• European Council - Executive, rep. MS
• Council - Executive, Legislative, rep. MS
• European Commission - Executive, rep. Union
• European Parliament - Legislative, rep. citizens
• Court of Justice of the EU, Judicial, rep. Union
• European Central Bank, Executive, rep. Union
• Court of Auditors, Control, rep. Union

additionally:

European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

Committee of the Regions (CoR)

(giving political direction, implementing policies and externally representing the EU)

• European Council provides political direction and represents the EU externally
• Council's executive role consists of implementation of policies
• The commission initiates legislation, implements policies and represents the EU externally
• European Central bank implements monetary policy

Examining, modifying and adopting legislative measures

• European Parliament, rep. Citizens
• Council, rep. MS

somewhat similar to a bicameral system

EP and Council cannot initiate legislative proposals.

Interpreting EU law and adjudication of of conflicts involving EU institutions, MS and all other parties involved.

Court of Justice

• Court of Auditors examines EU revenues and expenses, used by EP and Council to exercesise control over budget.
• Economic and Social Committee and Committee of Regions are advisory bodies to Council, EP and Commission. Usually Commission sends all draft proposals for legislation to these bodies.

Founded 1974, consisting of heads of government and heads of state, additionally

• President of European Council (not rotating president)
• High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (also member of Commission)
• President of the Commission (ensures coordination with activities of commission)

No legislative powers (TEU), importance is gained through politicial leverage the MS have.

• Providing political direction (Art. 15 TEU), sets long-term agenda in internal policies and CFSP. Large projects usually first discussed there. Also major role in accession.
• Problem solver and arbiter. Ultimate intergovernmental decision body if Council does not agree. E.g. irish rejection of treaty, financial contribution of UK
• Treaty revisions. Simply majority vote to call convention for treaty revision, which are examined by intergovernmental conference (IGC). Can also revise treaty provisions regarding EU internal policies (enumerated in Part III TFEU)
• Appointments. Own President, Commission President, High Representative (latter two need confirmation of EP) + members of ECB executive board

meets 4 times a year for two days (can be called more often)

Prepared by General Affairs Council (one configuration of Council), President explores MS positions.

First meeting with EP president on generally important issues, then working sessions and working dinner.

During the night President will finalize draft and conclusions. Working session on CFSP, press conference.

PA of permanent representatives (Antici) are briefed every twenty minutes on main points of discussions.

Art. 15.4 TEU: decisions unanimously unless otherwise noted (e.g. appointment of President)

Has say over all of the EUs policies, major policy-making organ in CFSP.

Operates in different configurations, which focus on specific policy areas. MS can determine representative as long as they are on "ministerial level who may commit the government of the MS and cast its vote" (Art. 16.2 TEU)

Can also send Permament Representatives

both legislative and executive tasks

Legislator on all internal EU policies (co-legilsator with EP), "one of legislative chambers". Concludes international agreements with third countries and international bodies.

Executive: responsible for EUs external relations through CFSP. HR responsible for implementing these policies. Also declares states as candidate member and decides on their compliance with copenhagen criteria.

ten different configurations

1. General Affairs (11 meetings)
2. Foreign Affairs (10 meetings)
3. Economic and Fincancial Affairs (ECOFIN, 11 meetings)
4. Agriculture and Fisheries  (10 meetings)
5. Transport, Telecommunication and Energy (6 meetings)
6. Cooperation in the fields of Justice and Home Affairs (JAH, 6 meetings)
7. Environment (5 meetings)
8. Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs (4 meetings)
9. Competitiveness (4 meetings)
10. Education, Youth and Culture (3 meetings)

rotating chair, according to Council presidency (Foreign Affairs Council always chaired by HR)

Usually limited room for manouvering:

1. largely debating and deciding on legislation in progress, which is intiated by Commission
2. Outside factors may affect issues MS want to press forward.
3. More success usually achieved by facilitating than dominating

also shows general tendency for incremental steps in EU, not grand plans

Committee of permanent representatives. Highes preparatory body for meetings of Council and European Council.

Corper I: attended by deputy permanent representatives (technical issues in specific policy areas)

Coreper II: attended by permanent representatives, dicuss political, financial and foreign policy issues.

Additional committees exist (Special Committee on Agriculture, Political and Security Committee)

80% of all Council decisions are decided by Committees (A-Points). Council has time to discuss B-Points, which require further discussion.

Council also takes executive decisions, such as extending sanctions and continuation of external missions.

Art. 17 TEU

acts in Unions interest

president nominated by European Council, approved by EP

Each MS nominated commissioner in coordination with president, approved by EP (only whole collegiate can be confirmed or rejected)

1. Preparing and initiating legislation (except CFSP and some areas such as police), also manages legislative process with EP and Council
2. Implementing policies (managing budget, programmes, executive decisions)
3. External representation (e.g. trade)
4. Guardian of the treaties

1-3 normal executive roles, 4 special because usually not task of national executive branch

Art. 14 TEU

representation by degressive proportional formula (min. 5 seats, max. 99 seats)

MEP are seated according to ideological groups, not nations

Generally similar to national parliaments but less extensive rights (no say in treaty revisions, does not determine composition of council, cannot summon witnesses for inquiries)

1. Budgetary Powers - since Lisbon ability do modify any expenditzre if in keepin with multiannual framework
2. Legislative powers - SEA gave first real powers, Maastricht elevated EP to same level as council, now renamed common legislative procedure, covering 95% of legislation
3. Scrutiny of executive by a) submitting questions to Commission, Council and European Council b) set up commissions of inquiry (Art. 226 TEU), c) bring courses before court
4. Appointment and dismissal of commission - approves President and collegiate of commissioners (negative power), can dismiss commission, but high threshold

General: Art. 19 TEU

1. Reviewing legality of acts (Art. 261 TFEU), whether insitutions have acted within framework of treaties, courses may be brought by MS, EP, COM, Council, natural and legal persons if direct interest (locus standi) exists. "Actions for anulment"
2. Establishing infringements (Art. 258 TFEU) if MS fail to fulfill their obligations of the treaties, "infringement procedure"
3. Giving "preliminary rulings" (Art. 267 TFEU), advise national courts in application of EU law. National courts call CJ, then incorporate ruling in theirs

Depend on national authorities to enforce rulings, no enforcement agencies. Some limitation in specific areas, e.g. CFSP

Three courts:

1. Court of Justice, highest courts, all preliminary rulings, infringement procedures brought by COM agains MS, actions for anulment by MS to Council and EP. 27 judges, 8 Advocates General
2. General Court, actions for anulment by MS to COM and by natural and legal persons. 27 judges
3. Civil Service Tribunal, employment related issues between EU employees and respective institutions, 7 judges.

1. legislative and executive powers are shared (unlike in most national systesm, favours compromise and collaboration)
2. Executive authority distributed over 4 institutions, therefore clearly no presidentialsystem which centers power on president
3. Not a parliamentary system because executive, or at least major parts are not elected/nominated by parliament
4. Council and European Council can't be dismissed by EP

• majoritan, concentrates executive power and puts few constraints on it. Favours governing over representation of all interests (UK)
• consensual, power is dispersed and restrained. Usually uses proportional system, so not one party has a majority, coalition building needed, emphasises broad support for systems, appropriate for heterogenous systems. Switzerland example, EU fits in as well

Art. 288 TFEU

• Regulation, general application, directly binding in its entirety in all MS
• Directive, binding as to the result to be achieved, leaves MS choice of form and method (e.g. national law)
• Decision, binding in its entirety to whom it is addressed
• Recommendations, no binding force

TFEU decides which instrument can applied in which policy field. Reflect amount to which MS cede authority

Directive leaves room for national circumstance, yet often exceedingly detailed.

CFSP has own instrument (Art. 25 TEU)

Can vary by:

• role of COM (exclusive right of initiative or not)
• role of EP (consent required or not)
• decision rule in Council (unanimity or QMV)

• COM has exclusive right of inititative
• EP has full powers of amendment
• Council decides with QMV

>"co-decision", since Lisbon ordinary legislative procedure, associated with "community method": supranational institutions play major role

• COM shares right of initiative with MS
• EP has advisory role at best
• Council decides by unanimity

> does not exist, but some "special legislative procedures" come close. "intergovernmental method" MS governments play important role.

shows that procedures reflect tendency by MS governments to cede sovereignty.

Art. 289, 294 TFEU

only COM initiates, except for some policy fields. Participation of EESC and CoR is indicated in treaties.

EP adopts opinion (single majority), either:

1. agreement without amendments
2. disagreement without amendments
3. agreement with amendments

COM can adapt proposal

Council can

1. Agree to amendmentsl, act adopted
2. Not agree, formulates "common position" (2nd reading)

Basically like 1st, differences

1. EP has only 3 months to decide after receiving common position, CP adopted if EP misses timeframe
2. EP can only make amendments
1. that were already adopted in 1st reading
2. treating elements in CP that were not addressed before
3. that are aimed at reconciling Council and EP position
3. EP needs absolute majority (i.e. of all members)

raises threshold for making changes

Options EP

1. adoption (single majority sufficient)
2. reject common position (act deemed as failed)
3. adopt amendments to CP

COM gives opinion, agreement=QMV, disagreement = unanimity

Options Council

1. approves all amendments
2. does not approve all amendment (conciliation)

Committee consisting of reps from EP, Council and COM

drafts compromise text, send to EP + Council vote by single majority (EP) and QMV (Council), no amendments possible

Institutions work on issues before it is their official turn

Commission, Council and EP meet in so called "trialogues" to assess the positions at those institutions

Negotiations between institutions before official decisions

Special decision making procedures

Differ in two categories:

1. EP might not be able to adopt amendments, solely advisory role or none at all
2. Council decides by unanimity instead of QMV

eg association agreements with third countries: adopted by qualified majority in Council, EP can only accept or reject.

European Council acts as appeal body in some cases if vital national interests are concernded and Council could not agree, in some cases this is a formal role

EP has no role in adoption of decisions, except for diplomatic service.

Commission has no right of inititative, acts are adopted by Council or European Council

The more like the more higher the national interest in a subject matter is.

1. Taxation and budget
2. Judicial and police cooperation (touches on national soverignty, cases can be referred to European Council)
3. Foreign Policy (decisions mostly unanimous by European Council)

can differ:

1. how votes are distributed between MS (extreme: 1 per MS, other extreme absolute proportionality)
2. How many votes are needed to adopt legislation (e.g. 50%)

Until 1. Nov. 2014 (use can be rquested until April 2017)

1. minimum of 255 votes out of 345 (74%)
2. simple majority of MS (14 out of 27)
3. representing at least 62% of EU population

based on population

1. supported by 55% of MS
2. Majority represents 65% of EU population
3. decision can only be blocked by at least 4 MS

favours larger MS, makes taking decisions easier

Art 5 TEU

Subsidiarity: "EU is only allowed to act if the objectives of that action can be bettwe reached at EU level than national level"

before draft is send to EP and Council, national parliaments receive it. Within 8 weeks they can issue a "reasoned opinion" which act violates subsidiarity

1. if 1/3 of national parliaments consider act a breach of subsidiarity, institution or group of MS needs to review it. (1/4 for criminal and police matters), they can maintain, amend or withdraw
2. if more than 50% of national parliaments consider act a breach of subsidiarity, COM has to give reasoned opinion. Reasoned opinion of parliaments and COM have to be considered by EP and council. If 55% of council and simple majority of EP decide against act, it is withdrawn

actual effect unclear, because quite recent development

process which aims at convergence of member states policies through a process of benchmarking and policy learning, introduced by Lisbon strategy

1. council determines objectives to be achieved in an area
2. indicators are established for measuring attainment of these objectives
3. Each MS formulates action plan for achieving objectives
4. performance of each MS is benchmarked by COM according to indicators

Improtant role of council, used for cases in which MS are reluctant to binding legislation.

Special legislative procedure

introduced by SEA, EP can accept or reject, but not amend proposal (can make recommendations, conciliation also introduced), applications:

• horizontal flexibility clause (art. 352 TFEU),
• combating discrimination (Article 19(1) TFEU),
• membership of the Union (Article 49 TEU),
• arrangements for withdrawal from the Union (Article 50 TEU)
• association agreements,
• accession of the Union to the ECHR,
• agreements establishing a specific institutional framework,

expression of opinion not rooted in strongly held beliefs, which therefore can be very volatile

Quite prevalent in public opinion regarding EU issues 

• support of EU increased in the 1970s and 1980s, decreased in the 1990s, then recovered
• in some countries support has been relatively high and stable (Luxembourg) while others have seen increase (Denmark) and others have low and volatile levels of support (UK)
• Important EU events such as accession of new MS do not suggest clear impact on approval rates
• Important external events such as the oil crises do not seem to have a clear and consistent effect either

no clear connection between approval rate and old/new MS, small/large economies

Predominantly formed within national context, therfore opinion on EU not necessarily shaped by EU issues

Clear favour for policies that contain a clear cross-border dimension, such as fighting terrorism, defence, foreign affairs and protection of environment.

Least support for areas that involve transfer of money between citizens such as pensions, taxation, health and social welfare. 

Socio demographic factors

• education: people with higher level of education are more supportive of EU (attributed partly to perceived benefits)
• occupation: people in professional and managerial positions are more supportive of EU than self-employed or labourers
• Income: support for EU tends to be higher among people with higher disposable income
• Religion: Catholics are more supportive than Protestants because Catholicism has a long internationalist and transational tradition, whereas protestantism favours national sovereignty

General political evaluations

• Interest in politics, people who are more interestend in politics and follow politics more actively are more supportive of EU
• Political trust, people who are generally more trusting of political institutions such as parliaments, governments, are more supportive of EU
• Support for government in office, people who support government are more supportive of EU than supporter of the opposition
• Left-right, has little impact because national parties point of view towards EU is main factor, which can vary

EU-specific factors

• knowledge and interest, higher level of knowledge in EU institutions and politics are related to higher level of support
• trust, people who are more trusting of EU institutions show higher support
• Economic benefits, people who believe that EU yields economic benefit (for indivdual or country) are more supportive
• identity, people who identify themselves solely as nationals are less supportive of EU

1. voter turnout is lower (except if compulsory vote is in place)
2. elections are used to evaluate national politics rather than EU politics
3. people favour smaller parties which they would not vote for in important national elections because this would be considered waste of vote

one reason: lack of public european sphere, political discussions essentially take place in national sphere

1. attitude towards european integration
2. second order consideration if no clear opinion on european integration exists
1. moderate gov't supporters tend to vote in favour
2. people tend to take voting cues from party

tend to better connect citizrens to EU matters, yet highly nationally influenced.

