Most Common When Least Important: Deliberation in the European Union Council of Ministers

2009 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Naurin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Democratic Theory ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Substantial Variation ◽  
Political Pressure ◽  
Union Council ◽  
Working Groups ◽  
Council Of Ministers ◽  
Intergovernmental Policy ◽  
Empirical Turn

This article contributes to the empirical turn in deliberative democratic theory, by studying the presence of arguing (discussion on the merits) and bargaining in the working groups of the Council of the European Union. It uses a survey of representatives of member states to analyse to what extent, under what circumstances, and by whom, arguing is used. The results indicate that arguing is indeed common in the Council working groups, but also that there is substantial variation. Most arguing is found in intergovernmental policy areas and by the most powerful and well-connected actors. The findings point to the conclusion that higher stakes and political pressure make actors less willing and able to engage in arguing.

The Council of Ministers of the European Union

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Lewis
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Majority Voting ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Collective Decisions ◽  
Working Groups ◽  
General Secretariat ◽  
Ordinary Legislative Procedure ◽  
Council Of Ministers

The Council of Ministers, officially known as the Council of the European Union (EU), is a single legal composition of national ministers who meet in policy-specific formations to negotiate and adopt EU policies and laws. The Council is more than just the ministers; they depend on an infrastructure of preparatory bodies and specialist working groups, as well as rotating and permanent leadership positions and an internal bureaucracy, the General Secretariat of the Council (GSC). Over time, the Council has undergone formal restructuring, such as sharing colegislative authority with the European Parliament (EP), now called the “ordinary legislative procedure” (OLP), and redesigning how majority voting works. The Council has also witnessed informal organizational change, especially in internal pecking-order dynamics and techniques to reach consensus-based outcomes. EU Council research has documented formal and informal decision-making dynamics, especially related to voting and consensus practices, although there is no real agreement on how formal and informal rules interact to influence the context of negotiations. There is still a divergence of interpretation in how the Council actually works, such as whether consensus is a “culture” of mutual accommodation subject to group standards or is instead a façade of relative power. As an institution, the Council deliberately promotes clublike networks of like-minded national policy specialists and experts who meet in repeat, face-to-face interactions and make collective decisions in mostly nontransparent (in camera) settings of insulation from domestic audiences. However, in the post-Maastricht era of EU politics since the early 1990s, the way the Council works is also increasingly debated in terms of transparency, accountability, and legitimacy.

Delegation, Comitology, and the Separation of Powers in the European Union

2002 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 551-574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Ballmann ◽  
David Epstein ◽  
Sharyn O'Halloran
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Policy Implementation ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Theoretic Model ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Considerable Controversy ◽  
Game Theoretic ◽  
Council Of Ministers ◽  
The Eu

Although relatively unknown outside of Europe, comitology committees are an object of considerable controversy in the European Union (EU). Controversy stems from their pivotal role in overseeing policy implementation authority delegated from the Council of Ministers (Council) to the European Commission (Commission). In this article, we employ a game-theoretic model to analyze the influence of these, committees on policy outcomes. Our analysis provides three important insights. First, we show that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, comitology committees move outcomes toward the Commission's preferred policies rather than the Council's. Second, we demonstrate that the possibility of a Council veto may also move outcomes away from Council members' policy preferences and toward the Commission's. Third, the 1999 changes to the comitology procedures, designed to enhance the Commission's autonomy in policymaking, may have had the exact opposite effect. Paradoxically, we conclude that comitology serves to enhance the Commission's role in policy implementation and thereby strengthens the separation of powers within the EU.

Whither Lomé? The Mid-Term Review and the Decline of Partnership

1996 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 503-518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gordon Crawford
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Mutual Respect ◽  
European Development Fund ◽  
Development Fund ◽  
African Caribbean ◽  
European Development ◽  
Centre Piece ◽  
Council Of Ministers ◽  
Ongoing Dialogue

The signing in Mauritius on 4 November 1995 of the amended fourth Lomé Convention, the aid and trade co-operation agreement between the European Union (EU) and the ACP Group of 70 African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries, brought the Mid-Term Review to its formal completion after protracted negotiations. Established in 1975, Lomé has long been the centre-piece of EU development assistance. In quantitative terms, the European Development Fund, the financial instrument of Lomé, has comprised the largest single portion of EU aid, averaging almost 45 per cent of all disbursements in recent years.1 Qualitatively, Lomé has been regarded as a model of North—South cooperation, mainly due to three special features: it was founded on the principles of equality, mutual respect, and interdependence; it is a legally binding contract negotiated between two sets of countries; and it involves ongoing dialogue through three joint institutions, the ACP—EU Council of Ministers, the Committee of Ambassadors, and the ‘parliamentary’ Joint Assembly.

scholarly journals COHESION POLICY INSTRUMENTS SUPPORTING TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

2019 ◽  
Vol XXI (1) ◽  
pp. 38-46
Author(s):  
Natalia Dominiak
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Policy Instruments ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cohesion Policy ◽  
Financial Perspective ◽  
Interdisciplinary Character ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Programming Period ◽  
Council Of Ministers ◽  
Empirical Material

The aim of the article is to discuss issues related to the development of tourism in the context of the possibility of financial support available from cohesion policy funds in the current financial perspective for the years 2014-2020. The particular attention was paid to the multifaceted nature of modern tourism and the directions of changes in the use of EU funds, referring to the completed programming period 2007-2013. An attempt was also made to indicate the significance of tourism in the section of the national economy of Poland and in the European Union, concentrating on its interdisciplinary character. Characteristics of cohesion policy, its goals and principles of functioning were made. The article is of a review nature, which means that the authors’ own materials and empirical material from the literature of the subject were used. The figures were obtained from reports published by the Chancellery of the Prime Minister of the Council of Ministers. It was found out that the amount of allocated funds for cohesion policy among all European Union countries in 2014-2020 is the highest for Poland and amounts to EUR 72.9 billion. There is an increase in the amount of funds allocated from the European Union to Poland, compared to the amount of allocated funds in the 2007-2013 perspective. It was also pointed out that the cohesion policy instruments mentioned above only indirectly contribute to the development of tourism, as the financing for 2014-2020 lacks programs and activities entirely dedicated to tourism.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document