COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT IN TRENČÍN

EUROPEAN TRINITY MODEL

Bachelor Thesis

Study program: Knowledge Management Workplace: College of Management, Trenčín Thesis advisor: Matthias C. Suthe Consultant:

Trenčín 2009 Lukáš Arbet

ABSTRAKT

Téma: EUROPEAN TRINITY MODEL Kľúčové slová: Európska Únia, Superštát, Dvojkomorový, Budúcnosť

Študent: Lukáš Arbet Vedúci BP: Matthias C. Suthe

Od doby, keď Európania nasledovali víziu jednoty a spolupráce v povojnovej Európe dvadsiateho storočia, uplynulo už mnoho rokov a Európa zaznamenala vývoj smerom k jednote. Vtedajšie Európske Spoločenstvo vývojom a dosiahlo stav súčasný, keď sa transformovalo do nadnárodného celku – Európskej Únie. Únia stále expanduje a pokrýva vačšinu kontinentu, kde sa snaží realizovať koncept jednoty a neustáleho rozvoja. Nový model navrhuje expanziu k tomu čo Európska Únia, i keď len v nepriamo, reprezentuje už teraz – superštát. Angažovanosť jednotlivých entít v procese rozhodovania a riešenia európskych záležitostí nedáva priestor na určenie, kto skutočne stojí na čele tohto giganta. Ak sa nájdu vedúce osobnosti, často sa ich pomenovania duplikujú a tým len mätú bežné obyvateľstvo, ktoré ťažko učuje, kto stojí na čele tohto nadnárodného celku. Inštitúcie a ich podriadené celky, vykonávajú viac koordinačné a poradné úlohy, ako svoj skutočný potencíal spravovania Európskych záležitostí. Nový model navrhuje zmenu ustanovenia Európskej Únie na federálnu úniu s dvojkomorovým parlamentým systémom. Za dolnú komoru parlamentu sa navrhuje ponechať Európsky Parlament s jeho priamo volenými poslancami. Ako doplňujúci orgán je ustanovená druhá komora parlamentu, Rada Ministrov, ktorej je uznané rovnocenné postavenie. Doplňujúcim celkom je výsadne postavenie Európskej Komisie predkladať návrhy, avšak samotná komisia je modifikovaná len na administratíny orgán, bez monopolu na tvorbu legislatívy. Výkonnej moci sa ujíma Európska Rada na čele s Prezidentom a súdna moc ostáva v rukách Európskeho súdneho dvora. Nový model predstavuje jednu variáciu, ako by mohla Európska Únia vyzerať v budúcnosti, aby mohla priniesť prosperitu všetkým jej občanom.

Rok 2009 Podpis študenta

ABSTRACT

Topic: EUROPEAN TRINITY MODEL Key words: European Union, Superstate, Bicameral, Future

Student: Lukáš Arbet Advisor: Matthias C. Suthe

Many years have passed since the post-war era of the 20th century, when Europeans have followed the vision of unity and cooperation in Europe. Great successes were achieved in development towards the unity. The European Community progressed through a development and achieved current level of transformed supranational entity – the European Union. The Union is continuously expanding and is covering most of the continent striving to execute the concept of unity and continual advancement; therefore, new model proposes an expansion to a form the Union, although indirectly, is representing right now – a superstate. Moreover, the involvement of particular legal entities within the decision making process and handling of European affairs, does not clarify who actually is the one at the top of this giant. Even when finding responsible leading authorities, many times their titles duplicated, thus confusing regular population hardly determining, who is in charge of this supranational entity. The institutions with their subordinated bodies have more coordinating and consultative roles, rather than their real potential of managing European affairs. New model suggests a change of European Union as a legal entity to a federal union with bicameral parliament system. The Lower House is projected to be composed of the European Parliament with his directly elected members. Moreover, the Council of Ministers is being given a supplemental role in the Upper House, as an equal peer entity. Another supporting body is proposed to be managed by the European Commission, however, only as a privileged partner with an advisory right, mainly because the Commission is transformed to an administrative body of the Union, without a monopoly to creation of legislation. Furthermore, the executive role is being given to the European Council, chaired by a President, while the judicial branch remains in full control of the European Court of Justice. Thus the new model represents one variation of future shape of the EU that could ensure prosperity to all its citizens.

Year: 2009 Signature of student

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations …………………………………………………………………... 1 Chapter I. Introduction and Problem Statement ……………………………….... 2 Chapter II. Review of Literature ………………………………………………….... 3 Chapter III. Methodologies and Procedures used in the Study ………………….... 4 Chapter IV. Results………………………………………………………………….... 5 4.1 European Union’s history, an overview from past to nowadays………………... 5 4.1.1 Road to unified Europe …….……………….…………………………...... 5 4.1.2 Treaties…………………………………………………………………….. 7 4.1.3 Slovakia Joins the Union...... 8 4.1.4 The Euro…………………………………………………………...... 9 4.1.5 Current scale of the EU...... 10 4.1.6 European Core Institutions……………………………………………….... 11 4.1.7 The European Council (EC)...... 11 4.1.8 The Council of Ministers (the Council of the European Union)...... 11 4.1.8.1 Organisation and proceedings...... 12 4.1.8.2 The Council‟s relationships and mutual dependencies...... 12 4.1.9 The European Commission...... 13 4.1.9.1 Organisation...... 13 4.1.9.2 Powers...... 13 4.1.10 The European Parliament (EP)...... 14 4.1.10.1 Organization and Structure...... 16 4.1.10.1.1 The President...... 17 4.1.10.1.2 Members of the European Parliament...... 17 4.1.10.1.3 Political Groups...... 17 4.1.10.1.4 Parliamentary Committees...... 17 4.1.10.1.5 Delegations...... 18 4.1.10.2 Decision making process...... 19 4.1.11 The European Court of Justice (ECJ)...... 21 4.1.11.1 The Court of Justice……………………………..…………….... 22 4.1.11.2 The Court of First Instance…………………………………..…. 22 4.1.11.3 The European Union Civil Service Tribunal………………..….. 23 4.1.12 European Internal Security Agencies…………………………………….. 23

4.1.12.1 European Defence Agency (EDA)…………………………..……. 23 4.1.12.2 European Police Office (EUROPOL)…………………………...... 23 4.1.13 Treaty of Lisbon………………………………………………………….. 24 4.1.13.1 EU after Lisbon Treaty…………………………………………….. 25 4.2 European Trinity Model Proposal………..…………………..…………………… 27 4.2.1 Future change essential...... 27 4.2.2 European outer border change...... 28 4.2.2.1 Western Balkan States...... 29 4.2.2.2 Moldova...... 29 4.2.2.3 Ukraine and Belarus………...... 29 4.2.3 Form of government.………………………………………………………. 30 4.2.4 Federation: outdated……………………………………………………….. 30 4.2.5 Bicameral system and its modification...……..………………….……….... 32 4.2.5.1 European Lower House of the Parliament proposal...…………...... 32 4.2.5.2 European Upper House of the Parliament proposal……………….... 33 4.2.5.3 Summary…………………………………………………………….. 33 4.2.6 The President and the executive branch of the European state……………. 34 4.2.7 Judicial branch...…………………………………………………….….….. 34 4.3 New Shape…………………………………………………...... 35 4.3.1 Impact on other institutions...... 35 4.3.2.1 Change to the statue of the Commission………………………...... 35 4.3.2.2 Change to the statute of the EDA…………………………………... 36 4.3.2.3 Change to the statute of EUROPOL………………………………... 36 4.3.2 Potential benefits for Slovakia….………………………………………..... 37 4.3.3 Potential threats for Slovakia…………………..………………………….. 38 Chapter V. Discussion, Conclusion, Recommendations …………………….……. 39 Library Release………………………………………………………………………… 41 List of Tables………..………………………………………………………………….. 42 Literature……………………………………………………………………………….. 43

European Trinity Model 1

List of Abbreviations

NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization

EU- European Union

EEC- European Economic Community

SEA- Single European Act

SEM - single European market

UN- United Nations

CET - Common External Tariffs

EC - European Council

EMU- Economic and Monetary Union

CFSP - Common Foreign and Security Policy

JHA - Justice and Home Affairs

EP - European Parliament

SIS - Schengen Information System

COE - Council of the European Union

ECSC - European Coal and Steel Community ESDP - European security and defence policy ECJ - European Court of Justice OLAF - European Anti-fraud Office MEP - Member of the European Parliament EUROPOL - European Police Office EUROJUST - European Union‟s Judicial Cooperation Unit ESC - Economic and Social Committee OCR - Opinions of the Committee of the Regions CVRIA - Court of Justice of the European Communities CFI - Court of First Instance CST - European Civil Service Tribunal SAFE - Synchronized Armed Forces Europe BTO - Brussels Treaty Organization European Trinity Model 2

1. Introduction and Problem Statement Once, some of the people of the so called old continent, had an outstanding vision that became a reality when the true essence of the word unity has laid the foundation of an entity that has grown to the state of one of the world´s major players. The people, although of different nationalities and cultures shared one very basic element which created a bond between them, the continent on which their statehoods were located – Europe. Therefore, after decades of negotiations and development, at the end of the 20th century, the entity formed to a political unified body, a union of states, the European Union (EU).

Now, it is the 21st century, and the EU is quickly expanding not only in terms of territory represented by new member states, but also in its economic, regional and international power. New challenges are faced, and efforts to successfully manage them are daily issues for those in charge. However, multiculturalism, mainly based on statehoods, is a significant issue, for the whole community when dealing with all the challenges. Even though it is simple in its essential substance, its impact represents a stranglehold for the further growth and expansion. It is easy to deduct that the larger the EU is, the more national cultures, and thus opinions on particular issues are involved in internal affairs, not mentioning the principal state´s behaviour when developing own affairs to achieve its individual goal. Then one cannot be surprised when Europeans are facing stagnation instead enjoying expansion, when bureaucracy and delays are present more often than mutual agreement and smooth progress.

European Union needs a change that would eliminate all present burdens and ensure growth, development and complete usage of the Union´s potential, all aspects which are beneficial to the Slovak Republic as well. Therefore, a modification of the executive pillars together with the legislative central body needs to take place, so that current European unified community can enter its final stage of an outstanding magnitude, and thus a formulation of one superstate.

