Theories and strategies of European Integration- "The role given to national parliaments in the Lisbon Treaty: a path towards enhanced legitimacy of the EU?"

Résumé du document

In 1994, the British Prime Minister John Major asserted that “the European Parliament sees itself as the future democratic focus of the Union. But this is a flawed ambition, because the European Union is an association of States, deriving its basic democratic legitimacy through National Parliaments.” According to many – namely public opinions and commentators– the National Parliaments (NPs) are of prime importance in the European Union's (EU) architecture as they are the main repositories of the EU citizens' popular legitimacy.

For the first time in EU primary law, the Treaty of Lisbon introduced provisions on democratic principles in its Title II. According to Juan Mayoral this stems from the “main aim of enhancing the democratic legitimacy of the Union [set] in the Preamble”. Indeed, article 10 TEU provides with new democratic statements, while the new article 12 TEU strengthens the role of NPs as a response to the demands for more democratic legitimacy of the EU. The new rights conferred to NPs under the Lisbon Treaty are aimed at rendering the EU institutions more democratically accountable and are developed in Protocol number one on the role of NPs in the EU and Protocol number two on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

Extraits

[...] Conclusion: All in all, the role given to the NPs in the Lisbon Treaty does not necessarily enhance the legitimacy of the EU as a polity but rather strengthens a kind of national-based legitimacy. The Members States secured a procedure, thus striking a balance when the Treaty took a supranational stance (deriving from the suppression of the pillar- structure). As far as integration theories are concerned, it is the one that better explains the treaty changes in the field of National Parliaments. [...]

[...] According to Raunio, there is a “broad scholarly consensus”[11] that the “early warning mechanism” was mainly introduced in response to legitimacy concern. Deriving from article 12 TEU and the Protocols and the NPs have gained concrete powers. They have to be informed by the EU institutions as regards to legislative acts (article 12 a. TEU) but also as regards to the programmation; consultative documents from the Commission on legislative matters, etc. Their role is also to provide subsidiarity checks; in particular through the “early warning system” of (article paragraph 2 of the Protocol and (paragraph cards. [...]

[...] The Role of National Parliaments in the (pp. 175-190) WEIDENFELD W. (editor), Lissabon in der Analyse: Der Reformvertrag der Europäischen Union, Nomos, Baden-Baden Matthias Chardon, “Mehr Transparenz und Demokratie Die Rolle nationaler Parlamente nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon”, p WESSELS Wolfgang, HOFMANN Andreas & TRAGUTH Thomas, Theories and Strategies of European Integration. A Teaching Companion, College of Europe, course of Theories and Strategies of European Integration, academic year 2011/2012 ACADEMIC REASEARCH PAPERS AND ARTICLES: KACZYNSKI Piotr Maciej, “Paper tigers or sleeping beauties? [...]

[...] Although the EU is presented as a challenge to national representations, the relationship may be more accurately described as one of “fusion and symbiosis” (Wessels, 1992). The fusion theory was “developed to explain the evolution of the EU system”.[22] It seeks to explain whatever aspects the other theories left behind. The logics of the fusion theory imply the loss of legitimacy of the nation states because they progressively have troubles to manage economic growth while providing with welfare policies. States need to cooperate because they are “eroding” and thus need a mix of supranational institutions to solve their difficulties while in the meantime they wish to remain the “masters of the treaty”[23] , creating a sui generis entity, also referred to as third way”.[24] In a word, the fusion theory explains the involvement of NPs in the EU decision-making process as it combines in its very logics the mix of national and federal elements at the EU level. [...]

[...] Eventually, one ought not to be too enthusiastic about the new stance that the Lisbon Treaty took concerning NPs. Indeed, for the most part, the treaty changes only codify already existing practices. The changes with Lisbon were seemingly significant references in the treaties and the protocol) but it did not change that much; for example the “early warning mechanism” was extended to 8 weeks from 6 with the Amsterdam Treaty. NPs in the EU were already functioning, what happened with treaty changes was just a codification of these practices: before the Lisbon Treaty came into force the Commission was already transmitting all new proposals and consultation papers directly to NPs. [...]