The Lisbon treaty followed the disastrous Constitutional Treaty of 2004 that was rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands. After a period of reflection, negotiations began for another treaty (Laursen, 2013:9). These negotiations continued for months, after which it was left to the Portuguese presidency to complete the Treaty, and thus the Treaty became known as the Lisbon Treaty. It was signed in Lisbon on 13 December 2007, but only entered into force on 1 December 2009 following ratification problems, particularly in Ireland (Cini and Borragen, 2013:51). Attitudes towards the Lisbon Treaty differ widely (Laursen, 2013: 9). For some, the Treaty simply sets out incremental reforms designed to make the EU more accountable and efficient (Berman, 2012:3). This is demonstrated largely through institutional changes, particularly to the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Council, but also through the Citizens’ Initiative. However, others have attacked it as merely reinforcing the control of the elites over member states and conversely restricting transparency and encouraging secrecy. Furthermore, some believe that such changes have hardly wholly transformed the EU and that the new Union has remained remarkably similar to its predecessor (Cini and Borragan, 2013:51). They argue that the EU is “too distant” from citizens to ever be considered efficient. Once both sides of the argument have been considered, it can be seen that the Lisbon treaty has improved efficiency to a reasonable standard, however the level of transparency in the EU appears to have reduced.
Through the Lisbon Treaty, the efficiency of the European Parliament has improved. Craig (2010:36) goes as far as to say that the European P...
... middle of paper ...
...pean Union under the Lisbon Treaty: Institutional changes regarding democratic government in the EU’, available at: http://www.eui.eu/Projects/EUDO-Institutions/Documents/EUDOreport922011.pdf
Piris, J. (2010) The Lisbon Treaty: A Legal and Political Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Pech, l. (2011), ‘The Institutional Development of the EU post-Lisbon: A case of plus a change…?’, available at: http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/11-5%20Pech.pdf
Right2Water (2014), ‘Hearing in European Parliament Great Success!’, available at: http://www.right2water.eu/news/hearing-european-parliament-great-success
Runcheva, H. and Apostolovska, M. (2012), ‘Democratic Deficit of the EU after the Lisbon Treaty’, available at: http://euroacademia.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Hristina_Runceva_and_Milena_Apostolovska_Democratic_Deficit_of_the_EU_after_the_Lisbon_Treaty.pdf
Working unitedly is a basic thing to do if you have one to 10 people, but with almost a whole country working as a union is a significant and a spontaneous deal. Which Union am I talking about? The European Union, of course! This Union holds virtually all of the European Countries with 28 countries. Unfortunately, some countries never did join because of losing sovereignty.
The European Union has a common “government” called the Parliament. In the background essay it stated, “The role of the parliament is to debate and pass laws, make sure all EU institutions work democratically, and debate, and adopt the EU budget”. This means that the parliament has control over the laws, and controls the European Union budget. In Document B it mentions, “Whatever institution governs the trade of a nation or group of nations whether monarchy, dictator or parliament essentially rules that nation”. This means that the parliament has control over the European Union.
To answer this question I will firstly explain how EU law became incorporated within the member states I will then explain the various types of EU legislation's in circulation. This is important to define as the various types of methods will involve different enforcement procedures. Finally I will explain how EU law is enforced and the ways EU law will effect the member state and individual businesses. I will summarise my findings at the end of the essay, this will give details of all the key ideas I have ut across.
The case of Francovich had a significant impact on the European Union (EU) law. If a conflict arises between the EU law and the national law, the EU law highly prevails. The European Union law is a framework of treaties and legislation, which have a direct or indirect effect on the laws of the member states which are bound to the European Union. Primary and Secondary laws are the two sources of the EU law. This essay will firstly analyse the main institutions of the European Union and define various legal terms. It will then move on, to discuss the case of Francovich and the importance it had for state liability. Furthermore, it will refer to subsequent cases which are linked with state liability and had an impact on the EU Law. Lastly, my own views about State Liability will be presented.
Simmonds C., ‘Paramountcy and the ECHR: a conflict resolved? [2012] Cambridge Law Journal Vol. 71 Issue 3, 498-201
Prof. Jeffrey A. Brauch, The Margin of Appreciation and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Threat to the rule of law, Vol.11, Columbia Journal of European Law (2004-2005)
When analysts criticise the lack of democratic legitimacy in the EU they generally point to the mode of political representation and the nature of policy outputs. Only one branch of the EU is directly elected is the European Parliament. Though stronger than it once was, the EP remains is actually only one of four major actors in the EU policy-making process. The EP is a body without power or accountability, and easily dismissed just as a ‘talking shop’ (Colin Pilkington.) Only 75% of its amendments are accepted by the Commission and the Council of Ministers.