European Trinity Model 3

2. Review of Literature The European Community crossed the borders of the 21st century in a formed Union long time ago, but still seeks further development of issues which should form the shape and form of this supranational entity in accordance to the ongoing issues. It is true, that the Union has covered several problematic issues spent years of development to the state were it is now, and the European Parliament, with other institutions is proudly presenting their work. However, the shape and geopolitical factors of the EU, more and more appear to be of federation fundamentals, especially after the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon that bears, according to Coughlan (2009), President of the Foundation for EU Democracy, and Director of the National Platform EU Research and Information Centre, a stealth form of constitutional revolution and a step towards a federation based legal entity. Bednar (2008), an associated professor of political science at the University of Michigan, describes federation as more a geopolitical act that should avoid conflicts and dangerous disputes between states, and thus prevent war. More she recommends statehood formed under a federal union, based on strong federal identity. Accordingly, European Trinity Model expands to the level of proposal of a bicameral system within established federal union in Europe. Apart from the classification of upper and lower house of parliament and its adjustment to the structure of current EU, there is a strong support for the idea of bicameralism within democratic governments. The most significant one, as highly promoted by the Australian Political Studies Association (ASPA, 2005), is in the level where the bicameral system, in its powerful implementation, represents a restrictive element that manages dangerous excesses of a democratic establishment, thus is not allowing to assort all present power to only one authority. Following the idea of bicameral assemblage a complete distribution of legislative, executive and judicial power is proposed. Afterwards, the research flow is concentrated onto impacts from the proposed model. With an emphasis on empirical information of Hooghe & Nugent (2006) regarding the Commission, and on explanatory guide on the Treaty of Lisbon, composed by the Foundation Robert Schuman (2007), institution‟s structure has been reorganized with innovative suggestions, so that it would meet only its administrative, or managerial, and consultative function. On the other hand, in case of the EDA and EUROPOL, were given what they were criticized for, thus having a gaps in their functionality and jurisdiction.

European Trinity Model 4

3. Methodologies and Procedures used in the Study The methodology used in this project is a combined principle of evaluation and development project methodology, as the project is structured to two major parts. First, part is aimed on precise evaluation of current institutional system within the EU, with some important historical milestones that formed current model of European Community – the EU. All important treaties were described and evaluated in regards to the institutions, which are responsible of effective running of today‟s EU. Second part; however, represents smooth transition from evaluative to a developing methodology. The most remarkable process of this part is the proposition of new system for the Union, which should be adopted if the Union would transfigure its overall legal appearance into one unified body, a superstate, with full diversification of legislative, executive and judicial powers. Bicameral system modification, statute of the President, and reconsideration of judicial system dominated this part. Moreover, in the final phase, other institutions are examined and rebuilt for their customization to the proposed concept. In this phase, on the other hand, another aspect of this projects is being implemented, thus both benefits and threats of suggested proposal, in respect to the status and existence of the Slovak Republic.

European Trinity Model 5

4. Results 4.1 EUROPEAN UNION´S HISTORY, AN OVERVIEW FROM PAST TO NOWADAYS 4.1.1 Road to unified Europe Elemental thoughts of political and economic unity arose in the 14th century, but became a number one issue after 1945, after the year when the World War II came to its end. First true effort towards integration took place in 1947 when the Economic Commission for Europe was created as a territorial organization of the United Nations (UN), and in 1948 when Brussels Treaty Organization (BTO) a forerunner of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) became to existence (El-Agraa, 2004, p. 24 - 25). However, a true step to European unity occurred in 1949, when the Council of Europe was established, when ten European states – Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom – signed the Treaty of London on May 5th (Council of Europe, n.d.). Unfortunately this attempt was not enough to become a unifier, and the countries were still self-oriented, divided and far from each other. Thus, the era of the 1950´s and its historical events were unavoidable, if the Europeans really wanted to enjoy the benefits of a unity. What creation of the European Steel and Coal Community by the six founding nations – the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Italy, Germany, France and Belgium – started in 1950 that Treaty of Rome finished in 1957 with the establishment of the European Economic Community (EEC). Both agreements represented strong political and mainly economic cooperation, which represented a strategic key to secure Europe before another devastating war (Europa, n.d.a). Then, in 1960´s, first fruits of long negotiations that led towards first shape of the EU reflected in the flourishing period of an economic growth, and even surpluses in agricultural production (Europa, n.d.a). The expansionistic activities were on the rise, and first time in the history of the EU, an enlargement process took place. The year was 1973, when United Kingdom, Denmark, and Ireland joined. And soon afterwards, in 1979, very first elections to the European Parliament have been held (EURAC research, 2004). 4.1.2 Treaties Single European Market As the EU was expanding further a change that would add new freedoms, and could maximize economic potential was crucial in the process. Debates, new negotiations, new policies, and wish for more pragmatic approach, all these led to creation of a Single European Act (SEA) which is often referred to single European market, or SEM. The SEA European Trinity Model 6 has been fully operational on July 1st, 1987 (El-Agraa, 2004, p. 32). SEM was based on and simply characterized by four following pillars: free movement of capital, labour, goods and services approach of similar laws, policies, and administrative procedures between member states European Commission‟s (Commission) EU-wide competition policy A method of Common External Tariffs (CET) In spite of positive impacts on the EU economy through its implementation time from 1987 to 1992, SET soon faced controversies, which were difficult to defend even from the legal perspective (politics.co.uk, 2008). The controversies dealt especially with different levels of economic growth, inward oriented protectionism of nation state´s interests, implementation of various EU directives that were setting particular objectives to particular member states, and last but not least fact, which is an obstacle to the complete full economic integration (politics.co.uk, 2008). The Maastricht treaty and its modification by the Amsterdam treaty A very closely related subject to SEM was a meeting held by the European Council (EC) in Maastricht in 1991 that has developed a blueprint for the full European Monetary Union. The Maastricht treaty, or in its original Treaty on European Union, introduced several institutional changes and produced several political competences (El-Agraa, 2004, p. 34). The very first integrating principles were reflected in the creation of “the European Communities, Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), and police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (JHA)” (Europa, n.d.b). Apart of these pillars, other significant propositions have been implemented, starting from the very idea of European citizenship, continuing through various political, economical, and social policies up to overall reinforcement of power of the European Parliament (EP) (Europa, n.d.b). And it was the last mentioned implementation, which caused controversy and ratification problems, because the treaty created wide gap between political representatives and their voters. To fix the conflicting parts and to include not covered issues of Maastricht, the Amsterdam treaty has been put in place. First of all, the treaty modified goals and policies, mainly in defence polices, justice and internal affairs, and sustain social aspects (El-Agraa, 2004, p. 34). Moreover, the treaty received an important phase in which it directly influenced the ongoing enlargement tendencies, in particular by blueprinting the scheme of accession, then it implemented the Schengen Convention into European legislation, and European Trinity Model 7 expanded the function and position of the CFSP. In general, the whole agreement pushed forward the supranational EU, as the effort of further integration and Europeanism (CIVITAS, 2007). Schengen Agreement Basic definition of Schengen is a European guaranteed free movement of persons. All internal borders must be cancelled, where only external single border is implemented. It abolishes border controls, and the only immigration, visa, and security control is on the external borders (Europa, n.d.c). The birth of Schengen area was given in the Schengen Agreement, of 1985. However, at that time it was still out of EU laws and a modification of that particular status must had been changed. And it was, with the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997. Major change was in the fact that it was incorporated into EU legal framework, which has been upgrading, up to nowadays. The term legal framework reflects Schengens´ position under parliamentary and judicial regulation. Although Schengen guarantees freedom of movement, some compensatory procedures were crucial to be in operation, as it is deep concern of security and defence. Coordination and cooperation on a supranational level between peer policing and judicial authorities is one of the bright examples. Thus, in order to boost fight against the organized crime and to strengthen internal security the Schengen Information System, a sophisticated shared database aimed to exchange information of certain people or commodities, has been developed (Europa, n.d.c). Furthermore, for some member and non-member states, different rules apply. For Ireland, for instance, only partial participation in Schengens´ legislative status applies. Similar situation exists with United Kingdom too. In addition, Schengen Area has special relations with third countries, which are understood to be Norway, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, and Iceland; these involve: Internal border free area Provisions are mandatory to all Schengen-related texts Involvement in decisions related to Schengen texts For Iceland and Norway, moreover, rules of Nordic Passport Union apply, which is very similar idea to the Schengen one. Only difference is that these members do not have voting rights in particular committees. The general status applies for Switzerland and Liechtenstein too (Europa, n.d.c). Nice Treaty In the very beginning, it is necessary to stress out that major scope of the treaty was aimed at the further enlargement endeavours. Goals continued with the ideas of better European Trinity Model 8 transparency, extended democracy, and increased efficiency. The enlargement itself was planned to incorporate ten new members to the Union in the first wave, and later another two in the second wave (El-Agraa, 2004, p. 36). Thus, already existing institutions together with their regulations, polices and principles were required for an adjustment, so that the whole body could work under the preset goals and humble visions. Therefore, a treaty making meeting was held in December 2001, in the French city of Nice. The resulting document consists of thirteen Articles, of which first six are considered as major transformative amendments. This is clearly visible especially in the first two of them. Article 1 represents a serious transformation of EU founding principles, the CSFP, international arrangements, judicial processes, and enhanced mutual cooperation. Especially the last mentioned is of significant importance as the overall conditions were freed from censoriousness, and the right to veto was removed (Europa, n.d.d). Article 2 pushes the true meaning of change much further as it contains amendments made to the Treaty establishing European Community. Most significant are: The qualified majority is extended Social Protection Committee is created Members of Parliament and European Political Parties are remodelled The Commission is modified, mainly the role and status of the President Form other aspects of the Nice Treaty one might find important those related to simplifying ideas for future treaties or agreements, as the threat of bureaucracy for a structure of Union‟s magnitude could lead the idea of unified and effective international society into peril (Europa, n.d.d). 4.1.3 Slovakia Joins the Union For Slovakia, the journey towards European family started immediately after its birth in 1993 with signing the European Association Agreement that came into practice two years later. In the same year, the true interest of Slovakia joining the EU was clearly expressed when Slovakian Prime Minister, Vladimir Meciar, declared the application to the Union on an EC meeting in Cannes. As a candidate, Slovakia needed to undergo several changes in order to satisfy the Copenhagen criteria, which were mandatory requests for the membership. These were based on political and economic requirements with an extra agreement for, so called acquis communautaire, a coordinative process of harmonization of laws with European standards both in theory and practice (Slovak- republic.org, n.d.). Soon thereafter, in 1999, an official invitation from the EU, held on a European Trinity Model 9 summit in Helsinki, has been given to this small, but ambitious country. Thus, from this time on, it was only a matter of time when the negotiation will reach a level of mutual compatibility with the EU´s standards. The official date, when a former soviet satellite joined one unified European family, was the May 1st, 2004 (Slovak-republic.org, n.d.). The most important, however, is the fact that the membership brought several significant benefits to the country as a whole. Former Slovakian Prime Minister, Mikulas Dzurinda, highlighted some of the many benefits just one year after the accession (Slovak- republic.org, n.d.): Long-term financing Minerva program The economic potential of Euro EU development funds Dzurinda´s domestic economic reforms, together with significant financial support of EU funds brought the country to an economic peak. Soon thereafter, Slovakia has become known as a European tiger (Cienski, 2008). Slovakia‟s start has been executed in the best way possible, however, how it will benefit further resides not only on its current or future leaders, but also on the EU as well, and its future shape. 4.1.4 The Euro What has been started with the creation of SEM and its ideals, continued in much rational thinking. If Europe wanted a supranational body with an open market, sooner or later a need for one currency would emerge. This particular event became a reality from the very beginning of the year 1999, starting in first eleven EU member states. All national currencies of these states were replaced by a single one, the Euro. In 2001 Greece followed the accession to the EMU. Up to this year, the end of 2009, sixteen EU members are using common currency. Apart from those countries that did not meet set requirements for adapting process, the Maastricht criteria, two particular members have allowance for not getting euro – The United Kingdom and Denmark (European Commission, n.d.a). Euro is fully under direct control of European Central Bank (ECB), and is at disposal for almost 330 million people just within the sixteen countries inside the EMU. Not speaking about those countries, that are using euro in the second hand, like the former European colonies and the neighbour states (European Commission, n.d.a). Furthermore, benefits of euro are numerous starting from the handiest one, which is regarded for transacting currencies, especially within tourism industry. With a single currency, consumers are allowed to European Trinity Model 10 compare the prices of goods and services with ease, which has a direct impact on transparency. Moreover, economic growth, inflation control, global usage and many more are a significant reason for EU to continue with the euro expansion among the rest of its dominion (Economics Help, n.d.). 4.1.5 Current scale of the EU Since the first enlargement in 1973, EU has expanded into huge magnitude. Now, in 2009, it has twenty seven member states. Lastly accepted members were Romania and Bulgaria, which have joined the EU on January 1st, 2007. Even though there are several other countries, mainly of Balkan region, which would wish to raise the unified flag, the negotiation talks are being slowed and only pre-entry talks and observations are held (European Commission, n.d.b). Current scale of the union is presented on the map bellow:

