Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T12:15:51.374Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Always One Step Behind? National Legislatures and the European Union1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Tapio Raunio
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS ARE CENTRAL ACTORS IN THE SCRUTINY AND implementation of European Union (EU) legislation. Member state legislatures provide a channel for incorporating public opinion into the governance of the Union. Their importance has become more evident during the 1990s as debate has focused on the democratic deficit and deparliamentarization of European governance.

National parliaments are involved in EU decision-making in three ways: they 1) participate in national policy formulation on Union legislation; 2) monitor the behaviour of member state representatives in the Council of Ministers and the European Council; and 3) have functions specifically regulated in the treaties, such as ratification of treaty amendments and implementation of directives. The third function differs from the first two as the treaties impose rights and duties on the national parliaments, whereas there is no EU law on national policy formulation on Union legislation or on the scrutiny of ministers. During the 1996-97 Intergovernmental Conference (ICC) the member states saw no need for such European-level regulation. Thus it is up to each national parliament – within the limits set by member state constitutions and other constraints – to decide how it deals with the challenges brought by EU membership.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 1999 , pp. 180 - 202
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

An earlier version of this article was presented in the Workshop on ‘EU Decision-making and European Democracy’ at the conference The Treaty of Amsterdam Evaluated, University of Twente, Enschede, 12-14 February 1998. I would like to thank the participants, Hans Hegeland (Swedish Riksdag) and the anonymous referee for their comments.

References

2 The role of national parliaments in European integration has recently received much‐needed attention among political scientists. See Bergman, Torbjörn, ‘National Parliaments and EU Affairs Committees: Notes on Empirical Variation and Competing Explanations’, Journal of European Public Policy, 4:3 (1997), pp. 373–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Judge, David, ‘The Failure of National Parliaments’, West European Politics, 18:3 (1995), pp. 79–100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Norton, Philip (ed.), ‘National Parliaments and the European Union’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 1:3 (1995)Google Scholar; Laursen, Finn and Pappas, S. A. (eds), The Changing Role of Parliaments in the European Union, Maastricht, EIPA, 1995 Google Scholar; Smith, Eivind (ed.), National Parliaments as Cornerstones of European Integration, London, Kluwer Law International, 1996 Google Scholar.

3 See Wessels, Wolfgang, ‘Institutions of the EU System: Models of Explanation’, in Rometsch, Dietrich and Wessels, Wolfgang (eds), The European Union and Member States: Towards Institutional Fusion?, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1996, pp. 35–6.Google Scholar

4 See Norton, Philip, ‘Conclusion: Addressing the Democratic Deficit’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 1:3 (1995), pp. 177–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Judge, op. cit.

5 See Laursen, Finn and Vanhoonacker, Sophie (eds), The Ratification of the Maastricht Treaty: Issues, Debates and Future Implications, Maastricht, EIPA, 1994 Google Scholar.

6 Treaty on European Union, Official Journal C 224, SI August 1992.

7 Information on European Affairs Committees is mainly taken from ‘De särskilda organen för EU‐fragor vid medlemsstaternas parlament’, Generaldirektorat för utskott, kommittéer och delegationer, Europaparlamentet, June 1995.

8 Bergman, op. cit.

9 See Wiberg, Matti and Raunio, Tapio, ‘Strong Parliament of A Small EU Member State: The Finnish Parliament’s Adaptation to the EU’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 2:4 (1996), pp. 302–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wiberg, Matti (ed.), Trying to Make Democracy Work: The Nordic Parliaments and the European Union, Stockholm, Gidlunds, 1997 Google Scholar.

10 1996 Intergovernmental Conference (IGC ’96), ‘Reflection Group Report and Other References for Documentary Purposes’, General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union, Brussels, December 1995.

11 Report on the XVth COSAC Meeting, Ireland, 15–16 October 1996, Houses of the Oireachtas.

12 ‘Report on the Relations Between the European Parliament and National Parliaments’, Committee on Institutional Affairs, Rapporteur Ms Annemie Neyts‐Uyttebroeck, 22 May 1997, PE 221.698/fin.; ‘Resolution on the Relations Between the European Parliament and National Parliaments’, A4‐0179/97, PE 260.312.

13 See European Parliament, ‘Summary of the Positions of the Member States and the European Parliament on the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference’, Secretariat Working Party: Task‐Force on the ‘Intergovernmental Conference’, Luxembourg, 12 July 1996, JF/bo/239/96; and European Parliament, ‘Role of the National Parliaments’, Intergovernmental Conference, Briefing No. 6, 25 March 1996.

14 ‘Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments in the European Union’, Treaty of Amsterdam, European Communities, Luxembourg, October 1997.

15 Watson, Rory, ‘National Assemblies to See More Action’, European Voice, 4:1 ( 8–14 01 1998 ).Google Scholar

16 I am grateful to Mr Niilo Jääskinen, Counsel to the Grand Committee, Head of the Secretariat for EU Affairs, Finnish Eduskunta, for detailed information on COSAC.

17 See Andreas Maurer, ‘Interparliamentary cooperation between the European Parliament and the National Parliaments’, Paper presented at a Conference on National Parliaments and the European Union, Wroxton College, UK, 18–19 November 1995.

18 Interparliamentary cooperation between national legislatures and the EP has been argued to strengthen parliamentarism in the EU. See Duff, Andrew, ‘Building a Parliamentary Europe’, Government and Opposition, 29:2 (1994), pp. 147–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morgan, Roger and Tame, Clare (eds), Parliaments and Parties: The European Parliament in the Political Life of Europe, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1996 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Neunreither, Karlheinz, ‘The Democratic Deficit of the European Union: Towards Closer Cooperation between the European Parliament and the National Parliaments’, Government and Opposition, 29:3 (1994), pp. 299–314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Westlake, Martin, ‘The European Parliament, the National Parliaments and the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference’, Political Quarterly, 66:1 (1995), pp. 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 See Mattson, Ingvar and Strøm, Kaare, ‘Parliamentary Committees’, in Herbert, Döring (ed.), Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, New York, St Martin’s Press, 1995, pp. 249–307.Google Scholar

20 See Maor, Moshe, ‘The Relationship between Government and Opposition in the Bundestag and House of Commons in the Run‐Up to the Maastricht Treaty’, West European Politics, 21:3 (1998), pp. 187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar