THE PROSPECTS FOR INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: A LIBERAL INTERGOVERNMENTALIST PERSPECTIVE

Piotr Tosiek

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to determine the probability of institutional reforms resulting from the debate on EU future held as a part of the “Conference on the Future of Europe” initiated in 2020. In the theoretical dimension, the analysis is based on the application of the liberal intergovernmentalist approach with its three assumptions: the strict categorization of intergovernmental decision-making built on the triad ‘preferences-negotiations-institutions’, the concept of demoicracy, and the need for differentiated integration. On this basis, three hypotheses for each reform are presented and verified, which leads to determination of their possible implementation. The main thought is the statement that, when adopting the liberal intergovernmentalism, the EU will remain an intergovernmental organization, founded on societies organized in nation states, but at the same time internally differentiated in terms of the quality of membership.

References

• Bickerton, Christopher J., Dermot Hodson, and Uwe Puetter. 2015. “The New Intergovernmentalism: European Integration in the Post-Maastricht Era.” Journal of Common Market Studies 53 (4): 703–722. doi: 10.1111/jcms.12212.
• Biermann, Felix, Nina Guérin, Stefan Jagdhuber, Berthold Rittberger, and Moritz Weiss. 2019. “Political (Non-)reform in the Euro Crisis and the Refugee Crisis: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Explanation.” Journal of European Public Policy 26 (2): 246–266. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2017.1408670.
• Bol, Damien. 2016. “Reforming European Elections: Could a Pan-European Ballot Paper Engage EU Voters?” EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, London School of Economics, http://bit.ly/1YqDTjd, last accessed 28 April 2020.
• Csehi, Robert, and Uwe Puetter. 2020. “Who Determined What Governments Really Wanted? Preference Formation and the Euro Crisis.” West European Politics. doi: 10.1080/01402382.2020.1731666.
• Fabbrini, Federico. 2019. “The Conference on the Future of Europe. A New Model to Reform the EU?” Working Paper Series No. 12. The Brexit Institute.
• Finke, Daniel. 2009. “Challenges to Intergovernmentalism: An Empirical Analysis of EU Treaty Negotiations since Maastricht.” West European Politics 32 (3): 466–495. doi: 10.1080/01402380902779055.
• Forster, Anthony. 1998. “Britain and the Negotiation of the Maastricht Treaty: A Critique of Liberal Intergovernmentalism.” Journal of Common Market Studies 36 (3): 347–368. doi: 10.1111/1468-5965.00114.
• Furness, Mark, and Stefan Gänzle. 2017. “The Security–Development Nexus in European Union Foreign Relations after Lisbon: Policy Coherence at Last?” Development Policy Review 35 (4): 475–492. doi: 10.1111/dpr.12191.
• Hahm, Hyeonho, David Hilpert, and Thomas König. 2019. “Institutional Reform and Public Attitudes toward EU Decision Making.” European Journal of Political Research. doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12361.
• Hegedüs, Daniel. 2019. “What Role for EU Institutions in Confronting Europe’s Democracy and Rule of Law Crisis?” Policy Paper No. 4. The German Marshall Fund of the United States.
• Hodson, Dermot. 2019. “The New Intergovernmentalism and the Euro Crisis: A Painful Case.” LSE ‘Europe in Questions’ Discussion Paper Series No. 145. London School of Economics and Political Science.
• Hodson, Dermot, and Uwe Puetter. 2019. “The European Union in Disequilibrium: New Intergovernmentalism, Postfunctionalism and Integration Theory in the Post-Maastricht period.” Journal of European Public Policy 26 (8): 1153–1171. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2019.1569712.
• Jensen, Mads Dagnis, and Holly Snaith. 2016. “When Politics Prevails: The Political Economy of a Brexit” Journal of European Public Policy 23 (9): 1302–1310. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2016.1174531
• Kreuder-Sonnen, Christian. 2018. “An Authoritarian Turn in Europe and European Studies?” Journal of European Public Policy 25 (3): 452–464. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2017.1411383.
• Kuhn, Theresa. 2019. “Grand Theories of European Integration Revisited: Does Identity Politics Shape the Course of European integration?” Journal of European Public Policy 26 (8): 1213–1230. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2019.1622588.
• Meunier, Sophie, and Milada Anna Vachudova. 2018. “Liberal Intergovernmentalism, Illiberalism and the Potential Superpower of the European Union.” Journal of Common Market Studies 56 (7): 1631–1647. doi: 10.1111/jcms.12793.
