scholarly journals Transforming representative democracy in the EU? The role of the European Parliament

2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Shackleton
2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 473-498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magdalena Frennhoff Larsén

AbstractSince the Lisbon Treaty increased the legal role of the European Parliament (ep) ineutrade policy, there has been a debate about the extent to which these legal competencies have translated into actual influence over the content and outcome ofeutrade negotiations. Using the trade negotiations between theeuand India as a case study, this article argues that the impact of theephas indeed been significant. Through two-level game analysis, which extends its domestic focus to include theepas a domestic constituent, it demonstrates how theephas affected theeuwin-set in ways that have both hindered and facilitated agreement at the international level between theeuand India. It also shows how theephas affected the negotiating dynamics and how theeunegotiators have had their preferences somewhat compromised by theepin their attempt at reaching an agreement with India.


Author(s):  
Deirdre Curtin

Increasing the role of the European Parliament in legislative and executive rule-making was a key objective of the Lisbon Treaty reformers in their endeavours to enhance the democratic legitimacy of the EU. Yet, the Lisbon reform leaves much room for improvement with respect to accountability in the new system of legal acts. The analysis reveals the wide discrepancy between the formal rules and informal practices of the institutions post-Lisbon, giving rise to further accountability concerns. The main problems are the inadequacy of democratic checks over the Council, limited resources and powers of the European Parliament, increased reliance on trilogues at the expense of open dialogue and deliberation, and insufficient public access to institutions’ documents. In conclusion, it is suggested that even in the absence of formal Treaty reform, values such as publicity and participation could be crucial normative standards to be included in the further design of EU decision-making procedures.


Author(s):  
Christopher Lord

This chapter examines the legitimacy and democratic control of the European Union's international policies. It first explains why, with whom, and by what standards the EU's international role need to be legitimate before discussing the issue of democratic control involving the European Parliament (EP) and national parliaments. More specifically, it considers the member states' mantra that the legitimacy of EU decisions is ‘founded on the principle of representative democracy’, delivered through the representation of citizens in the EP and national democracies in the European Council, the Councils, and their own national parliaments. It also emphasizes the great variety in the EU's international policy procedures and concludes by assessing how legitimacy might enable or constrain the development of the EU as an international actor.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Katharina L. Meissner ◽  
Guri Rosén

Abstract As in nearly all European Union (EU) policy areas, scholars have turned to analysing the role of national parliaments, in addition to that of the European Parliament (EP), in trade politics. Yet, there is limited understanding of how the parliamentarians at the two levels interact. This article fills the gap by conceptualizing these interactions as a continuum ranging between cooperation, coexistence and competition. We use this continuum to explore multilevel party interactions in EU trade talks and show how cooperation compels politicization – national parliamentarians mainly interact with their European colleagues in salient matters. However, we argue that the impact of politicization on multilevel relations between parliamentarians in the EP and national parliaments is conditioned by party-level factors. Hence, we account for how and why politicization triggers multilevel party cooperation across parliaments in the EU through ideological orientation, government position and policy preferences and show how this takes place in the case of trade.


Author(s):  
Justyna Szczudlik

AbstractPoland was among vocal critics of the acceleration and finalization of CAI talks by the end of 2020. Among the reasons were doubts about the timing and political circumstances in the EU such as the role of Germany as a driving force for CAI due to its economic dependence on China, and Commission mandate for talks that was granted several years ago in a very different situation both in China and Europe. Poland was also critical about bypassing the USA, in a sense of bringing CAI talks up to speed during the transition period, before Biden sworn. However, after finalization of the agreement, Polish government (as well as the biggest opposition party) presents a rather positive assessment of CAI and opts for ratification. Notwithstanding, all Polish MEPs have endorsed the European Parliament resolution to freeze ratification process.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document