Source: Nations Online, n.d. European Trinity Model 11

4.1.6 European Core Institutions In the very beginning it is necessary to stress out, that the EU is not considered as a state yet, thus one cannot expect it to have the same structure as the regular state entity, no matter of type. Nevertheless, it is not only an organization or alliance of international format. One might find it in the middle way, neither an international organization nor a state. Moreover, as the democracy is one of its priorities it has its own ruling bodies, or institutions, which primary aim is to keep the overall power and influence equally spread among them (Europa, n.d.f). More and more, however, not only the names, but also the functions of those institutions are foreseeing the statehood format of the EU. 4.1.7 The European Council (EC) The EC has been one of the major players in the role specialized for European integration, ever since its creation in 1974. Political recommendations, coordination, the overall motion of the EU, amendment processes, all these and more are its fundamentals which directed it towards an intergovernmental political body. Not mentioning the fact that it has given the EU a status of supranational entity (Schoutheete, 2006). Despite the fact it prepares a negotiation ground for the leaders of the member states and their companions when there is a necessity to discuss an issue of great importance, it is still not an institution in the true sense, as it is not clarified in the Treaty on European Union (TEU), a treaty that incorporates all EU institutions. According to June 2002 session in Seville, a decision has been made that the Council shall be meeting on a regular basis four times a year, apart from exceptional circumstances (Schoutheete, 2006). In regards to the purpose the EC should be executing all necessary expanding factors for further development of the whole Union. It hosts specific functions of creating strategic guidelines, decision making polices, coordinative procedures, foreign policy, amending treaties, and revision of treaties (Schoutheete, 2006). 4.1.8 The Council of Ministers (the Council of the European Union) The primary role of the Council is to discuss and resolve national interests defended by the ministerial representatives of the member countries, who are in charge to apply legislation together with the European Parliament (EP), its peer entity (Schoutheete, 2006). Council‟s history starts in the year of 1951, when the Treaty of Paris was held in order to establish the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), which has been a blueprint for the birth of the Council of the European Communities. In addition, when the EU has been officially formed it has renamed to its current form (Renshaw-Hayes, 2006).

European Trinity Model 12

4.1.8.1 Organisation and proceedings The Council has its permanent representatives from all member countries that defend their national interests on a Union´s level. Head of each delegation is considered to be an ambassador, so to speak, to the EU for that particular country. Moreover, the Council has a Presidency clause embodied in its structure, thus selecting one member, and its representatives, to chair all sessions, meetings, and councils for a fix term of six months. And, In order to ensure proper functioning at all levels, a General Secretariat with its main representative the Secretary General of the Council has been created (Europa, n.d.g). Furthermore, decisions must be democratic, thus a voting system based on the scale of member´s population has been impalement. Nowadays, the total sum of all votes is 345, of which two-thirds are considered as a qualified majority, and a proposal is approved if 255 votes are collected in favour of it (Europa, n.d.g). Next, Council´s functions as a direct result of its coordinating and decision making responsibilities are known to be: Acceptance of a new laws, in a legislative tandem with the EP Coordination member state´s economic policies Budget creation, again with the help of EP Incorporates CFSP´s and those related to European security and defence policy (ESDP) Develops and coordinates polices for judicial and police cooperation in criminal matters To sum up, the Council executes these functions accordingly to already accepted and bounding treaties (Renshaw-Hayes, 2006). 4.1.8.2 The Council’s relationships and mutual dependencies First is the cooperation with the EP. The very relationship is in the structure of tension as both institutions are struggling for more power to their scope of influence, especially regarding the legislative and budgetary competencies. But thanks to the mutual inter- institutional agreements, mainly at the budget principles, the tension is looser. The only suitable option for both bodies is to co-decide in all conflicting issues, and thus ensure smooth and less complicated cooperation within an already bureaucratic system (Renshaw- Hayes, 2006). Secondly, there are direct dependencies with the Commission. In order to clarify the relationship, one might use a tandem expression Cooperative competition. Many battles, so to speak, have been fought for the overall dominance. Especially, when speaking of the external representation of EU´s stands and polices, with the clash zone of European Trinity Model 13 the police competencies. In addition, the interdependencies are based, for example, in the proposals, fabricated by the Commission, on which almost every Council´s debate is based. However, every debate is directly dependent on Council and partial tandem with the EP (Renshaw-Hayes, 2006). 4.1.9 The European Commission The overall status of the Commission is usually considered as a hybrid institution, as it is EU´s largest source of political proposals and policy directions, with a tandem of main policy manager and overall administration that has its roots in ECSC, in legal obligations and perspectives, however, it is one body (Peterson, 2006). 4.1.9.1 Organisation First of all, is the leading political body, or the College of Commissioners, who are individuals under law selected primary according to their competence, not on a form o election. They are, technically, completely independent while executing their responsibilities. No governmental dependence is set, and soon after their relevancy to the position is questioned, or a serious legal misconduct was approved by the European Court of Justice, the Commissioners will be dismissed from the office. Next in hierarchy are the Directors General and Heads of Service, who are being tightly connected the Commissioners through an establishment of working methods. They are highly responsible for efficient management of given resources, fundamental in the budget, and for establishing efficient systems aimed on supervision and control. There are other similar functions, especially when speaking of budget and control, like the Accounting officer, the Central Finance Service, whole Internal Audit Architecture, and Commission´s Investigation and Disciplinary Office. However, most important of them probably is the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) (Commission of the, 2007, p.2-5). The Commission, furthermore, is appointed to the office for a fix term of five years, with one extra rule, and that it has to be within the six months elections to the EP. The whole Commission is directly responsible to the Parliament, and can be dismissed with its directive. In the case of the size, there is one Commissioner per member state rule, thus the most current number is 27 (Europa, n.d.h). 4.1.9.2 Powers The Commission has a monopoly for proposing legislation in the very first place. Significant area of influence one might identify within the common agricultural policy, and competition policies, in which Commission incorporates the function of prosecutor, judge, and sometimes even jury. Moreover, there are two primary sources of influence – privilege European Trinity Model 14 to raise opinions on any EU issue, and a right to develop an annual report on the EU´s activities. The impact of those is in consequential influence for the Commission to impact the debates or to lead the Union into specific directions (Peterson, 2006). From other powers, one truly international is important, and that the European Commission represents the whole EU on an international level. It could be understood as a general spokesman for all member states, for example on international forums. Thus, it has the power to negotiate international agreements which are understood to be applicable for the whole Union (Europa, n.d.h). One might think of the Commission as an ambassador of the Union in the world. 4.1.10 The European Parliament (EP) The EP is the only directly elected institution inside EU´s political and legislative system. Since its true parliamentary establishment, which is mostly referred to its first direct election in 1979, the EP has transformed from a powerless institution to a powerful legal entity. Even the speed of transformation might be considered as remarkable (Shackleton, 2006). For better understanding following table is expressing various treaty modifications that directly affected EP´s structure, status and powers: Election of MEPs Legislative and Appointment and budgetary role scrutiny of executive ECSC Treaty Choice between Right to dismiss (1950) direct elections or High Authority national parliaments to select members Rome Treaty Specific provision Right to e consulted (1957) for direct elections and to give its (implemented in opinion to the 1979) Council Budgetary treaties Right to reject (1970 and 1975) budget, modify level of expenditure and approve/disapprove European Trinity Model 15

accounts (`discharge´) Single European `Cooperation Act (1985) procedure´ providing right to a second reading of legislation and `assent procedure´ to approve enlargement and some international agreements Maastricht Treaty `Co-decision Right to approve (1992) procedure´ with Commission as a conciliation to apply whole + to 15 legal bases, Committees of Tight to invite Inquiry, Commission to Appointment of present a legislative Ombudsman and proposal ECB President to report to EP committee Amsterdam Treaty Simplification and Right to approve (1997) extension of co- Commission decision to 32 legal President bases Nice Treaty (2000) Extension of co- decision to 37 legal bases Constitutional Extension of co- Commission Treaty (2004) decision to 90 legal President to be bases and to be elected by EP on called `ordinary basis of proposal European Trinity Model 16

