DOCSLIB.ORG

The Community Method and the European Commission As Agenda Setter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Community Method and the European Commission As Agenda Setter The Community Method and the European Commission as Agenda Setter Maria Amélia Valle-Flor Research Paper submitted to the Development Studies Research Seminar Spring 2012 16th April 2012 PDED-WP03/2012 ISEG/UTL, Doutoramento em Estudos de Desenvolvimento PhD in Development Studies THE COMMUNITY METHOD AND THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AS AGENDA- SETTER Abstract Although the Community method is still the main decision-making procedure in the European Union, the European Commission´s monopoly power to initiate legislation has been sidelined. The Commission is no longer the main political initiator of the integration process as this role, in practice, has been largely taken over by the European Council. The aim of this working paper is to analyze the evolving nature of the European Commission in the decision-making process and its role as agenda-setter. Introduction The “Community method” describes a decision-making procedure that assigns particular roles to the European institutions and involves a particular kind of interaction between them. Corbett (2011) refers to the essence of the Community method as the interplay of an institution- the European Commission- charged with identifying the common interest and one composed of representatives of national governments- the European Council and the Council. In the absence of a precise definition of the concept1, the main elements of the Community method may be summarized as follows2: The sole right of the European Commission to initiate legislation; The co-decision power between the Council and the European Parliament; 1 The role for the institutions under the Community Method is summarized by the European Commission as: “The European Commission alone makes legislative and policy proposals; legislative and budgetary acts are adopted by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament; and the European Court of Justice guarantees respect for the rule of law”(European Commission 2001). 2 This terminology was developed in the pre-Lisbon Treaty to distinguish the decision-making process in the then “first pillar” from that of in the “second and third pillar”. The Intergovernmental method refers to a decision making that lies outside the statutory approach provided for in the Treaty. It is being used as a more assertive political approach, namely by the European Council and the Council. A process, that alike the Community Method, refers to decisions taken by unanimity and where the European Parliament has a weaker role. 1 The use of qualified majority voting in the Council. According to Missiroli (2011) this template came to epitomize a form of “supranational” policy-making in which powers were transferred from the national to the EU level. The Treaty of Lisbon envisages the application of the ordinary legislative procedure (namely the aforementioned Community method) for all areas coming under EU competence. Over time, and over successive treaties, there has been a shift in favor of the more supranational procedures3. These reforms led to a reshuffle of power, either through the transfer of more competences to the EU level or through altered decision- making procedures at the EU level (Biesenbender 2011). Also the legislative decision- making, namely the co-decision procedure, has had a direct effect on the power of legislative initiative by the Commission and on how the Commission exercises that power. This working paper investigates the alleged limitations of the Community method, of which the Commission´s monopoly over legislative initiative, namely its role as agenda setter, is such a crucial element. In part 1 the evolution of legislative decision making in the EU is discussed. Drawing upon the rational model on agenda setting, the Commission´s role in initiating and preparing policy is presented in part 2. In part 3 the Commission´s positioning since the outbreak of the European sovereign debt crisis is briefly examined. This working paper attempts to determine whether the prerogatives of the Commission´s power of legislative initiative has been weakened in the past Treaty reforms and also since the wakening up of the European sovereign debt crisis. 1. Decision Making in the EU and the European Commission´s Power of Initiative The Treaties assign to the European Commission three main tasks, in order to pursue the general interest of the Community: 3 Garrett (1995) considers the EU´s legal system as the “clearest manifestation of burgeoning supranationalism”, as European law has “direct effect” in national jurisdictions. 2 1- the quasi-exclusive monopoly on legislative initiative, considered the core element of the Community method; 2- a role of “guardian of the treaties” aiming to ensure the enforcement of the Treaties and secondary legislation; 3- implementing legislation through the adoption of executive measures. Besides the Commission´s power of initiative, it also enjoys the formal powers to amend and withdraw proposals4. The power to amend is enshrined in the Treaties: “as long as the Council has not acted, the Commission may alter its proposal at any time during the procedures leading to the adoption of a Union act” (art 293 (2) TFEU) There is a broad consensus in the literature that the Commission´s formal and informal influence has declined by the introduction of the co-decision procedure- renamed ordinary legislative procedure- by the Treaty of Lisbon (art 294 TFEU) (Burns 2004, Ponzano et al 2012). To understand this fact it is important to revisit briefly the Commission´s evolving legislative role. The Treaty of Rome envisaged just one legislative procedure, the consultation procedure, according to which the European Parliament (EP) is only asked for a non- binding opinion and the Council is not obliged to take account of the European Parliament’s amendments5 (art 289 TFEU). According to this procedure, the decision- making process lies with the Commission, as initiator of the legislative process, and the Council, as the legislator of the Community system. The cooperation procedure established by the Single European Act of 1986 called for an initial legislative dialogue between the European Parliament and the Council and was the first step towards a modification of the inter-institutional dialogue. Under this procedure the Commission could see its proposal adopted by a qualified majority in the Council in order to secure its preferred outcome. The European Parliament had the power to propose amendments to the common position adopted by the Council. These amendments, if accepted by the Commission- then becoming part of the Commission´s 4 The Treaty sets out the limits for a proposal´s withdraw. The Commission´s last “political withdrawal” happened in 1994 (Ponzano et al 2012). 