1. focus on single issues, give voters clear choice
2. outcome tends to be accepted by gov'ts

Generally clear message for more prudent integration from "permissive consent" to "constraining consensus"

ca. 15.000 lobbyists (individuals trying to influence government decisionmaking on behalf of an interest group)

ca. 4.000 interest groups (group of persons sharing preferences regarding the outcome of gov. decision-making and organized to influence these outcomes withoud seeking office

number is increasing, which shows:

• EU has become important policy-making institution
• IGs think they can influence decision making

1. European Trade Federations (representing a specific industry)
2. Commercial consultants (lobby on behalf of changing clients)
3. companies
4. NGOs, public interest groups (either directly or through umbrella groups)
5. national businesses and labour organizations (usually already represented by umbrella group, nevertheless might take up own action)
6. international organizations
7. think tanks

Limited number of IGs have privilieg position in policy-making process (e.g. trade unions, employer associations)

examples: Austria, Germany, Netherlands most scandinavian countries

many IGs exist but none has privilieg position in policy making

in contrast to corporatist system, this leads to less consensus seeking and more antagonistic relations.

Examples: US and UK

Generally pluralistic

EESC and CoR represents corporatist influences, Social dialouge (3 trade unions + 3 employer associations) as well. COPA/COGECA important corporatist group in CAP.

Generally corporatist influences have had limited influence on policy-making

inside lobbying, lobbyist try to influence decision-makers directly, i.e. from inside (COM, EP, MS), thus becoming part of political discussion

outside lobbying, lobbyist try to mobilise public opinion in oder to pressure decision-makers into a certain direction (demonstrations)

depends on

1. target of lobby: if target is sensitive to public opinion (politicians) outside lobbying is effective
2. issue at stake: public opinion is easier to mobilise if it is a matter they can easily relate to
3. organization and identitiy of IG: inside lobbying requires network of contacts, outside lobbying access to a significant number of people, both can not be done quickly, therefore group will use technique it has more experience with

Inside lobbying the norm, outside lobbying rare, reasons:

> "political opportunity structure" how receptive decision makers are to certain claims and strategies (eg. COM and EP have little to fear from public opinion)

> outside lobbying usually done at MS level

> difficulties organzing European protest

> many issues in the EU are of technical nature

lobbyists target different actors: COM, EP, MS, ideally lobbying various groups at the same time, often coalition forging is important.

difficult, because

1. lawmakers tend not to reveal actual influence of IGs, either exaggerate or downplay it
2. policy proposals are influenced by many factors, not just IGs. difficult to isolate effect of IGs
3. influence can also be exerted without any action (simple presence of IG can be sufficient)

1. characteristics of IG
2. characteristics of political system
3. characteristics of issue at stake

1. Characteristics of IG
1. ressources main factor
2. IGs have information that COM want (expertise)
3. support of IGs increases political credibility of proposal (political support)
2. Characteristics of political system
1. EU as pluralist system, multilevel nature offers various options for lobbying
2. less influence than in US because campaign financing not important issue in EU
3. Characteristics of issues
1. IGs are more successful when few or no other IGs are involved
2. IGs are more successful when a comparably small circle of policy-makers is concerned
3. High politics are difficult to influence

raises questions of democracy

1. do laws still represent the interest of the full citizenry or just particular interest?
2. does the lawmaking process remain transparent?

however, lobbying can also offer alternative viewpoints, thus improving laws, generally two factors important to assess whether lobbying is appropriate and democratic:

1. balance of interest groups (in EU tendency towards overrepresentation of business interest - countered by EU through support of NGOs)
2. form of lobbying (informative or distortive nature)

1. Group of the European People's Party (EPP) - Christian Democratic
2. Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the EP (S&D) - Social Democratic
3. Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe (ALDE) - Liberal
4. Group of the Greens / European Free Alliance (G/EFA) - Greens and regionalists
5. European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR) - Conservative Eurosceptic
6. Confederated Group of the European United Left-Nordic Green Left (EUL/NGL) - (post-)communist
7. Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group (EFD) - Eurosceptic 

1. ideological underpinning, groups tend to reflect distinctions on national level, can be classified as left-right
2. ideological cohesiveness, as groups in EP are a collection of national parties, those parties vary sometimes considerably in ideology
3. level of organization, some groups have little formal organization, while other are well organized 

1. at least 25 MEP
2. MEPs from at least 1/4 of MS
3. formed according to political affinities

Rules of Procedure favour forming of groups and grants them advantages:

• subsidies
• guaranteed seats on committees
• chair at conference of presidents
• ability to table amendments (usually just for committees)

Groups also needed to mobilize sufficient votes, yet MEPs have to compromise their ideas to certain extend

1. mainly left-right
2. also pro-integration vs. Eurosceptic

1. case by case for each issue
2. on broad set of issues (national parliaments)

No pol group has a majority, therefore coalition building necessary. Because EP does not elect government, no imperative to build coalition as in national parliaments.