legislative of European procedure´ (Art. III- Council that takes 396), Possibility to into account the revoke delegated elections to the legislation (Art. I- European 36) Parliament (Art. I- 27) Source: Shackleton, 2006 These changes could be understood as the evolution of the Parliament to the form up to these days, however, apart one major change that occurred in 2007. The Treaty of Lisbon became a reformer, which made a positive step for better future not only for the EP, but also for the EU as a whole. The EP´s transformation part of the Treaty was executed under the principles of extended democratization (European Parliament, 2008). The particular, most important, effects are listed in the following list: All legislation, with some exceptions, are mandatory submitted by the principle of dual approval, and thus by ministerial members of the Council, and elected members of the European parliament (MEPs) A prior proposal reconnaissance by the member´s national parliaments The EP is now the elector of the President of the European Commission and all positions , with the respect of prior proposal of the Commission EP, in a tandem with the Council, is given a right to supervise and mainly call back the legislative decision made by the Commission, or revoke the empowerment of powers that lead to development of such decision Wide range of international agreements signed by the Union must be approved by the EP EP is given a right to supervise agencies, such as the European Police Office (EUROPOL) and the European Union´s Judicial Cooperation Unit (EUROJUST) Of course there are other reformative changes in the Treaty regarding the EP in its goal to extend the democratic accountability (European Parliament, 2008). 4.1.10.1 Organization and Structure First of all, it is necessary to mention that the EP is now the largest parliamentary entity in the world, with its remarkable 736 members, who represent 500 million citizens of the 27 member countries, and are meeting in to two locations: Brussels and Strasbourg. European Trinity Model 17

Moreover, the parliament uses 23 languages in its operation, applied mainly by the elected politicians, the MEPs, while presenting official texts in their own language. However, for the informal meeting, English and French language is dominating (European Parliament Office in Ireland, n.d.). 4.1.10.1.1 The President The Office of the President of the European Parliament is understood as a representative body for the relations with the other EU institutions, and the rest of the world. The President is elected for a term of two and a half years, and is assisted by 14 Vice-Presidents whose primary role is the supervision of the Parliament and its bodies. Moreover, s/he ensures smooth running of the institution, and presents the perspective of the EP at the beginning of every EC meeting. Last but not least, s/he signs the EU´s budget and with the President of the Council all other legislative acts (European Parliament, n.d.a). 4.1.10.1.2 Members of the European Parliament All the EU´s member states elect in a direct vote their representatives to the EP for a term of five years. The current number of the MEP is 736, and the overall distribution is made according to the population proportion of each members states. In overall it varies from maximum of 99 and minimum of 5 seats. With this distribution they are being grouped to political parties according to the affinity principle, not by the nationality (European Parliament, n.d.b). 4.1.10.1.3 Political Groups Miller (2009) interpreted political groups within the EP as alliances, which are formed from the MEPs, although it is not mandatory for MEPs to join any of them. Furthermore, these groups are organised under a similar ideology, rather than nationality, and usually contain subgroups, or parties, within their structure. Miller (2009) identifies seven political groups, of which two most important are the European People‟s Party- European Democrats (EPP-ED) with approximately 37% of all votes, and the Party of European Socialists (PES) with 27% of all votes. 4.1.10.1.4 Parliamentary Committees For the magnitude of the whole Parliament with all of its activities and duties, it would be very difficult to secure smooth execution of the agenda, thus supporting bodies have been created to be of assistance. These bodies are called parliamentary committees and containing from 24 to 76 MEPs. Each committee has a chair, office and administrative section. Moreover, they hold public meetings usually once or twice a month in Brussels, European Trinity Model 18 where they create, reconsider and approve proposals and reports. The EP has a right to create subcommittees, permanent or temporary, according to the overall requirements (European Parliament, n.d.c). According to the official information from the European Parliament (n.d.d), currently there are 20 standing committees, namely: Foreign Affairs Development International Trade Budgets Budgetary Control Economic and Monetary Affairs Economic and Social Affairs Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Industry, Research and Energy Internal Market and Consumer Protection Transport and Tourism Regional Development Agriculture and Rural Development Fisheries Culture and Education Legal Affairs Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Constitutional Affairs Women´s Rights and Gender Equality Petitions Furthermore, not only these standing committees, but also those based on some special conditions are considered as efficient mechanism for mutual agreement between political groups, the Council, or event the Commission (Shackleton, 2006). 4.1.10.1.5 Delegations Delegations corresponding to the EP´s structure are interactive and representative bodies that specialize mainly in the field of diplomacy and negotiation between countries outside the EU´s dominion, preferable spreading EU´s influence abroad. Currently there are 35 delegations, each consisting of around 15 MEPs. Continuing, these delegations are divided into two groups. First, are Interparliamentary delegations, whose primary task is to European Trinity Model 19 manage relations with parliaments of non-EU countries that did not apply for the EU membership. Second, are, so called, Joint parliamentary committees that manage relations with countries that already applied for membership. Furthermore, the EP has another five Multilateral Assemblies that establish and maintain relationships between MEPs and parliament members from African, Caribbean and Pacific States, the Mediterranean region, Latin America, NATO countries, and EU´s eastern neighbouring countries (European Parliament, n.d.e). 4.1.10.2 Decision making process The legislative process inside the European structure is not an easy task to execute. No only it is based on several institutions, it is being constantly developed and evaluated. In present days, the EU knows several procedures, thanks to which are the legislations, of whatever type made. According to the European Parliament (n.d.f) the one might divide the procedures into: Codecision procedure Consultation procedure Assent procedure Budget procedures Appointment procedures Legislative initiative procedures Enhanced cooperation procedure Other legislative procedures, usually related to a specific task or fields of operation Most common method used nowadays, is the codecision procedure, where consent of both the Council and the Parliament must be met in order to pass the legislation further in the procedural structure. Furthermore, the codecision names that after the first reading of the proposed legislation was held by both bodies, the Parliament is authorized to suggest any amendments. Afterwards, it is the Council‟s turn to accept, reject, or adopt any further changes to the legislation, which must be approved by the Parliament. If consent is not reached, the Commission is in charge to call the Conciliation Committee between struggling bodies, or is warranted to withdraw the legislation as a whole. If they find a mutual congruity, the bill is thus approved, if not it is rejected for good. In addition, under the conditions presented in the Lisbon Treaty, the Parliament was given an extension of his powers, regarding the codecision procedure (CIVITAS, 2009). The procedure could be European Trinity Model 20 described in three main operative stages, or readings, where all involved bodies examine, discuss or modify the proposed legislation: First Reading

At the beginning (1) of the procedure the Commission presents a legislative proposal to the (2) Parliament and the (3) council simultaneously. Parliament adopts (4) amendments and submits them to the Council. If the Council agrees with the outcome of Parliament‟s first reading: (5) the legislative text is adopted. Second Reading

If the (1) Council does not accept Parliament‟s first reading vote, it draws up a (2) common position. Then, (3) Parliament may approve the common position or take no decision and the (4) legislative text is adopted in the form of the common position. Or another scheme is possible, where Parliament may propose amendments to the common position (subject to certain restrictions). In this case: either the (5) Council approves Parliament‟s amendments, and the (6) legislative text is adopted, or the Council rejects them, and a Conciliation Committee (27 Members of Parliament and 27 Members of the Council is convened to seek to reconcile the positions). Parliament may reject the common position by an absolute majority of its members, in which case the legislative text is rejected.

European Trinity Model 21

Third Reading

The (1) Conciliation Committee adopts a (2) mutual text based on the common position and the EP´s second reading amendments. If the Council and (3) Parliament approve the mutual text in its entirety, the (4) legislation is adopted. However, if the Conciliation Committee cannot agree on a mutual text, or if Parliament or the Council does not approve it, the (5) act is deemed not to have been adopted. Source: European Parliament, n.d.g 4.1.11 The European Court of Justice (ECJ) Although is this institution often hidden from the perception of the general public, it plays very important role in the EU. A significant integrator of the communities clearly stated that it establishes rules of legal order upon regular citizens, and works within the legal and economic dominions of the member states. It arose from an idea of having an independent judicial entity inside the European Community‟s institutional system that was firstly embedded in the ECSC of 1951 (Kennedy, 2006). However, the true operation has begun in 1952, when it adopted its current official name, the Court of Justice of the European Communities (CVRIA), which is commonly referred as the ECJ. Moreover, the operation of this court is mainly oriented to inspections of EU´s institutions, ensures that the members of the Union are respecting the Community Law, and finally it explicates the Community Law in respect to request of particular national courts or tribunals (Court of Justice of the, n.d.a). The ECJ represents EU´s judicial system, which is settled in Luxembourg, and consist of three particular courts: European Trinity Model 22

