Group items tagged

Under the motto "a more protective Europe", France takes over the rotating EU Presidency with an additional challenge – getting the EU out of an institutional crisis triggered by the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland. More on this topic: News LinksDossiers Analysis France looks east ahead of EU Presidency (23 May 2008) Commission further waters down Med Union proposal (21 May 2008) France promises 'citizen-oriented' EU Presidency (16 May 2008) France outlines EU Presidency priorities (30 August 2007) The Portuguese Presidency: In Brief (03 August 2007) EU Presidencies (19 April 2005) Nicolas Sarkozy: A new style of EU Presidency? (08 May 2008) How France intends to meet all those EU presidency expectations (20 June 2008) Seen from America : What to expect from the French EU Presidency (20 June 2008) Sarkozy at the wheel of Europe: What to expect from the French EU Presidency (11 June 2008) Milestones: July-Dec. 2008: French Presidency. 11 July: Sarkozy visit to Ireland. 15-16 Oct.: EU Summit (Brussels). 11- 12 Dec.: EU Summit (Brussels). Policy Summary Links From 1 July to 31 December 2008, France will organise and chair the European Council meetings. The French government has already announced that its motto will be "a more protective Europe" (EurActiv 06/11/07).

Links Policy Summary Governments French EU Presidency website Permanent Represenation of France to the EU: French Presidency agenda | FR Prime Minster: Europe pages | FR Foreign Affairs Ministry : Europe pages French Senate: Budget for the French EU presidency General Secretariat for European Affairs (SGAE) Permanent Represenation of France to the EU Conference of Committee Chairmen of the European Parliament [FR] [DE] (20 May 2008)

The Treaty of Lisbon, expected to enter in force in 2009, introduces two new European top jobs: a high-profile president who will chair EU summit meetings for a two-and-a-half year term and a revamped foreign policy chief. However, selecting the right people to fill these positions will prove a politically sensitive task in the months ahead.

Policy Summary Links The EU's new 'Reform Treaty' was agreed upon by EU leaders at a summit in June 2007 and the updated final text was formally approved in October at an intergovernmental conference (IGC) (EurActiv 19/10/08). The "Treaty of Lisbon ", as it was finally named, was officially signed by EU heads of state and government at a summit in the Portuguese capital on 13 December 2007 (EurActiv 14/12/07). 

Rules and timing unclear  The criteria for who to choose for these two new top positions were not written down in the Lisbon Treaty. It will therefore be up to Europe's heads of state and government to decide on who they want to choose as their new representatives. 

It is universally accepted that there has been a huge growth in EU lobbying over the past few decades. There is now a dense EU interest group system. This entirely new volume, inspired by Mazey & Richardson's 1993 book Lobbying in the European Community, seeks to understand the role of interest groups in the policy process from agenda-setting to implementation. Specifically, the book is interested in observing how interest groups organise to influence the EU institutions and how they select different coalitions along the policy process and in different policy domains. In looking at 20 years of change, the book captures processes of institutional and actor learning, professionalisation of lobbying, and the possible emergence of a distinct EU public policy style. More specifically, from the actors' perspective, the editors are interested in assessing how the rise of direct lobbying and the emergence of fluid issue-based coalitions has changed the logic of collective action, and what is the potential impact of 'venue-shopping' on reputation and influence. From an institutional perspective, the contributors explore resource and legitimacy demands, and the practical impact of consultation processes on the emergence of a distinct EU lobbying relationship. It will be essential reading for academics and practitioners alike.

As EU foreign ministers try to breathe life back into the Lisbon Treaty, the charter of institutional reforms rejected by Irish voters last week, Dublin is likely to be offered stronger guarantees in the sensitive areas of taxation, defence and family policies. According to the Financial Times, "explanatory protocols" should explicitly state that the document does not affect Ireland's ability to set its own tax rates, the country's neutrality status or its abortion policy.

Another solution being floated involves a legal assurance that Ireland will never lose its seat at the European Commission table, the Irish Times reports. The Lisbon Treaty enables EU leaders to put the reduction of the size of the commission on ice. Either scenario is expected to be agreed at the first top-level meeting of EU leaders under the French EU presidency in October.

Irish No will not put brakes on EU enlargement Aside from the size of the next European Commission - now capped by the current EU rules - a question mark hangs over the 27-nation bloc's capacity to absorb new members. The Nice Treaty is tailored to no more than 27 member states. When asked about the prospects of EU hopefuls' accession to the EU, Mr Rupel excluded any changes to the process. "The outcome of the Irish referendum in no way changes enlargement policy...The EU unanimously decided to invited the countries of the Western Balkans to take membership so there is no doubt about that," the minister said, but added: "How we will carry that out that is another question."

There is a plethora of studies on interest groups in the European Union. While these studies have generated a wealth of insights, it is not actually clear what they have accomplished. This Living Review seeks to identify those areas of interest group studies in which our knowledge is fairly consolidated and in which major research gaps or major controversies can be noted. I argue that these research gaps and controversies stem from both the empirical variance in the interest group landscape and the theoretical segmentation of EU interest group studies. These have been shaped by influences from Comparative Politics, International Relations, Policy Analysis, and Democratic Theory. I suggest that future research should engage to a greater extent in cross-cutting theoretical debates in order to overcome the pronounced demarcation of research areas and in more rigorous theory testing than has sometimes been the case. The article starts by discussing the problem of conceptualizing interest groups before moving on to the fissured theoretical landscape. Thereafter, major research themes are discussed. First, I review the relation between EU institutions and interest groups. Here, I look both into multilevel governance and Europeanization studies that focus on the vertical interaction and into analyses that stress the horizontal segmentation of the EU system in different institutions and sectors. Second, I analyze core themes of EU and comparative interest group studies, namely the issue of collective action, the access of interest groups to policy-makers and their influence on EU policymaking.

The increase in power of the European Parliament, which will grow further if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified by all 27 member states, has failed to increase the House's political legitimacy and runs the risk of compromising its unique position as the EU's 'democratic pillar', according to a new report.

The report, published by CEPS (Centre for European Policy Studies) research fellows Julia De Clerck-Sachsse and Piotr Maciej Kaczyński, argues that the Parliament's crucial importance as a forum for public debate is on the wane. 

On the positive side, the authors note, enlargement has not destabilised the Parliament's output, nor has it affected the strength of left-right political alignments, which remain cohesive.  In fact, the Parliament's sixth legislature (2004-2009) has boosted the institution's assertiveness, particularly under the co-decision  procedure, where Parliament and the European Council share decision-making powers.  The high cost of efficiency  However, this new assertiveness has come at a price. In its efforts to streamline decision-making and maintain efficiency, the enlarged EU assembly has moved more decisions to committees and cut down the amount of time for debate between MEPs in the plenary chamber.  In particular, the massive increase in first-reading agreements (when a legislative act is passed after only one reading in the chamber) gives the impression that "the bulk of political debate takes place behind closed doors, rather than publicly". In other words, if Parliament "adopts a compromise that is pre-negotiated by the responsible committee, there is little chance of a politicised and controversial debate," which is "crucial to capturing public attention," say the experts. Worse still, it runs the risk of Parliament being perceived as "merely rubber-stamping the Council's decisions".