Grand coalition between big three parties existed until 1990s since then they have also voted against each other 

1. Must have legal personality in MS in which its seat is located
2. Must either
1. be represented in 1/4 of MS, by MEPs or in national parliaments or regional parliaments or assemblies
2. have received in 1/4 of MS at least three percent of the votes cast in each MS for last EP elections
3. observe the principles on which the EU is founded, liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as rule of law
4. must have participated in EP elections or expressed intend to do so

1. European People's Party  (christian democratic, affiliated with EPP group)
2. Party of European Socialists (social democratic, affiliated with S&D)
3. European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party (liberal, affiliated with ALDE)
4. European Green Party (green, affiliated with Greens/EFA)
5. European Free Alliance (regionalist, affiliated with Greens/EFA)
6. Party of the European Left (Socialist, ex communist, affiliated with EUL/NGL)
7. European Union Democrats (Nationalist, eurosceptic, no affiliation)
8. Alliance of European Conservative and Reformists (conservative, affiliated with ECR)
9. European Democratic Party (centrist, pro EU, affiliated with ALDE)
10. European Christian Political Movement (orthodox christian democratic, no affiliation)

could be

1. domestic political parties (compete in EP elections)
2. political groups (coalition between MEPs in EP)
3. European Political Party (association between domestic parties to cooperate outside EP)

1. from ECSC to 1970s: after creation of Common Assembly socialists created liaison office, others followed suit
2. direct elections of EP increased importance coordination, liaison offices were replaced by federations
3. Recognition as Parties in Maastricht Treaty 1992
4. Party Regulation through Nice Treaty 2000, parties now receive direct funding from EU (before this cam from EP groups)

mainly coordination of a party manifesto for EP elections

also try to coordinate activities at COM and Council, because most commissioners have party affiliation

EP elections are firmly in hand of domestic parties

1. Domestic parties structure choice offered to voters by presenting a limited number of clear alternative in elections (European Parties structure a wide array of domestic parties into a smaller set of European Parties
2. Domestic parties aggregate interests by putting together more or less coherent packages of positions (European Parties formulate manifestod and facilitate exchange between domestic parties
3. Domestic parties recruit candidates for political offices, European Parties do not
4. Domestic parties form governments, European Parties do not
5. Domestic parties form a liaison between state and voters/civil society, European Parties generally do not

1. External Trade
2. Competition Policy
3. Agriculture
4. Fisheries
5. Euro

1. Environment
2. Regional Policy
3. Occupational Health and Safety
4. Internal Market
5. Tobacco control
6. cross-border crime
7. development aid
8. transport
9. research and development

1. Social Policy
2. Foreign Policy
3. Defence
4. Taxation
5. Health Care
6. Spatial Planning

1. Primary and secondary education
2. Housing
3. Crime "on the streets"
4. Culture

1. distributive policies (serve a specific group, eg building of roads)
2. regulatory policies (set general norms for certain activities)
3. redistributive policies (transfer money from one group to another - tax, unemployment benefits)

EU primarily active in 2 

1. Customs and agricultural duties in imports into the the EU "traditional own ressources" TOR - 12% (2010)
2. MS contributions based on VAT levied, 11%
3. MS contributions based on gross national incomce (GNI) - 76%

EU spends roughly 1% of European GDP

National states at least 30% of their respective GDP

EU has no

1. own taxes (income tax or European VAT)
2. right to borrow money

therefore it essentially can not play any role in macroeconomic policy

EU does not provide hospitals, roads, police etc. 

1. Agriculture (CAP) 45%
2. Cohesion Policy, 35%

furthermore R&D + development aid

Financial part of cohesion policy, objectives

1. Convergence, support for economically weaker states to reduce economic disparities (80% of budget)
2. Regional competitiveness and employment, for regions not falling under objective 1, supports innovation, entrepreneurship, protection of environment)
3. European territorial cooperation, subsidies for projects between regions in different MS

aka harmonization or approximation of laws

adoption of EU laws to reduce the differences between MS laws in a given area

1. regulation aimed at market integration
2. regulation aimed at mitigating negative impacts of economic activity
3. regulation not directly connected to economic activity

1. Negative integration, basically stipulating what MS cannot do (levying import taxes or quotas on imports from other MS). Nowadays more subtle often entailing question whether a MS measure is meant to protect domestic producers (prohibited) or to protect customers (allowed). Cassis de Dijon
2. Positive integration, stipulates which laws MS have to adopt in order to achieve harmonization

Important because promotes a political component, move away from purely economic community towards political union.