The Court of Justice The Court of First Instance (CFI) The European Civil Service Tribunal (CST) Although many positives are addressed to this institution, one thing remains an eyesore for the officials and the public. It is the confusing design of the ECJ and one of its courts, which shares the same name (Kennedy, 2006). 4.1.11.1 The Court of Justice The Court has various tasks in its operative portfolio, but it mainly cooperates with courts of the EU´s states in the scope both imperative and consultative. In particular, national courts are encouraged to run for the Court‟s opinion and interpretation of Community law, in order to find out whether their national legislative bills are within the legislative bill of the EU, or not. In addition, a direct EU State‟s liability is recognized, thus a powerful procedural tool protecting granted citizen‟s rights is being present inside the Union‟s judicial structure (Court of Justice of the, n.d.b). From an administrative point of view, the Court of Justice consists of 27 judges and eight Advocates General who are appointed to the office for a term of six years. Moreover, from the judges of the Court, one will became the President of The Court for a period of three years, who is in charge not only of the administration of the Court, but also s/he plays an important role while presiding the plenary of the Grand Chamber. The Advocates General are independent professionals, responsible for presenting the point of view of cases that are directly assigned to them. Last from the hierarchy of important personnel is the Registrar, or a Court‟s secretary general, who is subordinated directly to the President of the Court, and is responsible for managing all departments assigned to the president (Court of Justice of the, n.d.b). 4.1.11.2 The Court of First Instance The Court of First Instance contains at least one judge from each member country to the Union, who will be assigned for office for a fixed term of six years. Judges, and thus in fact the whole Court, execute their tasks in completely independent demeanour. There are no Advocates General present at this judicial body, but it shares the rest of the administrative characteristics like his peers. This Court handles cases, which are brought by legal persons against deeds of Community institutions, the proposals brought by the Member State against the Commission, or Council, with a restriction to only cases related to the state aid, dumping, and overall implementation of powers. Moreover, it handles European Trinity Model 23 appeals in defiance of decisions executed by the Civil Service Tribunal president (Court of Justice of the, n.d.c). 4.1.11.3 The European Union Civil Service Tribunal A judicial body, created in 1989, is aimed to solve all disputes involving EU´s civil service, in particular, dissensions between the Communities and their employees. All in all, a yearly balance of this Court represents the interests of approximately 35 000 European institution‟s staff members. Although the competences regarding the regular staff members are pretty wide, there is no jurisdiction that allows this Court to hear and resolve cases between national administrations and their subordinate members of staff (Court of Justice of the, n.d.d). Furthermore, the Court is composed of seven Judges, who are appointed by the Council for a renewable period of six years. There is also an institute of a President to the Court entitled, and is Judges are selecting one of their members for a period of three years. An interesting fact is that there are no Court fees at all, apart the aid of lawyers who are not paid by the Tribunal (Court of Justice of the, n.d.d). 4.1.12 European Internal Security Agencies The EU as a supranational entity that merges more than 500 million people must be able to maintain order and guarantee security. The era is remarkable especially for potential threat from extremist groups and/or criminals, which have their origins not only outside euro zone, but also inside of it. Therefore, The EP responsible authorities created two specific agencies which should both fight these elements, and ensure mutual development and cooperation of the members to the Union, in regards their policing and military forces – The European Defence Agency (EDA), and the EUROPOL. 4.1.12.1 European Defence Agency (EDA) This EU´s Agency was established on July 12th, 2004 under Joint Action of the Council of Ministers, as a pioneer organization, which primary goal is to develop European defence potential in the field of crisis management, and to uphold the ESDP while its constant development heading for future goals (European Defence Agency, n.d.a). A serious interest is paid on research and technology within the Union‟s armaments industry. Not only is the EDA a catalyst in these tasks, but also it represents a coordinative body that promotes synergies between defence and security research (European Defence Agency, n.d.a). 4.1.12.2 European Police Office (EUROPOL) EUROPOL, is EU´s law enforcement agency, which handles criminal intelligence and assists member states with their fight against the crime, especially organized one European Trinity Model 24

(EUROPOL, n.d.a). Former Europol Director, Ratzel, extended this basic information with a visionary statement: “Europol is heading towards a model solution representing the right balance between efficiency of law enforcement and respect for the fundamental right of data protection,” (2008). Moreover, current era of constant development of information technologies creates an opportunity not only for European society to develop, but also for criminal elements to gain tremendous financial power, thus there must be an organization which would hold a guard especially in this are of interest. And exactly that type of organization EUROPOL definitely is. Based on mutual cooperation with the law enforcement organizations from all over the EU, it is determined in this fight against the crime, with the respect to human rights and individual freedoms (EUROPOL, n.d.a). The history of EUROPOL is dated to February 7th, 1992, when the foundations of this organization were implemented through the Treaty on European Union, and its firs operations although limited, were executed against the drug crimes within the Community. In the following years, its mandate has been extended several times, especially in the 2002 extension, when international crime has been annexed to its mission (EUROPOL, n.d.b). Current mandate includes: Illegal drug trafficking Illegal immigration networks Terrorism Counterfeiting of Euro Human trafficking Illegal vehicle trafficking Money laundering In addition, it supports member states with operational analysis, exchange of intelligence, and providing expertises in various fields of interest (EUROPOL, n.d.b). On April 6th, 2009, EUROPOL became fully integrated organization within European structure, as it has become an agency of the Union, which was significant especially in the ways of its funding (EUROPOL, n.d.b). 4.1.13 Treaty of Lisbon An important change in the EU´s principles and structural designs occurred when the Treaty of Lisbon, which is amending current Treaties, was signed on December 13th, 2007. The whole institutional design and overall framework was upgraded, so that it would be possible to meet all upcoming challenges and events, thus leading the Union to a better European Trinity Model 25 future. As the official portal of the EU, Europa (n.d.i) presents, there are four major scopes that were aimed as most important goals: more transparent and democratic EU more efficient EU Europe of freedom, rights and values, solidarity and security Europe as a global player Moreover, it is important to understand that the Treaty Lisbon is not considered as the European Constitution, as it is modification of all existing treaties, whereas the constitutional one was abolishing all of them with one single legal document (Foundation Robert Schuman, 2007, p.4). 4.1.13.1 EU after Lisbon Treaty The Treaty expands the status of the EU to a legal entity, thus a body that is justified for entering contracts, especially those internationally based, and establish a participation in some international organization (Foundation Robert Schuman, 2007, p.4). Moreover, an important change awaits the European Commission, the central player within the EU, where the number of commissioner will be reduced by the rule of two-thirds of the Member States, who will be chosen according to revolving system. Next change is about to stabilize the European Council, where the institute of president was created. Elected by the qualified majority for a term of two and half years, he will be the voice and face of the Union representing it on worldwide (Foundation Robert Schuman, 2007, p.6). Moreover, the Treaty assigns an institute of a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, which reflects fusion of present function with the European Commissioner for external relations. This precaution reduces confusion and doubling the functions of particular institutes and their representatives on a unifying principle (Foundation Robert Schuman, 2007, p.6). Furthermore, the Foundation Robert Schuman (2007, p.13-14) clearly described, what competitions will be shared within the Union, and by whom: Union‟s exclusive competences are situated in: Customs Union; Creation of rules of competition for the internal market; Monetary policy; Biological resources conservation; Common trading policy; Cancellations of international agreements Shared competences between EU and Member States: Internal market; Social policy; Territorial, social and economic cohesiveness; Environment; Consumer European Trinity Model 26

Protection; Transportation; Transeuropean Networking; Energy; Scale of freedom, security and justice; Research and development and space; Humanitarian aid Member States exclusive competences: Healthcare – its protection and improvement; Industry; Culture; Tourism; Education; Civil protection; Administrative concurrence And finally, in regards to the EU´s enlargement actions there are set rules that must be applies if the applicant wants to be successful. The applicant, a state, is requested to address the application requests to the Council, and simultaneously inform about this application both European Parliament and the National States, although it has no further influence on Council‟s decision. Moreover, first time in history, there is a possibility to withdraw from the EU if it is approved by the EP, and followed by the final verdict of the Council, acquired with the rule of qualified majority (Foundation Robert Schuman, 2007, p.6).

European Trinity Model 27

4.2. EUROPEAN TRINITY MODEL PROPOSAL 4.2.1 Future change essential The EU with its institutions, no matter how noble and organized it might impress, was originally established for six countries, as the EEC, and even at that time the institutions were struggling with dysfunctions. It is true that while the EU has undergone several amendments, thought several treaties, and has integrated dozens of countries, some issues were handled and adjusted (Paterson & Shackleton, 2006). Anyway, when examining the EU´s existence, a regular citizen might quickly get lost in the structure as there are many confusing elements present that evoke a feeling of strict and rooted bureaucracy, especially when one would be finding leading authorities. Of course there are some very well known famous representatives, which would be recognized by the majority of the citizens. Unfortunately, the whole structure is too complicated. Every of the core institutions have their own leader, who bears usually similar title of the President, for example the Council, Parliament, current presidency representative, some secretaries general. With the institutional bodies it is not a better deal. Parliament is elected directly by the European population; however, an entity which has been given a monopoly for legislation development is Commission. Not mentioning that Commission apart from its lawmaking role is a major institution that secures the overall management of the Union, a general manager, so to speak. Moreover, the Council itself is one of the greatest perplexes of the union. Very little general population could proclaim that they have clear vision on this institution. On one side there is the highest political body with the leaders of all nation states, on the other hand, one observes Council of Ministers that consists of ministers from member states with their assisting accompaniment. Both are described only as the Council. To present it straight, in accordance to the codecision procedure, three bodies are directly involved with the legislative process, and create legislation that could be hardly called laws, as it is a direct reference to a form of statehood which EU is missing, often intentionally. Moreover, a similar chaotic presentation of the EU unfortunately works with the external relationship to other countries. The EP´s delegations are clearly appointed with the role of Union‟s diplomats, but this role is shared not only by High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, an easily realized ambassador general, but also with the Commission that represents EU on an international level. Very similar feeling with covering state like characteristics, bear other entities directly established to be serving European purposes as well, an example of those are both EDA and EUROPOL. The European Defence Agency bears a strong name that directly forms an opinion of, so called, European Trinity Model 28 state‟s Department of Defence, thus an entity that is a general manager to joint military, in this case a European one. On the other hand, the reality is that this Agency has only coordinative and developing function, not direct executive one. Similar works for EUROPOL, which is better with jurisdiction, but still not enough to harvest the whole true potential. Furthermore, there is still something missing in the EU, still is the Union a hybrid, rather than a form of community. It is a legal entity; it is even an international body, which groups dozens of nations. With the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, more order and functionality has been implemented, thus modifying the whole system. The scheme is very close to a regular statehood, and the politicians are more and more nearing, with the forms and functions of the EU´s institutions, to a creation of a real superstate. As Coughlan (2009), President of the Foundation for EU Democracy and Director of the National Platform EU Research and Information Centre, examines that the Lisbon Treaty represents not only a constitutional revolution, but also builds up a federal-style constitution abolishing present European Community and replacing it with post-Lisbon Union taking all Community‟s powers. Moreover, it is important to realize what the future face of Europe might be, especially if one will accept the possibility of a creation of a super statehood on the European Continent. Therefore, this proposal, in several steps, is suggesting one potential way of European development for the future era. 4.2.2 European outer border change First what determines a state is its territory, so if Europe, in particular the EU, should proclaim to be unified, all the perspective members should be integrated to one body. The status of countries, like Norway, Switzerland or Iceland, which preferred to stay out of EU society, is hardly possible to be changed in the future, thus is not targeted by enlargement processes. On the other hand, countries of Western Balkan, or remaining former soviet satellites, are a great opportunity for enlargement for the future. If the system would be changed according to a superstate design, it would be wise to set the outer borderer of the whole entity, so less chaos and legislative collision could be avoided. Moreover, it the suggested enlargement is not suggested to call upon Turkey to join the EU, as the country has very little in common with the European culture and territory. It really should be stressed out that the responsible authorities and designers of future superstate should bear in mind that European Continent has particular borders that should be respected.

