2013年-CEPS欧洲政策研究中心_Essential_Steps_for_the_European_Union_after_the_No_Votes_in_France_the_Netherlands__Ireland_10页_139kb

Summary of "Essential Steps for the European Union after the 'No' Votes in France, the Netherlands & Ireland"

Core Content

This document discusses the challenges facing the European Union (EU) following the "no" votes in referendums on the Treaty of Lisbon in France, the Netherlands, and Ireland. It highlights the widespread public distrust of the EU and the lack of understanding of its complex institutional structure, which has contributed to the rejection of the treaty. The authors, John Temple Lang and Eamonn Gallagher, argue that the EU must take concrete steps to increase transparency, democracy, and public engagement with its institutions to rebuild trust.

Main Views

The key views presented in the document include:

• Public Distrust: The "no" votes in the referendums were influenced by vague or general reasons, including a distrust of the EU and resistance to changes. This distrust is not limited to the three countries but is a broader issue across the EU.
• Laeken Declaration: The Declaration of Laeken, issued in 2001, called for reforms to make the EU more democratic, transparent, and efficient. However, these reforms were not implemented, leading to a more complex and less understandable institutional structure.
• Institutional Complexity: The Lisbon Treaty introduced a hybrid system of decision-making, combining the Community method (used for economic and social policies) with an intergovernmental method for foreign and security policy. This has created confusion and undermined the EU's democratic legitimacy.
• Need for Reform: The authors argue that the EU must take non-treaty measures to improve public understanding and engagement, including greater transparency in Council meetings, regular public discussions between national and EU parliamentarians, and more comprehensive explanations of EU policies.

Key Information

Non-Treaty Measures

• Public Council Meetings: Increase transparency by holding more frequent public meetings in the European Council and Council of Ministers.
• Commissioner Visits: Regular public visits by Commission members to national capitals to discuss EU policies with national parliaments.
• MEP-National Parliament Meetings: Routine public meetings between MEPs and national parliamentarians to foster dialogue.
• Policy Explanations: The Commission should publish detailed policy papers to explain the rationale behind EU strategies and decisions.

Maintaining a Representative Commission

• Commission Size: The Lisbon Treaty reduces the number of Commissioners to only two-thirds of member states, which is a major cause of public distrust.
• Restoration of Full Commission: Restoring the full Commission, with one nominee from each member state, is essential to maintain the Community method and ensure democratic legitimacy.
• Benefits of Full Commission:
  • Ensures the Commission remains representative and independent.
  • Avoids conflicts and controversies over who loses their nominee.
  • Enhances the Commission's ability to explain and defend EU policies.
  • Makes the EU more acceptable to the public and avoids the need for referendums in Ireland.

Maintaining the Independence of the Commission

• Dual Role of Foreign Policy Representative: The Lisbon Treaty proposes a dual role for the foreign policy representative, combining the positions of Commission vice president and foreign affairs council president. This undermines the independence of the Commission and is incompatible with the Community method.
• Conflict of Interest: The dual role creates potential conflicts of interest and reduces the Commission's ability to act impartially, which is critical to its function.
• Need for Separation: To restore the integrity of the Commission, the roles of the foreign policy representative and the Commission should be kept separate, and the Lisbon Treaty should be amended to ensure this.

The President of the Council

• New Role: The Lisbon Treaty introduces a long-term, full-time President of the Council, elected by the Council itself. This role is not defined and lacks democratic accountability.
• Potential for Rivalry: The President is likely to be dominated by the three largest member states, leading to potential rivalry and unclear institutional boundaries.
• Contradiction with Laeken: This new structure contradicts the goals of the Laeken Declaration, which called for a simpler and more democratic EU.

Conclusion

The authors emphasize that the EU must address public distrust through institutional reforms that enhance transparency, democratic participation, and understanding. These include restoring the full Commission, ensuring its independence, and avoiding the hybrid decision-making processes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. They argue that these steps are essential for the EU to regain public support and for future treaty ratifications to succeed.