5 The European Parliament’s opinions were often not even read (Costa et al 2011, Burns 2004). 3 amended proposal- could be adopted by the Council by qualified majority voting, but rejected only by unanimity6. This procedure enabled the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to demonstrate their ability to play a constructive role in the decisional process (Costa et al 2011, Pollack 1999). The co-decision procedure was introduced by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 and subsequently modified by the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997. Co-decision procedures are applied on almost 90% of all legislation (Kapoor 2011). 1.1 The co-decision procedure The positive experience of the cooperation procedure convinced the Member States’ representatives to agree to include in the Treaty of Maastricht (1992) the co-decision procedure which implies that the adoption of legislative acts is possible solely with the agreement of both the European Parliament and the Council (Costa et al 2011). The quasi-exclusive right of initiative7 conferred on the Commission by the Treaty drafters, lied on the fact that its legislative proposals would be based on the general interest of the Community. “The Commission represents the general interest and is equipped with the monopoly of initiate and powers to oversee implementation; Member States voice particular interests through their role as legislators in the Council and implementers of EU policy (…) one consequence is that decision making should protect smaller Member States against the dominance of one or several large Member States by giving the Commission the monopoly of initiative and by over representing smaller states in decision making” (Haas 1958:526-7). As Ponzano et al (2012) point out this is the main reason why the European Parliament, where the smaller Member States were not sufficiently represented to defend their interests, was not conceived as the initiator of the legislative process. The 6 The cooperation procedure was repealed by the Treaty of Lisbon. 7 These rights were conferred by the Treaty of Rome, which already provided some limited exceptions, regarding: customs duties, air and sea transports and statistics. These domains could be regulated at the initiative of a Single Member State. The Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty provided new exceptions, namely those regarding the former second and third pillars. In these areas, both the European Commission and each Member State could submit proposals to the Council of Ministers. 4 authors refer also to the fact that the insertion of the co-decision procedure was a way to reply to the longstanding debate over the democratic deficit in the European Union: political outputs should be congruent with democratic inputs, meaning people affected by a policy should have a say in its formulation (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni et al 2006). While Liberal Intergovernmentalists like Moravcsik considered that, in the context of a multi- level system, “there is little evidence that the EU suffers from a fundamental democratic deficit” and that political authority should remain with the EU Member States (Moravcsik 2002), Pro-integrationists hold that one possible solution to the democratic deficit encompasses enhancing the powers of the European Parliament. In fact, through the introduction of co-decision, the European Parliament was given a role equal to that of the Council of Ministers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Explaining the Treaty of Amsterdam: Interests, Influence, Institutions*
    Journal of Common Market Studies Vol. 37, No. 1 March 1999 pp. 59–85 Explaining the Treaty of Amsterdam: Interests, Influence, Institutions* ANDREW MORAVCSIK and KALYPSO NICOLAÏDIS Harvard University Abstract This article offers a basic explanation of the process and outcome of negotiat- ing the Treaty of Amsterdam. We pose three questions: What explains the national preferences of the major governments? Given those substantive national preferences, what explains bargaining outcomes among them? Given those substantive bargains, what explains the choice of international institu- tions to implement them? We argue in favour of an explanation based on three elements. Issue-specific interdependence explains national preferences. Inter- state bargaining based on asymmetrical interdependence explains the out- comes of substantive negotiation. The need for credible commitments explains institutional choices to pool and delegate sovereignty. Other oft-cited factors – European ideology, supranational entrepreneurship, technocratic consider- ations, or the random flux and non-rational processes of ‘garbage can’ decision-making – play secondary roles. Remaining areas of ambiguity are flagged for future research. * We would like to thank Simon Bulmer, Noreen Burrows, Stanley Crossick, Richard Corbett, Franklin Dehousse, Youri Devuyst, Geoffrey Edwards, Nigel Evans, Stephen George, Simon Hix, Karl Johansson, Nikos Kotzias, Sonia Mazey, John Peterson, Constantino Papadopoulos, Michel Petite, Eric Philippart, Jeremy Richardson, Brendon Smith, Alexander Stubb, Helen Wallace, William Wallace, Alison Weston and Neil Winn for assistance and conversations. In the current version we have cited only essential sources, for example those underlying direct quotations. An extended version can be found in Moravcsik and Nicolaïdis (forthcoming). © Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA 60 ANDREW MORAVCSIK AND KALYPSO NICOLAÏDIS I.