European Trinity Model 29

4.2.2.1 Western Balkan States The region of West Balkan is a dominion, where most possible future enlargement will take place. Questioned countries are listed to be: Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo, Albania, and Macedonia. First of all, one of the hottest candidates is Croatia, as it has undergone several changes and its progress towards membership. The special requirements for this state are concerning judicial, economic, and public administration reforms that should meet the required standards of the Union (Commission of the, 2006, p.10). Moreover, the rest of the West Balkan countries made a significant advance in their perspective of joining the EU as well, however, with their own level of celerity of progress. Most important is, in these countries, to boost the level of promotion of the EP, Commission and even the whole Union among the West Balkan‟s population, which counts mainly with their national governments to take the lead. A change is necessary, especially regarding the thinking of those people, so that future EU development can take place (Commission of the, 2006, p.7-8). Remarkable are the neighbouring relations of these countries, which are impacted by several conflicts and hostilities, that represent a not a threat for the enlargement and unification, but a opportunity to overcome the iniquities of the past. 4.2.2.2 Moldova This small European state is a trickster, mainly cased by ongoing conflicting relations with Romania, a present EU member. According to information provided by the Telegraph.co.uk reporter Day, overall situation has become tenser after Moldova‟s election took place and Communist party has won the elections. Crowds rummaged the parliaments and especially presidential office. Almost immediately Moldova‟s government accused its neighbour Romania of being significantly involved in the tense situation, which turned the accusation over to Moldova for generating provocations (2009). Furthermore, and strange form of EU integration happened very soon after Romania has become a Union‟s member. Soderkoping Process, a project created by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, informed that hundreds of thousands of people applied for the Romania citizenship to able to live and work in the EU (2007). Thus, this is might be understood as a significant potential, not a threat, to the EU with its potential future alternation to a superstate, with enlarging its border. 4.2.2.3 Ukraine and Belarus Two huge countries, former soviet satellites, are another opportunity for future development of the unified European Community. Starting with Ukraine and European Trinity Model 30 announcement of its Deputy Prime Minister, Hryhoriy Nemyria, who said: “In order to create a competitive economy and a successful, prosperous society, we have chosen a path of European integration. We are aware of the complexities of the task. This is why European integration is foremost about internal reforms. By introducing European standards, we promote greater competitiveness of each Ukrainian company and the economy of Ukraine as a whole,” (EurActive, 2009). Thus maybe a slow, however, not negligible effort from the Ukrainian side arose, which could be harvested in the most positive way for the Union, and especially for its future shape. With Belarus current situation is held in the scope of potential partnership, through European Neighboring Policy, if Belarus would be possible to come closer to European values. This effort carries a level of significance not only for the Belarusian people, but also for the EU´s citizens and the whole Union as well (European Commission, n.d.d). All in all, if the transformation of these Eastern European countries would take place towards Union‟s goals, the EU, and possible future superstate would be having massive border to the Russian Federation, as there is no other country that would be between these two giants. 4.2.3 Form of government An important question should be asked when creating a superstate, thus what governmental structure the state should have. Nowadays, there are many types of governmental bodies based on various ethical, cultural, and democratic principles. Nevertheless, what would be the ideal one for an entity of such magnitude as the EU, with present 27 members who bear 27 cultures, with their 27 ethical values, and 27 democratic visions? In addition, as the enlargement polices and the overall expansion is still in process, more countries will bring their cultures to one single European community. There have been several voices, which opened a thought of European federalism. Often occasion on EU´s political scene were skirmishes, which nation state‟s fought for protecting only their interests and usually over minor issues (EurActive, 2002). And that is the problem. Although it is natural that all member states of the Union are fighting for their issues, it is not good for the development, and quick decision making. In a superstate, parliamentary federative principles would keep the level of state‟s sovereignty; however, there will be only one state, with one true government, with unified foreign representation and policies, and mostly, one European thinking. 4.2.4 Federation: Outdated Most common sense would think of the EU, in terms of its future governmental transformation, to a federative statehood. However, this only represents an umbrella European Trinity Model 31 expression for all possible forms of statehood. Usually, the term immediately evokes federal republic, or similar extension integrated by a level of ideology present in that particular state. People would usually run for federation, as a term that would express the future form of the European unified segment. Bednar (2008), an associated professor of political science at the University of Michigan, identifies 3 major separators that divide a term federation from another one, which is federalism. First is geopolitical diversification, followed by a level of independence between grouped states, and the last is the representation of direct governance of every single level of the government. The very point of federation, on the other hand, is mostly a precaution of getting the country raged by a tyranny, holding all sources of power firmly in its hands with the decentralization mechanism. But as the Bednar continues, only the decentralization does not solve everything. Federation is moreover, a constant status-quo, so to speak, as it merges, small and weak states with large and powerful. Thus it is a preventive geopolitical act of avoiding conflict or even wars between states, if there is at least something the states could build on mutual relationships. Now, if the situation in the EU should be given a closer look, the observer might quickly determine some similar features a federation has. It is grouping all the states on the old continent into one huge unified body. Moreover, the EU is quite decentralized, and strangely organized, in respect to its core institutions, which are spread out in several cities. If one would consider the most spoken phrase, from mainly politicians, when defending the very principles of the establishment of a supranational entity that formed into current shape, one would realize that it is a preventive geopolitical barrier of not getting Europe involved in a war on the European continent again. All the institutions are promoting mutual cooperation between nations, so the Europe will be unified once and for ever. There is a development in fact, as the Treaty of Lisbon has been ratified by the whole community and the change is getting the Union to a completely reformed shape. The diversification of intergovernmental bodies between several locations is not touched for know, but it is not unthinkable for the future. Europe cannot, on the other hand, be characterized as a federation. It is a legal entity, but the remarkable elements of statehood are still missing. The Parliament, despite the fact that it is composed of electives and forms legislation, in a tandem with the EC and the Council, it is still not a government. Good news is that the Union is constantly expanding towards a complete unity, clearly visible through its enlargement processes, and extension of powers for both European citizens, and the institutions, especially for the Parliament. So, the transformation can begin to a new form of Union; however, not does it exist right now, but a new version of European Trinity Model 32 union, a federal one. A Union built on federal identity that should promote both social and political diversity (Bednar, 2008). 4.2.5 Bicameral system and its modification Bicameral system is used in many advanced countries around the globe, especially in those of greater population and form of government. States based on federal system, like the (USA), are a bright example. Actually, to the comparison with the EU as a potential superstate entity, the USA is the best country to compare with, as one would hardly find federal union of EU around the globe. Both countries associate states inside their structures, although the European one are more nation based. Another very significant difference between the US federation and current EU is in language. In the US, only one official language is official, whereas in the EU, each Member State has the legitimate right to use its national official language, furthermore, this language is automatically official language of the Union. It is necessary to transform the EU, to a form where the national principle would be of minor importance, or even completely abolished. Then, the one European Government can take place with federative bicameral system. The United Nations Development Program (n.d.) classifies bicameral parliamentary system as a legislative system composed from upper and lower house, or two legislative chambers. The lower house is usually constituted according to a population proportion principle, representing particular population of a region, or state. The upper house, in contrary, might be elected directly or indirectly, or in cases of monarchies it might be inherited. It must be a strong bicameral system; however, as the one in the USA, otherwise it can turn down its potential only to a consultative role, without real power. Thus for the European superstate, a true powerful bicameral structure is needed, as the Australian Political Studies Association presents in one of its reports, there must be present a restrictive element that would hinder dangerous excesses of democracy (APSA, 2005). 4.2.5.1 European Lower House of the Parliament proposal First of all, the current system of proposing and adopting legislation is little bit complicated, with too many bodies included. Thus, the suggestion for a modification of the EP is being presented as follows. The Lower House is constituted with the nation state‟s representatives, the MEPs, elected according to the current rules of direct vote. Moreover, the MEPs, grouped in political parties or political groups or independent, would be the only entities who would be allowed to propose legislation, under certain rules of course. One should be customize to a procedural directive of minimum MEPs who are interested in developing new legislation or amending an old one, so that any potential chaos or very European Trinity Model 33 likely overload of Lower House would be prevented. In case of political groups the sequence would be much easier, as a proposal or amendment would be representing the whole group with its all MEPs. This will ensure democratization of the superstate as the MEPs arose from the will of the people of the European state. Hardly can a body, not elected by the masses, create legislation which impacts them all. That would be a manifestation of direct violation of democratic principles in a society. In order to supplement the role of the regular Prime Minister, or current President of the European Parliament, the power should be taken with a title of Chancellor General, as there are too many presidents inside the European structure, which makes it completely chaotic and difficult to understand for the general public. His power can remain the same, as for now. 4.2.5.2 European Upper House of the Parliament proposal To a contrary to current system, the Upper House needs to implement a change. The model is the bicameral system of the US Congress, mainly the status of US Senate, which is an equal partner to his legislative peer the Lower House, the House of Representatives, and thus the two chamber parliament is a tandem when adopting legislation (United Nations Development Program, n.d.). The Upper House of the future European superstate should be given to the current institution of the Council of the European Union, or Council of Ministers. In future only the Council of Ministers should be used in order to avoid any potential confusion. Moreover, it should be separated from the European Council body which is going to be modified in accordance of having an executive body for the European state. The Council of Ministers remains constituted from ministers, who shall bear title, the Minister of the Council and be assigned to the office according to the nomination by a nation state. They would remain member state‟s ambassadors to the Parliament, thus each state would have only one such Minister. Presidency, or chair, should be kept as it is now, with the term of six months renewable. Its competencies should be dominating in consultative and amending power scope with a necessity of approval legislation proposed by the Lower Chamber. 4.2.5.3 Summary In conclusion of the EU´s bicameral modification it is necessary to clearly state that the legislation is created only through the MEPs, and adopted with further consent of Upper House, the Council of Ministers. The role of European Commission as a major actor of legislation creation is thus abolished. The role of the Commission is modified in a separate part of this document located in the third part.

