Strengthened, Sidelined, and Caught in Compromise the 7Th European
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SWP Working Paper Research Division EU Integration Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik German Institute for International and Security Affairs Daniela Kietz / Nicolai von Ondarza (eds.) Strengthened, sidelined, and caught in compromise The 7th European Parliament from a German perspective Ludwigkirchplatz 3•4 Working Paper of the EU Integration Division 10719 Berlin 2014/1, May 2014, SWP Berlin Germany Phone +49 30 880 07-0 Fax +49 30 880 07-100 www.swp-berlin.org Working Papers are online publications of the SWP’s research divisions which have not been formally reviewed by the Institute. Table of Contents 3 Strenghtened, sidelined, and caught in 34 SOS from ETS: The European Parliament and compromise: The 7th European Parliament the reform of the EU Emissions Trading from a German perspective Scheme Daniela Kietz / Nicolai von Ondarza Severin Fischer 36 The European Parliament and the Two Pack: Case studies Strengthening economic and fiscal policy surveillance and coordination Daniela Schwarzer 13 Safety first: The European Parliament and the reform of maternity leave 40 A pragmatic deal: The European Parliament Anna-Lena Kirch and the Single Supervisory Mechanism Anne Lauenroth 17 The European Parliament and the future role of nuclear power in EU energy policies: 44 The European Parliament and the EEAS: Different views from “Energiewende”-land Institutional leverage via a package deal Severin Fischer Nicolai von Ondarza 19 The European Parliament and Eurobonds: 48 Forever postponing reform: The European Keeping the debate going Parliament and the own resources system Daniela Schwarzer Peter Becker 22 Upholding political pressure: The European 51 Pushing for Transparency: The European Parliament and the Financial Transaction Tax Parliament and TTIP Peter Becker/Anne Lauenroth Anna-Lena Kirch 25 Public protests changed the game: The 55 An uneasy compromise: The European European Parliament and ACTA Parliament and the Schengen governance Anne Lauenroth reform Daniela Kietz 29 Far-reaching demands meet European realpolitik: The European Parliament and the 59 Abbreviations Multiannual Financial Framework 61 Authors Peter Becker Strengthened, sidelined, and caught in compromise: The 7th European Parliament from a German perspective Daniela Kietz / Nicolai von Ondarza The 2009-2014 legislature of the European Parliament particular German MEPs, vote mainly according to (EP) has been marked by profound changes to national preferences or do they vote along European European integration that both enhanced and party group lines in the EP? Do, for example, member constrained the power of Parliament.1 On the one state governments push their MEPs towards voting hand, the Lisbon Treaty came into force shortly after along national lines as the EP becomes an ever more the Parliament was elected. The EP was significantly powerful actor? Have the enlargements of 2004, 2007 strengthened as an actor in all phases of EU policy and 2013 led to a stronger fragmentation of the EP or making. In consequence, the EP started its 7th term lower cohesion of the political groups? Second, how with renewed confidence and regularly confronted the have the EP decisions and MEPs voting behaviour Council and/or the Commission, in particular on impacted on EU decision-making? Put differently, how questions of its institutional self-interest. powerful is this “Lisbonised” EP in practise? Through On the other hand, the past legislature was domi- which strategies and instruments does it further its nated politically by the European sovereign debt crisis, impact on EU decisions? And third, how was the EP starting with the financial assistance granted to perceived in the respective political debates in Greece in early 2010. Unlike ordinary EU legislation, Germany? What promotes its visibility and what role in these crises measures and the further development does Parliament play in the politicisation of issues? of the economic and monetary union, intergovern- In order to answer these questions, 15 key political mental decision-making took the centre stage. Thus, topics – on which the EP expressed its position in 21 while the public concentrated on high-stake bargain- distinct votes – were chosen by VoteWatch Europe and ing in the European Council, the Parliament was Notre Europe for in-depth analysis in this report. sidelined on the most crucial crisis management These case studies cover the full spectrum of EU policy decisions such as the setting up of the European areas, legal instruments, and procedures. They range Stability Mechanism (ESM). Only as the EU shifted from areas with full co-decision and consent powers towards long-term reform based on EU legislation, as such as international trade (e.g. ACTA, TTIP) over in the case of the Banking Union, the EP was able to budget procedures (e.g. MFF) to foreign affair issues, leave its mark. where the EP is formally only consulted but can in In May 2014, European citizens are