Mainly entail CFSP, home and justice affairs (growth in importance since 9/11)

Regulations account for 3/4 of all output, yet directives considered more important

1. most COM regulations specify more general provisions set out in Council directives and regulations
2. regulations are regularly used in agricultural (including fisheries) and trade policy, which account for a large amount of technical regulations. Make up 3/4 of all regulations
3. directives tend to contain broader and more generally applicable rules, applying to a group of products
4. decisions are also often used to specifiy other provisions, furthermore used to approve mergers, make appointments
5. recommendations are used where EU has no competence

1. institutional compliance (direct) occurs when EU adopts binding legislation
2. changing domestic opportunity structure (indirect), affects political context by giving new opportunities to political actors (eg opportunity for companies to move freely within EU)
3. framing domestic beliefs and expectations (indirect), EU can offer new models and best practices

1. policy field, EU is involved to a different degree in various areas
2. depends on domestic political conditions (same regulation can have different actual influence in different MS)
3. Europeanization is not a zero-sum game (MS maintain leeway in adopting measures, even if EU regulation exists)

aka "variable geometry", "Europe a la carte", "enhanced cooperation"

already occurred with social charta, Euro, EU battle groups: some MS opt out, while others continue with deeper integration

Art. 20 TEU and 326-334 TFEU, conditions

1. include at least 9 MS
2. participation should be open to all MS
3. may not undermine internal market, economic, social or territorial cohesion between MS, also not establish trade barriers or distort competition
4. should fall within competences of the EU

1. outside CFSP COM has exclusive right to submit proposal upon request of a group of MS, proposal needs to be adopted by council and consent of EP
2. for CFSP MS can submit proposal to council, HR may give opinion, EP only informed
3. in council all MS can participate but only those who will become part of enhanced cooperation can vote

1. prevents integration to slow down
2. allows flexibility (disparity between EU27)
3. may act as laboratory for future legislative acts

1. undermindes solidarity und uniformity of integration
2. creates 1st and 2nd class MS
3. some policies are only effective if they are generally applicable in all MS
4. effectively excludes MS who have not set up enhanced cooperation (creates "facts" that other MS have to accept or refuse)

1. Political agenda (issues policy-makers pay attention to)
2. media agenda (issues which receive attention in the media)
3. public agenda (issues that citizens find important)

1. outside initiative model: issues arise within groups of society which then try to put it on the political agenda (rare in EU because difficulties mobilizin EU public opinion)>>> compare with outside lobbying
2. mobilization model: policy-makers put issue on political agenda and then try to put it on the public agenda to gain support (rare in EU, because little need to gain support, EU does not implement)
3. Inside access model: issues arise within government but are not put on politic agenda (most common in EU, relates to inside lobbying)

1. political motives, to circumvent political opposition at home (opponents might be less powerful on EU level), leaves option to blame EU for negative regulations
2. economic motives, especially MS with high standards might attempt to reduce disadvantages for companies by highering standards for other MS
3. universalistic motives, believe that all citizens in EU should enjoy some rights or arrangesments (eg NGOs)
4. institutional motives, especially COM and EP might attempt to gain additional powers and improve their respective position

usually combination of some of those motives

1. informal discussions
2. multi-annual action plans (if created for policy field)
3. COM annual work programme
4. Expert committee
5. Green Paper (+ consultation)
6. White Paper (+ consultation)
7. Proposal

discussion document from COM that outlines general issues and options around an issue without presenting specific proposals

1. Green Paper (starts consultation)
2. White Paper (presents specific proposals)
3. Communication (informs stakeholders about COM position without inviting a response)
4. Work Programme (sets out priorities of COM for a year)
5. Action Plan / Programme (overview of activities that COM intends to take in relation to a policy area)
6. Report (contains factual information on the state of affairs of a given issue)

scheme with which issues and events are defined and given meaning

Framing as activity is to define an issue in a way that it fits a specific frame

The same issue can be interpreted in different ways, highlighting some aspects, while neglecting others. How an issue is framed decides what policy decisions are considered adequate and who will participate in discussion.

eg alcohol consume can be framed as health or business issue 

policy venue is an institution that has the authority to make decisions about an issue

which isses are discussed and how they are discussed, depends largely on the characteristics of a venue. Every political system will, as a result of its institutional set-up, be more receptive to some issues than to others.