European Trinity Model 34

4.2.6 The President and the executive branch of European state First of all, a statute of the President of the European Federation, or its federative equivalent, is being established. The role of the President, is suggested to be mainly representative, with a signatory rights. S/he should be elected according to his or hers professional experience and diplomatic abilities. In addition, qualities in leadership, charismatic appearance, with an emphasis to public popularity should be a crucial requirement for such person. Moreover, the President should be approved by all nation state‟s and should be put into office for a term of two and half years renewable, with possible future extension to five years. The shortened period at the beginning should be implemented in order to test the reactions of the public and the overall efficiency of this statue in regular political operations. Later on, only the five year term should be used for this office. Next, the executive branch is given a suggestion to be formed from current European Council, completely separated from the Council of Ministers. The President would be assigned to be a chairman of the EC, and the Cabinet, co to speak, would consist of all leaders of the member states. Moreover, a High Representative or Emissary of the Council, representing the superstate in the field of international affairs should be appointed. The executive cabinet would host the representative of the European Commission, now fully reorganized institution, and a representative of EDA as newly reformed representative of European defence structures, or common military of the state. 4.2.7 Judicial branch The Judicial power of the European federal union would mainly derive all the structural foundations from the current ECJ. This would be completely realized as the supreme court of the whole legal entity. Future potential could be extended by one subsidiary court off the ECJ, a body that would handle cases from the citizens of the state, as a form of dispute solving mechanism that would solve charges pressed by the particular citizen or group of citizens among one of the European institutions. This could, of course, occur only if other legal forms of complaint would fail to solve the case. This body, after studying the case could either acknowledge the charge and execute consequences or reject the case for good. Moreover, it is highly recommended for ECJ to established tighter relations and mutual cooperation with the European Commission, mainly in the field of internal control and audit.

European Trinity Model 35

4.3 NEW SHAPE 4.3.1 Impact on other institutions The Trinity Model proposal definitely changes the EU as we know it. Some changes were already implemented in the direct proposal‟s suggestions. However, more institutions still need to be changed in order to draw a first perspective of possible European future development. 4.3.2.1 Change to the statue of the Commission First and one of the most significant impacts of the new proposal is the removal of EC from the legislation developing process. Rather than having a complicated structure that creates legislation with too many entities, the EC would have been of better use when being completely oriented onto European administration. Thus the EC would reform itself from a hybrid to a general manager of the state. The change is major only in removed power of creating and managing legislation; all other functions were kept either in its original form or were slightly modified: Supervising and evaluative function: not only is the Commission privileged, but also is being forced by duty, to continue with rising postures on all European issues. Moreover, annual reporting is expected to be discussed within the central executive institution, the European Council. Auditory function: all the European laws need to be respected. Thus, a body needs to fullfill this task. “The Commission – along with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) – is also charged with ensuring that EU law is applied rigorously and uniformly throughout the member states,” (Hooghe & Nugent, 2006). Negotiating and representative function: not only development, transport, environment, competition and foreign polices, but also international representation, especially regarding trade are kept and promoted within this institution (Hooghe & Nugent, 2006) Advisory function: a new proposed function for the Commission, in respect to the changes related to legislative process. The Commission should be privileged to advise some policies, regarding particular struggling issues, or those innovative ones, to the Parliament for consideration. Although Parliament is not bound to accept the advice, it is an extra opinion on some cases which could lead to better future for the whole Europe. European Trinity Model 36

The reformative process has already begun with the Treaty of Lisbon, where Commission, although kept as major player, has been reduced in regards to number of Commissioners. From 2014 the Commission will be reduced under the rule of two thirds, this means that the number of Commissioners will represent two thirds of all members states (Foundation Robert Schuman, 2007). 4.3.2.2 Change to the statute of the EDA A sovereign state needs a defence force to defend its sovereignty. For now, the European Defence Agency played only a minor rule inside the security, but the development is on the move and more and more steps are headed towards single European army. New concept of closer synchronization of European armed forces has been given birth on January 21, 2009, at the EP´s Committee on Foreign Affairs ground, with the approval of wide majority. The document is already incorporated inside the ESDP (European Security Foundation, n.d.). The European Security Foundation continues, and clearly explains that SAFE “is based on voluntary participation (opt-in model) and is intended to lead to the synchronisation of European armed forces,” (n.d.). Moreover, dynamic development, cooperation between national armed forces, sharing of military capabilities, are just some specifications of the SAFE model, which promotes the idea of opening military careers in national militaries for citizens of all the Europe. However, from all these, most important is that under the SAFE initiative, Eurocorps are being established over the Union (European Security Foundation, n.d.). Thus, one can really classify this effort to build European Army right now. Therefore, regarding the Trinity Model proposal, the future European State definitely needs an armed guardian that will keep Europe safe from any external or internal aggressor. All the army needs to be managed by a single entity, thus the EDA is suggested to transform to a unified military command entity of the whole state. One single army, relocated throughout the nation states, with one single command strategically distributed to all regions, and all areas of interest, and especially an army freed from US influence shared by the involvement of EU countries in NATO. Thus, for future, the EDA could be understood as a, so called, Department of Defense of the European State, federative or its equivalent. 4.3.2.3 Change to the statute of EUROPOL Another security issue needs to be classified and clarified, the function of EUROPOL, inside the proposed European superstate. External defence would be managed by the EDA; however, internal one needs much more development. Again, an example is being taken from the USA, where the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is mandated to European Trinity Model 37 be a federal police, which mission is “[t]o protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners,” (FBI, n.d.). Present EUROPOL uses only a fraction of its potential. Gathering criminal intelligence and cooperation management between law enforcement agencies serves community without a doubt, however, for a superstate there must be something done in order to have an effective weapon against the criminal elements and threats to the state. Thus, the proposal for amendment of the status of EUROPOL, with the respect to the Trinity Model proposal is to significantly extend the jurisdiction and powers of this organization. Major proposal is to give the EUROPOL a status of a federal police agency. Thus, the power to arrest suspects according to arrest warrants of local, regional, or national authorities would be the most significant one. National law enforcement agencies would still keep their sovereignty; however, on high profile incidents or criminals, EUROPOL will be authorized to take the lead. The direct sphere of influence, regarding criminal deed not listed in current mandate should involve: Fraud White collar crime Weapons of mass destruction Violent crime Resources and legal authorization of sizeable magnitude should be the right choice for EUROPOL, as the European elite law enforcement force. 4.3.2 Potential benefits for Slovakia Those who disagree with the European superstate proposal usually adhere on old fashioned nationalism or dislike central governed Europe from Brussels (Dervis, 2004). On the other hand, the benefits for such mutual cooperation of all Europeans merged to one state are numerous, especially for Slovakia, a small country within the hearth of Europe. First of all with literally no internal borders, not even those emotional based that resulted to serious interstate conflicts, there would not be any need for nationalism. Extremist national parties and groups are believed to either misuse current economic crisis, or misuse the threat of endangering Slovakian sovereignty with influence of neighboring countries. Thus, inside a superstate, there would not be any neighboring state, only a region or districts, which would be anyway, one single sovereign state. Moreover, as already mentioned, European Trinity Model 38

Slovakia is fully enjoying the EU membership and its strong currency, however, the currency is still not used by all member states, not speaking of the rest of the European countries outside EU. Therefore, after overall unification, a regular Slovak citizen can use one currency around the whole Europe up to Russian and Turkish border. This has a significant impact on overall economy, and in final, on the overall wellbeing as well. One must realize that Slovakia lies in the middle of Europe, and represents a crossroads within the Central European Region. 4.3.3 Potential threats for Slovakia Nothing is perfect, and some disadvantages might occur for Slovakia as well. It is good to fight the nationalism with a humble thought of unity; however, it is necessary to remain the cultural identity. With a state of such magnitude, it would take some time to make things right, and Slovakia could be facing, mainly because of its minor population and territory, lack of contributive power when afflicting European issues. For the time, the whole machinery would get rid off setbacks, the larger and more dominant states might abuse their position and dictate rules and polices which would not be in the best interest for the small republic. However, the path to success is long and wretched, thus one must undergo an unpopular decision in order to get the reward which awaits him at the end of his journey.

European Trinity Model 39

5. Discussion, Conclusion, Recommendations In the post-world war II Europe, what was given a birth in the founding documents, has become a grown entity, a transformed Community, a one single Union at the end of the century. The EU is at present a home to 27 nations, who are expecting new members to come and join one European family. For the overall efficiency, however, the EU developed the fundamental institutions, which are in charge of the supranational entity. The present highest political institution is the European Council, which has been given, according to Schoutheete (2006), specific prerogatives to develop strategic, decision-making, foreign policies, to ensure coordination procedures, and to amend and revise the treaties. Schoutheete, continues with identifying its partial chamber, the Council of European Union, as a peer entity of the European Parliament, a massive legislative mechanism. However, true leader in the dominium of legislation development is being given to the Commission, a hybrid political entity, as Peterson (2006) explains, that does the most of the managerial supervision of the whole Union. That is executed with a tandem help of the ECJ, the highest judicial authority in the EU. However, the distribution of power was discussed a lot for the past few years. In order to develop the huge machinery to a greater and effective democracy a Lisbon Treaty has become the transformative element, at least in opinion of the Foundation Robert Schuman (2007), a non-governmental foundation built in respect to one of the, so called, founding fathers of the EU. Nevertheless, Coughan (2009), after few days the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, it does manifests a revolution of once deemed Constitutional Treaty, thus a constitution for the European supranational union, that more and more appears to be a growing superstate. Coughan, pointed out the form of transformed EU as of federative origin, which was found to be quite outdated and not truly efficient by Bendar (2008), an expert in the field of political science, who promoted more a federal union based on a federal identity that would really represent the true democratic values. Thus, the proposed European Trinity Model, is not only using the innovative federative thoughts, but also creates its own version of distribution of power. Bicameral parliament, ECJ remaining for judicial field, and the European Council divided from confusing tandem with Council of Ministers. As in fact, many hierarchical aspects of reformed institutions have been changed or modified, in order to avoid current confusion, which is caused by the multiplicity of especially leading offices inside current European structure. Moreover, the EDA is being given much more operative power as it proposed to be the forerunner of the future department of defence for the European superstate, as for know, it is merging European militaries under the SAFE initiative to one common European Trinity Model 40

Eurocorps (European Security Foundation, n.d.). Similar expansion of the EUROPOL jurisdiction has been suggested, in order to fill the gap in current operations and move the institution to a supreme police guardian of the upcoming European superstate.

