Brussels « Euro

Artikel getagged mit ‘Brussels’

Barroso Stretches the Limits of Subsidiarity

15. July 2013, von Adriaan Schout, Comments (0)

By Adriaan Schout and Judith Hoevenaars (Instituut Clingendael)

The eurocrisis has reignited debates on subsidiarity. On June 21st, the Dutch government presented the (disappointing) results of a subsidiarity review, listing 54 EU measures or policy fields which could better be regulated at the national level. The UK is working on a more extensive proposal to flow back European powers to the national level. These national exercises are a response to delinking enthusiasm for the ‘ever closer union’, while Brussels’ influence over the Member States grows. Subsidiarity, which governs the exercise of European powers, is under pressure as EU competences are expanding and it is no surprise that it tops the agenda in several Member States.

Yet, the principle of subsidiarity suffers from institutional vagueness. Subsidiarity is not just a technical or judicial concept, but also a political one. A legalistic interpretation of subsidiarity would emphasise that the EU should legislate ‘as closely as possible to the citizens’, especially in areas where it has no exclusive competence. However, the application of the principle, of which the rules are laid down in Protocol No 2 attached to the Treaties, inherently entails a political assessment. Subsidiarity is aimed at preventing unnecessary centralisation of powers just because that would favour the functioning of the EU in the view of the European institutions. Hence, the Commission has to justify each new proposal with a convincing argumentation why Europeanisation is required. Yet, the eurocrisis has stretched the boundaries of subsidiarity and the division of competences between Member States and the EU to its limits.

As it seems, the EU Commission’s political agenda is to centralise more powers in Brussels. In this respect, the Commission is using the political opportunity and room of maneuver in the application of the principle of subsidiarity to expand EU control. Barroso calls for a full banking, economic, fiscal and political union in the ‘Blueprint for a deep and genuine economic and monetary union’. His vision of the EU includes European ministers, an increased EU budget and centralised banking supervision. In particular, the Blueprint calls for centralisation of democratic control by the European Parliament. The institutional ambitions of the Commission and its wish for further conferral of competences to the EU level are legitimised by underlining that “national economic policy-making paid insufficient attention to the European context within which the economies operate”. In other words, the message is that the Member States can’t govern their economies, so national competences have to be handed over so that the EU will do it for them.

The blueprint is not written in the spirit of subsidiarity, exploring how the national administrations of the Member States can be strengthened to meet EU requirements, but from a centralised perspective. In response to the eurocrisis, the economic governance powers of the Commission have already expanded substantially. In the traditional division of roles the European institutions would set the standards (3% and 60%), the national governments or regions would be responsible for the implementation and the Commission would monitor and control the Member States. The EU reaction to the crisis has set aside this model of governance, deviating from the principle of subsidiarity, by pleading for more powers and budgets.

The principle of subsidiarity is reduced to a mere check box in the legislative procedure and has fallen victim to the political aspirations of the Commission. National governments and especially national parliaments – as guardians of the principle of subsidiarity – must ensure a strong subsidiarity test as a mandatory part of each EU legislative process also when it comes to the responses to the eurocrisis.

On Axes and Party Politics: the End of Europe’s Predictability

30. April 2013, von Almut Möller, Comments (0)

In a commentary last year on the eve of the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Élysée Treaty I wondered to what extent the notion of ‘the Franco-German axis’ was still a useful framework to analyse politics in Europe. I argued that in the course of the euro crisis, economic and monetary policies in Europe have become an issue of political majorities along party families rather than of axes such as the Franco-German. Much was at stake in rescuing the euro, I argued, and political leaders travelling to European summits were forced to be increasingly responsive to their electorates—which I believed was good news for democracy. Forget about the Franco-German axis and embrace party politics as a sign of political maturity of the European Union.

I have been challenging myself on this point over the past months on various occasions and, what can I say, I am not at all convinced. As much as those small pockets of europeanised party strategists would like to see it, there is no real alignment of the European left yet, determined to jointly win back majorities to shape a ‘social Europe’ as the new eurozone is in the making. Neither is there a solid conservative bulwark led by the German chancellor to europeanise the notorious Swabian housewife. Rather, the strategies that governments embrace these days in navigating the crisis reflect a much wider repertoire. And while it seems that the old and rather predictable game of summits, axes and treaty reforms is over, the rules of the new game are yet to be written.

In the German context, Peer Steinbrück, the social democratic candidate for the 2013 general elections, is far from leading Europe’s socialists in the reconstruction of the eurozone. Indeed for tactical reasons he chose not to even try and challenge Angela Merkel in what has become her domaine réservé. Or might he be pulling the strings behind Hollande, and the French Left is doing the messy job for him now? (Trying to undermine Merkel from the outside is likely to have the opposite effect, but quite frankly I don’t believe in the existence of such witty tactics anyway). Martin Schulz, recently branded “an extension of Adenauer by social democratic means” with a whiff of respect by, of all papers, the conservative daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is in his ambition to become the joint candidate of Europe’s social democrats for the next president of the European Commission, doing a much better job. However, Schulz has just disappointed those looking for order on the Paris angle by seconding Angela Merkel when she was personally accused by leading French socialists of dominating and ultimately destroying Europe.

I still stick to the observation that in the course of the crisis, European Union affairs have been politicised to an unprecedented degree. Party politics matter. But for those (including myself) who predicted that the rather predictable old order (‘the Franco-German axis’ ‘the net contributors versus the recipients’, ‘the Weimar Triangle’ etc.) would make way to a similarly predictable order formed along political colours and ideologies have been proven wrong.

The truth is: things have become utterly mazy and therefore rather unpredictable. Now it is for Europe’s great minds to make sense of the new rules of the European power game, of political colours and ideologies, of institutional quarrels (prominently featuring the Commission president these days), of reflexes of national pride, of the new power of domestic constraints, of old balance-of-power thinking, of the shadow of history returning, and of a longing for rationality that is expressed in Europe’s elites turning to scholarly knowledge (and, not surprisingly, failing to find answers). Welcome to the politics of unpredictability.

One thing is for sure: Those who hold the key to understanding the new game will be shaping and, ultimately, winning it.

Europe For Citizens

“This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.”

Blog Authors

Adriaan SchoutAdriaan Schout

Dr Adriaan Schout is Deputy Director Research/Europe at Clingendael, Netherlands Institute of International relations. (read more...)

Alexandre AbreuAlexandre Abreu

Dr Alexandre Abreu is a 33-year-old Portuguese economist with a PhD from the University of London. Currently he is a lecturer in Development Economics at the Institute of Economics and Business Administration, Technical University of Lisbon, and a Researcher at the Centre for African and Development Studies of the same University.

Almut MöllerAlmut Möller

Almut Möller is a political analyst in European integration and European foreign policy. She is currently the head of the Alfred von Oppenheim Centre for European Policy Studies at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) in Berlin. (read more...)

Supported by