    [Show full text]
  • The Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties
    THE MAASTRICHT AND AMSTERDAM TREATIES The Maastricht Treaty altered the former European treaties and created a European Union based on three pillars: the European Communities, the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs (JHI). With a view to the enlargement of the Union, the Amsterdam Treaty made the adjustments needed to enable the Union to function more efficiently and democratically. I. THE MAASTRICHT TREATY The Treaty on European Union, signed in Maastricht on 7 February 1992, entered into force on 1 November 1993. A. The Union’s structures By instituting a European Union, the Maastricht Treaty marked a new step in the process of creating an ‘ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe’. The Union was based on the European Communities (1.1.1 and 1.1.2) and supported by policies and forms of cooperation provided for in the Treaty on European Union. It had a single institutional structure, consisting of the Council, the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors which (being at the time strictly speaking the only EU institutions) exercised their powers in accordance with the Treaties. The Treaty established an Economic and Social Committee and a Committee of the Regions, which both had advisory powers. A European System of Central Banks and a European Central Bank were set up under the provisions of the Treaty in addition to the existing financial institutions in the EIB group, namely the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund. B. The Union’s powers The Union created by the Maastricht Treaty was given certain powers by the Treaty, which were classified into three groups and were commonly referred to as ‘pillars’: The first ‘pillar’ consisted of the European Communities, providing a framework within which the powers for which sovereignty had been transferred by the Member States in the areas governed by the Treaty were exercised by the Community institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Groningen the Death of the 'Community Method' ... and the Immediate Future of the EU Voogsgeerd, Herman
    University of Groningen The Death of the 'Community Method' ... and the Immediate Future of the EU Voogsgeerd, Herman Published in: Studies in Euroculture, Volume 4 IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2018 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Voogsgeerd, H. (2018). The Death of the 'Community Method' ... and the Immediate Future of the EU. In K. Czerska-Shaw, M. Galent, & B. Gierat-Bieroń (Eds.), Studies in Euroculture, Volume 4: Visions and Revisions of Europe (Vol. 4, pp. 25-37). (Studies in Euroculture; Vol. 4). Universitätsverlag Göttingen. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 27-09-2021 The death of the ‘Community method’ …and the immediate future of the EU Herman Voogsgeerd. 1. Introduction The so-called Community method has been very successful in the first five decades of existence of the EEC/EC/EU.
