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

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

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