therefore for the practice wield considerable powers (e.g. EEAS), or, first time able to cast their votes on a new, more finally, to own initiative reports without any legal powerful ‘Lisbonised’ Parliament and against the binding power (e.g. Eurobonds). background of the experiences of the European The case studies are based on the one hand on the sovereign debt crisis. To raise awareness of the quantitative analysis of the voting behaviour of all profound changes to EU policy making, in particular MEPs as well as the German MEPs. In most cases, the to the EP’s role, and the issues at stake in the elec- identified vote was, however, only part of a larger tions, the German Institute for International and Security decision-making process, so that the research was on Affairs (SWP) has contributed this report to the project the other hand complemented by a qualitative “15 European Parliament votes that shaped EU and analysis of the conflict lines and priorities of MEPs in national politics 2009-2014” coordinated by VoteWatch the respective decision making process and the Europe and Notre Europe – Jacques Delors Institute as one of corresponding impact of the EP on the final outcome. 21 national partners. Finally, each case study includes an analysis of the The main aim of this project was to answer three salience of the issue in German politics and how the linked sets of questions: First, do MEPs, in this case in role of the EP in the relevant decision-making process was perceived in the German public debates. 1 We are very grateful to Till Weyers for his support in layouting and editing this report. SWP Berlin Strengthened, sidelined, and caught in compromise The 7th EP from a German perspective May 2014 3 The changing role of the European This trend continued throughout the whole legisla- Parliament tive period during which the Parliament in several cases took a very confrontative stance in decision- The impact of the Lisbon reforms is evident across all making processes and was even prepared to resort to researched policy areas, albeit to a differing degree. worst case instruments, i.e. to reject agreements or to Two reforms altered the EP’s role in particular: Firstly, completely halt controversial decisions. For instance, the co-decision procedure, now formally called following the huge public pressure against the Anti- ordinary legislative procedure, has become the Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) across Europe standard decision-making procedure in the EU and the in 2012, a large majority of MEPs was willing to stop number of policy areas decided via this procedure was the ratification process despite a clear commitment by greatly increased. In 2012, for example, 63 per cent of the Commission and most EU member states. In other all legislative procedures were decided with full and important legislative dossiers, like the establishment equal participation of the EP.2 The EP was thereby of a Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) for the clearly put on equal footing with the Council when eurozone Banking Union, the Parliament threatened adopting most EU legislation. Secondly, the Lisbon to block agreement and went into hard negotiations Treaty gave the EP the tools to become a strong player with the Council, overall establishing itself as full co- in the EU’s external relations. Above all, the EP’s legislator. The main condition for such strong consent is now needed for most international opposition from Parliament was in most cases a very agreements, which the EP used very strategically to large majority backing the EP’s position, which thus establish itself as an actor in international negations spoke with more or less one voice. Such super with third states. Beyond these central reforms in the majorities were, naturally, easiest to achieve when the legislative sphere, the Treaty also strengthened the EP pursued a distinct institutional self-interest and/or EP’s budgetary as well as control rights vis-à-vis the fought with governments over the allocation of Commission. competences and tasks between the member states and the supranational institutions as in the case of the establishment of the EEAS or in the Schengen Between a new self-confidence and the Brussels’ governance reform. consensus machine However, this is only one face of the “Lisbonised” Parliament. Several cases under scrutiny in this report These increased powers did not only legally enhance also show the EP’s very pragmatic side. The wide- the role of the European Parliament, but also led to an spread talk about the EP’s new confidence and its increased self-confidence of MEPs willing to directly confrontational stance in inter-institutional negotia- take on the European Commission and the EU tions cannot hide the fact that the Parliament 3 member states in the Council of Ministers. Right at becomes part of the Brussels’ consensus machine as the beginning of the legislature, Parliament as a first soon as it turns into a co-legislator under the co- demonstration of power forced the member states to decision procedure.