    [Show full text]
  • Interview with Catherine Lalumière: the Community Method and the Intergovernmental Method (Paris, 17 May 2006)
    Interview with Catherine Lalumière: the Community method and the intergovernmental method (Paris, 17 May 2006) Source: Interview de Catherine Lalumière / CATHERINE LALUMIÈRE, Étienne Deschamps, prise de vue : François Fabert.- Paris: CVCE [Prod.], 17.05.2006. CVCE, Sanem. - VIDEO (00:07:44, Couleur, Son original). Copyright: (c) Translation CVCE.EU by UNI.LU All rights of reproduction, of public communication, of adaptation, of distribution or of dissemination via Internet, internal network or any other means are strictly reserved in all countries. Consult the legal notice and the terms and conditions of use regarding this site. URL: http://www.cvce.eu/obj/interview_with_catherine_lalumiere_the_community_metho d_and_the_intergovernmental_method_paris_17_may_2006-en-03c2cccc-6e0b- 44a6-8e48-46ffbc02819c.html Last updated: 05/07/2016 1/3 Interview with Catherine Lalumière: the Community method and the intergovernmental method (Paris, 17 May 2006) [Étienne Deschamps] You have remarked how certain political leaders, from various countries, among whom you include General de Gaulle, considered rightly or wrongly that the Council of Europe was somewhat lethargic, a bit sleepy. You have worked in both Community structures and — I am thinking of the Council of Europe here — intergovernmental structures. [Catherine Lalumière] Yes, that is the epitome of an intergovernmental organisation. [Étienne Deschamps] Now that you can afford to be objective, what is your opinion of these two working methods and of the results achieved by these two political philosophies? [Catherine Lalumière] Yes. It is true that the principles underlying the intergovernmental method and the principles underlying the Community method are quite different. In the first instance, it is really the States that agree on a decision or on a text.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Method and Intergovernmental Method in the Present Phase of the European Union
    Ugo Villani Community Method and Intergovernmental Method in the Present Phase of the European Union The originality of the European Communities (as well as of the European Union), compared with traditional international organizations, implies a different method of operation, that is generally named ‘community method’. While in the intergovernmental method of classical organizations the decision-making belongs to governmental organs, such as a Council or a General Assembly, and there is no representation of the peoples of member States, in the ‘pure’ community method it is a supranational institution – the Commission – that has the power to present a proposal for a binding act, the decision-making is shared between the European Parliament (that represents the citizens of the Union) and the Council, and the control on the respect of law is secured by the Court of Justice. The community method and the intergovernmental method have always coexisted in the history of European integration. Yet, in recent years, on the occasion of the financial and economic crisis of the European Union, of the migration crisis, as well as of Brexit, the balance between the two methods has shifted in favour of the intergovernmental method. This has often given rise to departing from the procedures, the competences, the democratic and judicial controls of the European Union order. Paolo Fois The ‘Flexible Europe’ and the Consent of the Member States The various studies that over the years have been dedicated to the ‘flexibility’ of European Law have often overlooked the relevant aspect of consent that member states have variously given, either in advance or in retrospect, by gradually assenting to a system of differentiated rules among the member states.
    [Show full text]
  • The Commission, the "Community Method," and the Smaller Member States
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 29, Issue 5 2005 Article 4 The Commission, the “Community Method,” and the Smaller Member States John Temple Lang∗ Eamonn Gallaghery ∗ y Copyright c 2005 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj The Commission, the “Community Method,” and the Smaller Member States John Temple Lang and Eamonn Gallagher Abstract This Article discusses several developments concerning the position of the Commission in the institutional structures of the European Union (”EU”) that have occurred since then. It does not touch on the many other matters that influenced the debate on the draft Constitutional Treaty, lead- ing to its failure at referendum in France and the Netherlands; these matters include the scope of the draft Treaty, questions concerning its economic, social, and political benefits or disadvantages, the working of the Stability Pact in the Eurozone and the ongoing debate on freedom of services legislation, the purposes for which the EU was originally created and their modification, further enlargement of the EU, and so on. These subjects require separate treatment. THE COMMISSION, THE "COMMUNITY METHOD," AND THE SMALLER MEMBER STATES John Temple Lang* & Eamonn Gallagher* The Institute of European Affairs in Dublin published in 1995 Occasional Paper 7 by the present authors, entitled The Role of the Commission and Qualified Majority Voting, which explained that the European Commission was designed on the basis of me- diation theory, specifically to provide a safeguard for the inter- ests of minorities that might be harmed by qualified majority vot- ing on new policy measures.' The Commission has been given various other tasks, but this is the most important one since it concerns new measures that the Member States have not previ- ously accepted.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dilution of the Community Method and the Diversification of Intergovernmental Practices
    THE DILUTION OF THE COMMUNITY METHOD AND THE DIVERSIFICATION OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL PRACTICES Delphine Dero-Bugny Université Paris Descartes The strengthening of the European Council and the multiplication of inter- national agreements between the Member States seems to be undermining the Community method. However, the diversification of intergovernmental prac- tices within the European Union need not lead to calling the Community method into question. Intergovernmental methods are often used for only a temporary period, after which the areas concerned generally wind up inte- grating the Community method. The Intergovernmental is thus not necessarily opposed to the Community. It may even strengthen the Community method. The development and diversification of intergovernmental methods does, however, reveal a need to bring the Community method up to date. This involves rethinking the role of the European Council and integrating emer- gency procedures in order to be able to respond quickly in case of a crisis. Since European integration got underway, the Community method has demonstrated its efficiency and its capacity to adapt to changes in the Community and subsequently in the European Union. The current context, which has in particular seen a stronger role for the European Council and its President as well as the conclusion of international agreements between the Member States outside the EU and within the EU, seems to be challenging this method, which appeared unable to provide a quick response to the problems posed by the current crisis. There is a debate today about the need to replace this method with a new method that would accord more prominence to inter- Revue de l’OFCE / Debates and policies – 134 (2014) 62 Delphine Dero-Bugny governmental practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Seminar on the Community Method Elements of Synthesis
    Seminar on the Community Method Elements of Synthesis Yves BERTONCINI and Valentin KREILINGER with contributions from José Manuel BARROSO, Jacques DELORS and António VITORINO Synthesis Brussels February 2012 NE/BEPA Seminar on the Community Method organised by Notre Europe and the Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA) Brussels, 28 February 2012 Elements of synthesis By Yves Bertoncini, Secretary General of Notre Europe and Valentin Kreilinger, Research Assistant at Notre Europe Foreword by Jacques Delors Opening speech by José Manuel Barroso Conclusive remarks by António Vitorino Yves Bertoncini Yves Bertoncini has been the Secretary General of Notre Europe since April 2011. He has been among others an advisor to the French Secretary General of European Affairs and responsible for “Europe and the Lisbon Strategy” at the Centre d’Analyse Stratégique (Paris). He is an administrator of the European Commission. Yves Bertoncini teaches European Issues at the Institut d’études politiques de Paris and the Corps des Mines (Mines Paris Tech) and has also taught at the Ecole Nationale d’Administration (2007-2009). Valentin Kreilinger Valentin Kreilinger is Research Assistant at Notre Europe. He holds a Master’s degree in “Politics and Government in the European Union” from the London School of Economics and Political Science; he also studied Political Science and History at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University in Munich and spent an exchange year at the University Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle in European Studies. SEMINAR ON THE COMMUNITY METHOD Notre Europe Notre Europe is an independent think tank devoted to European integration. Under the guidance of Jacques Delors, who created Notre Europe in 1996, the association aims to “think a united Europe.” Our ambition is to contribute to the current public debate by producing analyses and pertinent policy proposals that strive for a closer union of the peoples of Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • To What Extent the Current Difficulties of Europe in Managing the Migratory Crisis Reveal the Limits
    TO WHAT EXTENT THE CURRENT DIFFICULTIES OF EUROPE IN MANAGING THE MIGRATORY CRISIS REVEAL THE LIMITS OF THE ‘SPIRIT OF SCHENGEN’ IN THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN CONSTRUCTION? IED Research Project: “Migration, borders control and solidarity: Schengen at stake?” Jean LAUSSUCQ DHIRIART Cabinet Officer, Assistant to the Mayor of Melun, France [email protected] Abstract: The ‘spirit of Schengen’ is the mixture of two axes of European integration: governmental cooperation and the association of a small number of states with the purpose of progressively rallying, by the example of their successes, other hesitating states, remained on the fringes. Each of these principles is paradoxically at the basis of the European construction. The failure of this process was not obvious thirty years ago but was revealed by the migratory pressure. The integration of the Agreement of Schengen within the European Union law is the subsequent source of the present difficulties: an incomplete integration froze the process before it came to quite a workable legal instrument. To ensure a positive evolution of the situation, a deep change in the political and legal treatment of the freedom of movement is needed. In many of its aspects, the Schengen case is a lesson, regarding other complex integration processes the European institutions would wish to launch during the next few years. “This publication received financial support from the European Parliament. Sole liability rests with the author and the European Parliament is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.” IED – ASBL - rue de l’Industrie, 4 – B 1000 Brussels - tel 02.2130010 – fax 02.2130019 Table of contents INTRODUCTION.