Problems with the Maastricht Treaty and its Goal to Unify Europe My position is in opposition to the unification of Europe as proposed under the Maastricht Treaty, as beneficial to Europe. We will prove beyond a reasonable doubt about the uselessness of the treaty. The main principle of the Maastricht Treaty is European Unity. Unity is a nice warm hearted word.
Tiilikainen, T. 2011. The empowered European Parliament: Accommodation to the new functions provided by the Lisbon Treaty. The Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
Thomassen, J. 2009. The Legitimacy of the European Union after Enlargement. In: Thomassen, J. Eds. The Legitimacy of the European Union after Enlargement. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 67-86.
European Union has adapted the Charter of Fundamental Rights at Strasbourg in 2007. Their intension was to make existing human rights more visible, instead of creating new ones. The Charter is not incorporated in the Treaty of Lisbon, but under the Article 51 TEU, it has ‘the same legal value as the Treaties’. Despite Article 6 TEU and Article 51 of the Charter, some EU states, like the UK and Poland were concern about the ability of ECJ to change their national law. Therefore, the UK and Poland secured the adoption of a special protocol where Charter does not apply fully in both states.
Following the post-World War II carnage and violence, a new Europe arose from the ashes. This new Europe was decimated from the intermittent fighting between the Allied and Axis powers during the second great war and the nations of Europe sought to devise a plan that to avoid further war-time conflicts within the region. The European Coal and Steel Committee was the first advent of assembling nations together in political and economic interest. The ECSC was formed in 1950 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris whose signatories included West Germany , Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium, France and The Netherlands.
One of the most controversial debates in the history of European Union (EU) is if there is a democratic deficit in the EU. On the one hand, many scholars argued that the democratic deficit exists in the EU. On the other hand, there are other scholars who claimed that there is not a democratic deficit in the EU. In this essay, the writer will support the argument that the democratic deficit in the EU exists and will propose how this deficit can be reduced. In the first part of this paper the arguments, which support the existence of the democratic deficit, will be discussed. After that, this essay will present the claims that there is no democratic deficit in the EU. Finally, as the argument of this essay is that there is a democratic deficit in the EU, is to present some ways, which can reduce the democratic deficit in the EU.
The doctrine of Supremacy of the EU Law has been adopted from the European Court of Justice, in which the doctrine covers all aspects of law in member states. The supremacy is evidently implied in the Treaty on European Union Article 4(3) and Treaty of the functioning of the European Union Article 18 , which emphasises the prohibitions against discrimination. This is then supported by Article 288 TFEU whereby the regulations are binding upon each member state. Furthermore, Article 344 TFEU ensures resolution between member states. This assignment will discuss to what extent the acceptance of the supremacy of the EU law has been problematic in regards to parliamentary sovereignty.
The enlargement of the European Union (EU) in 2004 and 2007 has been termed as the largest single expansion of the EU with a total of 12 new member states – bringing the number of members to 27 – and more than 77 million citizens joining the Commission (Murphy 2006, Neueder 2003, Ross 2011). A majority of the new member states in this enlargement are from the eastern part of the continent and were countries that had just emerged from communist economies (EC 2009, Ross 2011), although overall, the enlargement also saw new member states from very different economic, social and political compared to that of the old member states (EC 2009, Ross 2011). This enlargement was also a historical significance in European history, for it saw the reunification of Europe since the Cold War in a world of increasing globalization (EC 2009, Mulle et al. 2013, Ross 2011). For that, overall, this enlargement is considered by many to have been a great success for the EU and its citizens but it is not without its problems and challenges (EC 2009, Mulle et al. 2013, Ross 2011). This essay will thus examine the impact of the 2004/2007 enlargements from two perspectives: firstly, the impact of the enlargements on the EU as a whole, and thereafter, how the enlargements have affected the new member states that were acceded during the 2004/2007 periods. Included in the essay will be the extent of their integration into the EU and how being a part of the Commission has contributed to their development as nation states. Following that, this essay will then evaluate the overall success of the enlargement process and whether the EU or the new member states have both benefited from the accessions or whether the enlargement has only proven advantageous to one th...