Agenda-setter will try to frame issues so that they appeal to specific venues

for most issues there are short periods of time where an issues rises on the agenda "policy window" or "opportunity window"

1. wide recognition of the importance of a problem
2. a viable and acceptable solution is available
3. political circumstances for adoption are favourable

if all three are aligned, issue will move on top of the agenda. 

Focusing event (eg 9/11) may aid in drawing strong attention to an issue

1. History-making decisions (treaties or other long-term decisions)
2. policy-setting decisions (choice between policy alternatives "what to do" or "doing anything?")
3. policy-shaping decisions (details of policies, "how to do")

1 is high politics, 3 low politics, 2 depends

determine fundamental choices about the course of the Union (treaty changes, financial perspective, power relations between MS)

1. basic decision will be made at highest political level
2. basic consideration will concern national interest as perceived by top politicians
3. basic mode of reaching decisions will be bargaining

set of bargaining outcomes that a participant in a negotiation will accept

not most preferred outcome, yet actor can live with less than the desired outcome, areas where all zones of acceptability overlap is "zone of agreement" or "bargaining set"

1. coalition formation (basic strategy in EU decision making - gives ability to present a demand more forcefully)
2. persuasion and the management of meaning (give arguments or re-frame proposals so they are more acceptable to opponent, plays on self-interest and also includes not letting him loose face at home)
3. challenging other MS (bluffing to receive better outcome, might end in stalemate)
4. issue-linkage and side-payments (linking non connected issues to each other, thereby offering incentive to agree, side payment refers to additional payments to "buy" agreement, but can also be symbolic in nature)
5. splitting the difference (sharing negative costs)

consists of:

1. policy-setting (general choice between alternatives)
2. policy-shaping (technical aspects)

If a policy-setting decision tends to be high-politics, decision making will shift to council or even European council

1. institutional veto players
2. partisan veto player (actors within institutions)

1. threshold for adoptions is high, because many can veto an adoption
2. due to supermajorities in council, actors tend to think in blocking minorities and how to overcome them
3. all proposals are judged on the basis whether they have a reasonable chance to be accepted
4. culture of consensus and compromise (severe restraints to use blocking votes)

1. types of actors in network
2. stability of the network
3. degree of conflict implies (some engage primarily against certain practices)

1. policy communities - network of policy experts in a given issue area, tend to have stable membership and be rather closed
2. iron triangles - similar to 1, often between politicians, civil servants and IGs and usually to defend a status quo
3. issue networks - like 1, but less fixed members tend to come and go more frequently
4. advocacy coalitions - consists of actors sharing a basic idea about what policy to pursue in a specific area, most issue areas have more than on advocacy coalition, struggling for dominance
5. transnational advocacy networks - networks of acitvists that join forces to plead for a shared value or policy, usually centered around NGOs
6. Epistemic communities, network of experts sharing a professional understanding of a given issue, usually centered on academics or researchers

1. decision making is a result of a wide range of actors  that operate in a less formal fashion
2. these networks are not limited to EU insititutions, but also include NGOs, IG

view that policies should be exclusively based on knowledge and that policy decisions should be made by scientific experts rather than politicians

>contrary to interest driven 

>heavily linked to functionalism and neo-functionalism

>largely confined to low politics

>compare better regulation intiative by COM

1. can be confined to policy-making rather than history-making decisions
2. EU policy-making is less politicized than domestic policy-making 
3. many decisions are de-facto taken in non-puplic spheres (COREPER, DGs) >compare comitology

1. large number of institutions involved in most processes
2. relatively high thresholds for decision making (especially council)
3. combination of intergovernmental and supranational elements
4. wide diversity of interests among MS

1. since concept has been developed there have been institutional changes (most important QMV)
2. more accurate for spending issues where MS can calculate costs/benefits easier than for regulatory issues
3. locus of decision making: not all decisions are made at council, making decisions is different for low politics and in that are less prone to the joint-decision trap
4. outside pressure can resolve deadlock (WTO rulings, financial crisis)

valuable theory, but more applicable to certain decisions, especially high-politics

1. agenda-setting
2. decision-making
3. implementation

1. legal implementation (making EU law ready to put into action)
1. making EU legislation operational via implementation decisions (see comitology)
2. transposition of EU legislation into national legislation
2. practical implementation, application and enforcement, generally by MS
3. monitoring implementation, verifying whether legislation is correctly applied

regulations and treaty provisions are directly applicable, directives have to be transpositioned (time between 3 months and 3 years, roughly 50% is delayed), depends on:

1. length and complication of directive
2. whether directive leaves MS several options
3. whether MS has weak administrative capacity
4. how much MS disagreed with scope of directive
5. how much existing legislations differs from proposed legislation in directive 