    [Show full text]
  • Intergovernmentalism, Reloaded
    Intergovernmentalism, reloaded The Transformative Power of ‘Intergovernmental’ Council Policy‐Making Doreen K. Allerkamp Los Angeles, CA, April 23 – 25, 2009 Abstract ‘Intergovernmental’ Council decision making has manifestly transformative potential not just in its polity‐making, but also in its policy‐making variant. This diminishes the utility of the concept of in‐ tergovernmentalism and challenges the theory of liberal intergovernmentalism, which should be applicable to both intergovernmental polity‐ and policy‐making alike, but, unlike its theoretical rivals supranationalism and constructivism, does not capture the transformative potential of everyday po‐ licy‐making. Given that both ‘intergovernmental’ and ‘supranational’ modes of policy‐making have transformative potential, and that both labels are merely ideal types of empirical reality, a case can be made that both the ‘intergovernmental’/‘supranational’ and the policy‐making/polity‐making di‐ chotomies are dissolving. Introduction Since the beginning of the 1990s, it has been common practice to distinguish ‘intergovernmental’ and ‘Community’ (meaning the involvement of a ‘supranational’ element) parts of European Union (EU) polity, policy‐making and politics. Broadly speaking, ‘intergovernmental’ designates the institu‐ tions representing the member states: the Council(s) of Ministers, the European Council, and their subsidiaries; those EU policy‐making procedures in which the member states have asserted their pri‐ macy, that is essentially those where the aforementioned Councils’
    [Show full text]
  • Schengen Governance Package: the Subtle Balance Between Community Method and Intergovernmental Approach
    12 December 2013 DISCUSSION PAPER The Schengen Governance Package: The subtle balance between Community method and intergovernmental approach Yves Pascouau After two years of negotiations, which were often tense and occasionally characterised by political theatrics, the Schengen governance legislative package has finally been adopted. Stemming from a context of political crisis and with the objective (for the French and Italians) of reinforcing Member States' control of the Schengen mechanism, the legislative package yields quite a different result. Firstly, it has paved the way for quicker adoption of a new evaluation mechanism verifying the application of Schengen rules by Member States and has reinforced their implementation and efficiency. Further, the amendments to the Schengen Borders Code give greater clarification to the conditions under which States can reintroduce control at internal borders. Finally, the amendments to the Schengen rules were concurrent with a strengthening of the roles played by the European Commission and European Parliament in Schengen governance. Ultimately, this episode illustrates a strong movement toward integration, where confrontations between the Community method and intergovernmental approach have given way to more subtle balance. In April 2011, in the wake of the Arab Spring, several thousand Tunisian migrants arrived on the shores of the Italian island of Lampedusa. The Italian government, which deemed the situation difficult to manage, appealed for support from its European partners. However, they did not reach the same assessment of the situation and denied Italy's request for support. Deeply offended and with a backdrop of dramatic rhetoric1, the Italian government decided to grant the Tunisian nationals residence permits with authorisation to travel.
    [Show full text]
  • EU-Turkey Working Papers Policy Studies No
    Centre for European EU-Turkey Working Papers Policy Studies No. 3/August 2004 Turkey in the European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice Joanna Apap, Sergio Carrera & Kemal Kirişci Abstract This paper assesses issues of border controls, visa regimes, asylum and irregular immigration policies in the context of Turkey’s candidacy for accession to the EU. Under present EU policy, Turkey would need to apply all present legislation governing the movement of persons across the external frontiers of the Schengen area by the time of accession, although the frontier between Turkey and the Schengen area would not be eliminated for some years, as is also the case for the new member states which acceded in May 2004. A certain degree of flexibility as regards the application of the EU/Schengen border and visa regimes is advisable taking into consideration the economic and political interests and sensitivities of both Turkey and the EU in relation to their common external neighbourhood. This report therefore evaluates various special regimes such as those adopted by Spain and Portugal, and the European Commission’s proposal for facilitating local border traffic – the latter in the light of the recent experience of sharply curtailed movements across the Polish-Ukrainian border. Finally, the Bulgarian experience in the field of justice and home affairs is reviewed as a possible model for Turkey. Joanna Apap is Head of Unit and Research Fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS). Sergio Carrera is Researcher on JHA at CEPS. He wishes to express his gratitude to all the experts and officials he interviewed in preparing this report.
    [Show full text]