Furthermore, it is essential, especially regarding potential disadvantage mainly for smaller European countries, like Slovakia, to prepare a detailed research structure according to the most recent information on their policies, political and global potential, so that they will not lose their own identity within the federal system. Next, it is highly suggested to expand the Trinity Model Proposal with modification of legislative creation procedures, so the proposed bicameral implementations would be completed, and thus the whole legislative segment would be ready for application. Judicial branch of newly suggested distribution of power is at a status-quo at present, thus a further modification with complete structural listing would harvest all the potential of this legal entity.

European Trinity Model 41

Library Release

EUROPEAN TRINITY MODEL

I, Lukáš Arbet, do hereby irrevocably consent to and authorize the library of Vysoká škola manažmentu v Trenčíne to file the attached project and/or bachelor thesis (EUROPEAN TRINITY MODEL) and make such paper available for in-library use in all site locations. For public access to digital form of the project/bachelor thesis on internet I give my permission I do not give my permission I state at this time that the contents of this paper are my own work and all resources used are indicated.

______(Signature)

______(Date)

European Trinity Model 42

List of Tables/ Figures Figure 1…………………………………………………………………………………… 10

Table 1……………………………………………………………………………………. 14

Figure 2…………………………………………………………………………………… 20

European Trinity Model 43

Literature

APSA. (2005). The People’s Deliberative Assembly: Towards strong bicameralism in a parliamentary system of government. Retrieved, December 4, 2009, from APSA webpage: http://auspsa.anu.edu.au/proceedings/publications/Gollop.pdf Bednar, J. (2008, December 28). An Identity-Based Theory of Federalism. Retrieved, December 3, 2009, from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jbednar/WIP/ identityessay.pdf Council of Europe. (n.d.). Key dates. Retrieved November 21, 2009, from http://www.coe.int/aboutCoe/index.asp?page=datesCles&l=en Cienski, J. (2008, July 23). FT REPORT - SLOVAKIA 2008: The tiger that beat the odds. Retrieved November 23, 2009, from Slovak British Business Council‟s web site: http://www.sbbc.org.uk/node/710 CIVITAS. (2007, September 19). Treaty of Amsterdam. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSTREAT/TR4.htm CIVITAS. (2009, November 20). Lawmaking and Legislative Processes. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/OS/OS2.htm Commission of the European Communities. (2006, November 8). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council. Retrieved November 30, 2009, http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2006/nov/ com_649_strategy_paper_en.pdf Commission of the European Communities. (2007, May 30). Governance Statement of the European Commission. Retrieved November 25, 2009, from http://ec.europa.eu/ atwork/synthesis/doc/governance_statement_en.pdf Coughlan, A. (2009, December 1). [Comment] Lisbon - A constitutional revolution by stealth? Retrieved November 22, 2009, http://euobserver.com/7/29058 Court of Justice of the European Communities. (n.d.a). General Presentation. Retrieved November 28, 2009, from http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_6999/ Court of Justice of the European Communities. (n.d.b). Court of Justice. Presentation. Retrieved November 28, 2009, from http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/T5_5120/ Court of Justice of the European Communities. (n.d.c). Court of First Instance. Presentation. Retrieved November 28, 2009, http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/ T5_5121/ Court of Justice of the European Communities. (n.d.d). Civil Service Tribunal. European Trinity Model 44

Presentation. Retrieved November 28, 2009, from http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/ T5_5230/ Day, M. (2009, April 8). Moldova accuses Romania of „attempted coup‟. Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved November 23, 2009, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/5125563/ Moldova-accuses-Romania-of-attempted-coup.html Dervis, K. (2004, October 2004). Visions of Europe. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from EurActvie webpage: http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/visions- europe/article-131645 Economics Help. (n.d.). Benefits of EURO. Retrieved November 23, 2009, from http://www.economicshelp.org/europe/benefits-euro.html El-Agraa, M. A. (2004). The European Union: Economics & Policies (7thed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. EURAC research. (2004, May 29). A short history of the European Union. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://www.eurac.edu/Focus/EUEnlargement/ historyEU.htm EurActive (2002, September 19). What future for federalism?. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/future-federalism/article-110139 EurActive. (2009, July 30). Ukraine deputy PM: 'We chose a realistic path to EU integration'. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from http://www.euractiv.com/en/ foreign-affairs/ukraine-deputy-pm-chose-realistic-path-eu-integration/article- 184534 Europa. (n.d.a). The history of European Union. Retrieved November 21, 2009, from http://europa.eu/abc/history/index_en.htm Europa. (n.d.b). Treaty of Maastricht on European Union. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/economic_and_monetary_affairs/ institutional_and_economic_framework/treaties_maastricht_en.htm Europa. (n.d.c). The Schengen area and cooperation. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/ free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/l33020_en.htm Europa. (n.d.d). Treaty of Nice: A Comprehensive Guide. Introduction. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/ institutional_affairs/treaties/nice_treaty/nice_treaty_introduction_en.htm Europa. (n.d.f). European Union Institutions and other bodies. EU institutions and other bodies. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from http://europa.eu/institutions/ European Trinity Model 45

index_en.htm Europa. (n.d.g). European Union Institutions and other bodies. The Council of the European Union. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from http://europa.eu/institutions/ inst/council/index_en.htm Europa. (n.d.h). European Union Institutions and other bodies. The European Commission. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from http://europa.eu/institutions/inst/ comm/index_en.htm Europa. (n.d.i). The Treaty at a glance. Retrieved May 26, 2009, from http://europa.eu/

lisbon_treaty/glance/index_en.htm

European Commission. (n.d.a). The Euro. Retrieved November 23, 2009, from http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/the_euro/index_en.htm?cs_mid=2946 European Commission. (n.d.b). Enlargement. November 23, 2009, from http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/index_en.htm European Commission. (n.d.d). Bealrus. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from http:// ec.europa.eu/external_relations/belarus/index_en.htm European Defence Agency. (n.d.a). Bacground. Retrieved November 28, 2009, from http://www.eda.europa.eu/genericitem.aspx?area=Background&id=122 European Defence Agency. (n.d.b). Research and Technology. Retrieved November 28, 2009, http://www.eda.europa.eu/genericitem.aspx?area=Organisation&id=117 European Parliament. (2008, February 20). Treaty of Lisbon. Retrieved November 25, 2009, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP// TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2008-0055+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN European Parliament. (n.d.a). The President´s role. Retrieved November 25, 2009, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/ staticDisplay.do?id=45&pageRank=2&language=EN European Parliament. (n.d.b). Memebrs. Retrieved November 25, 2009, from http:// www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=45&pageRank=3& language=EN European Parliament. (n.d.c). Parliamentary Committees. Retrieved November 25, 2009, from http:// http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do? id=45&pageRank=5&language=EN European Parliament. (n.d.d). Committees. Retrieved November 25, 2009, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/committeesList.do? European Trinity Model 46

language=EN European Parliament. (n.d.e). Delegations. Retrieved November 25, 2009, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do? id=45&pageRank=6&language=EN European Parliament. (n.d.f). Procedures. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/expert/staticDisplay.do?language=EN&i d=55 European Parliament. (n.d.g). Codecision procedure. Retrieved December 3, 2009, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=46&pageRan k=4 European Parliament Office in Ireland. (n.d). Structure. Retrieved November 25, 2009, from http://www.europarl.ie/abouteu_str.html European Security Foudnation. (n.d.). Synchronized Armed Forces Europe. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from http://www.europeansecurityfoundation.eu/safe.html EUROPOL. (n.d.a). Director´s introduction. Retrieved November 28, 2009, from http://www.europol.europa.eu/index.asp?page=introduction EUROPOL. (n.d.b). Fact sheet on Europol. Retrieved November 28, 2009, from http://www.europol.europa.eu/index.asp?page=facts Foundation Robert Schuman. (2007, December). The Lisbon Treaty. 10 easy-to-read fact sheets. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://www.robert- schuman.eu/doc/divers/lisbonne/en/10fiches.pdf FBI. (n.d.). About Us—Quick Facts. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from http:// www.fbi.gov/quickfacts.htm Hooghe, L. & Nugent, N. (2006). In J.Peterson & M.Shackleton (Eds.), The Institutions of the European Union (pp. 148-168). New York, USA: Oxford University Press Inc. Kennedy, T. (2006). The European Court of Justice. In J.Peterson & M.Shackleton (Eds.), The Institutions of the European Union (pp. 125-143). New York, USA: Oxford University Press Inc. Miller,V. (2009, March 26). European Parliament Political Groups. Retrieved November 25, 2009, from http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/ SNIA-05031.pdf Nations Online. (n.d). Small Map of the States of Europe. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/ European Trinity Model 47

Peterson, J. (2006). The College of Commissioners. In J.Peterson & M.Shackleton (Eds.), The Institutions of the European Union (pp. 80-102). New York, USA: Oxford University Press Inc. Peterson, J & Shackleton, M. (2006). The EU´s Institutions. In J.Peterson & M.Shackleton (Eds.), The Institutions of the European Union (pp. 12). New York, USA: Oxford University Press Inc. Politics.co.uk. (2008, March 18). European single market. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://www.politics.co.uk/briefings-guides/issue-briefs/foreign-policy/ european-single-market-$366685.htm Ratzel, P. M. (2008, October 9). Europol tasks – present and future. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://www.europol.europa.eu/Docs/JSB10thAnniversary ConferenceinBrussels9October2008.pdf Renshaw-Hayes, F. (2006). The Council of Ministers. In J.Peterson & M.Shackleton (Eds.), The Institutions of the European Union (pp. 37-49). New York, USA: Oxford University Press Inc. Schoutheete, P. (2006). The European Council. In J.Peterson & M.Shackleton (Eds.), The Institutions of the European Union (pp. 37-49). New York, USA: Oxford University Press Inc. Shackleton, M. (2006). The European Parliament. In J.Peterson & M.Shackleton (Eds.), The Institutions of the European Union (pp. 104-124). New York, USA: Oxford University Press Inc. Slovak-republic.org. (n.d.). European Union. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://www.slovak-republic.org/eu/ Soderkoping Process. (2007, February 1). Moldovan Citizens Apply Massively for Romanian Citizenship. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http:// soderkoping.org.ua/page12345.html United Nations Development Programme. (n.d.). Legislative Chambers: Unicameral or Bicameral?. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from UNDP website: http:// www.undp.org/governance/docs/Parl-Pub-chambers.htm