handling of these challenges varied greatly across the three institutions, largely because of structural reasons and differences in institutional DNA. Overall, crisis decision-making has worked surprisingly well, as the EU’s machinery is multilayered and has proved to be solid and resilient. Interinstitutional crisis coordination is yet to be improved

Balancing Priorities and Emergency Measures: Luxembourg’s Council Presidency. EPIN Commentary No. 30/15 January 2016

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg held the reins of the EU Council presidency between 1 July and 31 December 2015. This was the 12th time that the second-smallest and the richest EU member state1 held the rotating Council presidency. As one of the founding members of the EU, Luxembourg has sound experience to bring to this role. It was, however, their first presidency since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and its introduction of the trio presidency format, this time including Italy and Latvia. Under the slogan ‘A Union for the Citizens’, Luxembourg had the task of concluding certain major dossiers before the end of the trio’s term and was able to contribute to its overarching agenda, especially regarding the priorities of financial stability, growth stimulation and the digital agenda

Regroup and Reform: Ideas for a more responsive and effective European Union. Report of the CEPS Task Force. CEPS Task Force Report, 17 February 2017

This incisive report comes at a time of almost unprecedented self-examination for the European Union. Faced with growing nationalism, economic, security and political challenges – not least to the very membership of the Union – the relevance of the EU has become a matter of intense debate. This clear-sighted and accessible report is the result of discussions in a CEPS Task Force comprising experts from across Europe and a number of key policy fields. Members of the European Parliament, former members of the College of Commissioners, the European Council and Council of Ministers, and leading scholars of EU politics and law, came together to share insights into the issues that will decide the future of the EU. The report offers concrete recommendations for how the Union can show added value to European citizens in the areas of security and justice, socio-economics and monetary policy – recommendations that will help reform the workings of the Union and ensure that it is worthy of the continuing confidence of its members

How is EU cooperation on the Covid-19 crisis perceived in member states? CEPS Policy Contribution 21 Apr 2020.

Even the most optimistic of observers recognise the coronavirus pandemic as one of the greatest challenges the EU has ever faced to its capacity to manage crises, muster solidarity and demonstrate supranational added value. Drawing on the expertise of researchers in the EPIN network, Sophia Russack and Steven Blockmans asked how EU cooperation was perceived in their respective national contexts, via an expert poll. Nineteen institutes from 15 different countries, plus Iceland, responded to their call. The introduction and analysis below reflects the unique insights that were gleaned from this exercise

Representative Democracy in the EU: Recovering Legitimacy. Research Paper. May 2019

Representative democracy is beset by a crisis of legitimacy across the world, but in Europe this crisis is compounded by the inadequacy of national governments to address citizens’ frustrations and to achieve transnational unity on common issues. How representative are national parliaments in their decision-making on EU matters? This volume investigates the relationship between the democratic institutions of the member states and those of the EU. With a focus on polity rather than policy, it looks at voting and decision-shaping mechanisms in selected member states, in particular the ‘Europeanisation’ of representative democracy at national level. It also assesses the state of parliamentary democracy at the EU level. Expert analysts share their insights into the changing nature of our political eco-systems and the (dis)connections within and between them