1. pull: domestic actors like NGOs, parties
2. push: COM by demanding compliance

1. advisory procedure: committee gives opinion on draft with simple majority, opinion is only advisory in nature
2. management procedure: committee can issue positive, negative or non-opinion using QMV. If not positive draft is referred to Council which has only rejection as influence. If Council does not reject, draft is adopted
3. regulatory procedure: committee can issue positive, negative or non opinion using QMV. If not positive referral to Council. If Council approves, draft is adopted, otherwise send to COM for revision. Council can also amend unanimously
4. Regulatory procedure with scrutiny: applicable to implementation procedures that are quasi-legislative. COM sends draft to EP and Council which can veto by QMV (Council) or absolute majority (EP)

1. competition policy (mergers, state aid)
2. expenditure policy (cohesion funds, CAP)
3. monetary policy (ECB)

by COM (Art. 258 TFEU), reasons:

1. non-communication (easy because MS report transposition digitally)
2. incomplete or incorrect transposition (monitored by DG)
3. incorrect or non-application of legislation (difficult because EU has very few monitoring powers, relies on complaints by individuals and organizations > annual report of application of community law)

1. letter of formal notice (results of investigation with opportunity to respond by MS)
2. reasoned opinion (giving details how problem should be redressed and timeframe)
3. Indictment before CJ if MS does not comply
1. CJ establishes infringement
2. MS should comply, if it does not COM can indict MS with "post-litigation-infringement procedure"
3. CJ then fines MS for every day of non-compliance

Due to supremacy and direct effect, national courts can directly apply EU law

>more accesible for citizens

>faster than infringement procedure

If requested by national court, CJ can issue preliminary ruling (Art. 267 TFEU)

1. social dialogue (exchange best practices)
2. observation centres (gather information on specific subject)
3. suppliers (providing services)
4. regulatory (closely connected to implementation)

alltogether 22 agencies

1. are not active in "on-the-ground" inspections
2. generally do not have autonomous decision power, have to rely for action on COM, together with respective comitology committee (exception, OHIM, CPVO, EASA)

EU institutions have drawn up new institutions and policies 

• 1960 CJ establishes direct effect and supremacy of EU law
• COM established system of merger control, based on few provisions in treaties
• EP has effectively removed individual commissioners although this is technically not possible

All those changes have been accepted by MS governments! 

• financial crisis
• 9/11 gave impetus to terrorist and crime fighting
• fall of communism led to new role of EU

while major decisions are taken by European council, implementation often by other institutions

external factor can be used to reinforce proposals previously rejected

1. creative tension between formal and informal behaviour, formally set rules are interpreted / manipulated by actors
2. dynamics of crises, can give impetus to new policies
3. importance of daily politics, while not in focus might explain much about decision structures

One actor needs to explain and justify its behaviour to another actor which can impose sanctions if he considers the behaviour to be inadequate

1. institutional established procedures that regulate
2. competition for control over political authority
3. on the basis of deliberation
4. where nearly all adult citizens are permitted to participate in
5. an electoral mechanism where their expressed preferences over alternative candidates determine the outcome
6. in such ways that the government is responsive to the majority or as to as many as possible

1-3 somewhat diminished in EU, no real electoral contest, no consolidated real public opinion

• input legitimacy: gov't by the people, the extent to which political systems succeed in translating the preferences of people into policies
• output legtitimacy, gov't for the people, the extent to which political systems can solve collective problems

generally most systems accept detachment of some institutions from democratic control (courts, central banks) if

1. independence is required
2. activity does not concern fundamental trade-offs but only attainment of specific objectives

• EP has limited influence compared to nat'l parliaments
• council and committees are secretive and not accountable to EP or nat'l parliaments
• council decisions are usually unanimous, making it difficult, to hold a single minister accountable
• COM (gov't) is not formed according to EP elections

depends largely on understanding of democracy

• EP elections are only second order > yet role has improved considerably, functions increasingly like nat'l parliament
• gap between citizen opinion and elites > through referendums etc, elites increasingly have to respect citizen's opinions
• 80% of decisions are taken at preparatory bodies, hidden from public view
• EU-policy makers are less vulnerable to public opinion

yet, nat'l systems are never perfectly democratic either

1. wide range of policies (IO typically limited to one)
2. important role of supranational institutions
3. directly elected EP
4. QMV in many areas
5. supremacy and direct effect of EU law

1. no taxes, army or police
2. central role of council and european council
3. second order character of EP elections
4. de facto unanimity in many areas
5. MS implement most policies

Unique system combining elements of state with IO, legally IO, because created by treaties, but development has gone much further

• supranational institutions play much larger role than in IOs, role of MS shows signs of IO though
• EU cannot change treaties, no competence to define its own competence, which states have
• difficulty to gather support for EU ideas, no european public sphere
• with QMV states can be bound against their will, which reflects state qualities
• EU resembles federal state because it can impose laws, yet these have to be implemented by MS