• Moravcsik, Andrew. 2001. “Federalism in the European Union: Rhetoric and Reality.” In The Federal Vision. Legitimacy and Levels of Governance in the United States and the European Union, eds. Kalypso Nicolaïdis and Robert Howse, 161–187. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Moravcsik, Andrew. 2008. “The European Constitutional Settlement.” The World Economy 31 (1): 158–183. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9701.2007.01086.x.
• Moravcsik, Andrew. 2018. “Preferences, Power and Institutions in 21st-Century Europe.” Journal of Common Market Studies 56 (7): 1648–1674. doi: 10.1111/jcms.12804.
• Naurin, Daniel. 2018. “Liberal Intergovernmentalism in the Councils of the EU: A Baseline Theory?” Journal of Common Market Studies 56 (7): 1526–1543. doi: 10.1111/jcms.12786.
• Nicolaïdis, Kalypso. 2003. “The New Constitution as European Demoi-cracy?” Paper No. 38. The Federal Trust for Education and Research.
• Nicolaïdis, Kalypso. 2018. “Braving the Waves? Europe’s Constitutional Settlement at Twenty?” Journal of Common Market Studies 56 (7): 1614–1630. doi: 10.1111/jcms.12791.
• Pan, Wen, Madeleine O. Hosli, and Michaël Lantmeeters. 2019. “Liberal Intergovernmentalism and the Establishment of the European Stability Mechanism.” Working Paper Series No. 1. United Nations University – Institute on Comparative Regional Integration Studies.
• Papaioannou, Elias. 2016. “Needed: A European Institutional Union.” In How to Fix Europe’s Monetary Union. Views of Leading Economists, eds. Richard Baldwin and Francesco Giavazzi, 207–226. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research Press.
• Patel, Oliver. 2018. “The EU and the Brexit Negotiations: Institutions, Strategies and Objectives.” Brexit Insights. UCL European Institute, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/european-institute/sites/european-institute/files/eu_and_the_brexit_negotiations.pdf, last accessed 28 April 2020.
• Peers, Steve. 2011. “Future EU Treaty Reform? Economic Governance and Democratic Accountability.” Statewatch Analysis No. 37, https://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-155-econ-governance.pdf, last accessed 28 April 2020.
• Phelan, William. 2018. “European Legal Integration: towards a More Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach.” Journal of Common Market Studies 56 (7): 1562–1577. doi: 10.1111/jcms.12782.
• Pukelsheim, Friedrich, and Kai-Friederike Oelbermann. 2015. “Reinforcing Uniformity in the European Election Act: Gentle Interim Arrangements in 2019 towards Systemic Double-Proportionality in 2024.” In The Electoral Reform of the European Parliament: Composition, Procedure and Legitimacy. In-Depth Analysis, 18–25. PE 510.002, European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies.
• Sadeh, Tal, Yoav Raskin, and Eyal Rubinson. 2019. “Sharing the Gains of European Integration: Are EU Institutions Vehicles of Domination?” Working Papers No. 66. Salzburg: Political Economy of International Organization.
• Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2011. “Ever Looser Union? towards a Theory of Differentiated Integration in the EU.” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268031326, last accessed 28 April 2020.
• Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2015. “Liberal Intergovernmentalism and the Euro Area Crisis.” Journal of European Public Policy 22 (2): 177–195. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2014.994020.
• Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2017. “Theorising Crisis in European Integration.” In The European Union in Crisis, eds. Desmond Dinan, Neill Nugent and William E. Paterson, 316–336. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2018. “Liberal Intergovernmentalism and the Crises of the European Union” Journal of Common Market Studies 56 (7): 1578–1594. doi: 10.1111/jcms.12789.
• Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2019. “The Choice for Differentiated Europe: an Intergovernmentalist Theoretical Framework.” Comparative European Politics 17 (2): 176–191. doi: 10.1057/s41295-019-00166-5.
• Schoeller. Magnus G., and Adrienne Héritier. 2019. “Driving Informal Institutional Change: the European Parliament and the Reform of the Economic and Monetary Union.” Journal of European Integration 41 (3), 277–292. doi: 10.1080/07036337.2019.1599373.
• Schoutheete, Philippe de. 2014. “Institutional Reform of the EU.” European Policy Brief No. 19. EGMONT – Royal Institute for International Relations.
• Schmitt, Hermann, Sara B. Hobolt, and Sebastian Adrian Popa. 2014. “’Spitzenkandidaten’ in the 2014 European Parliament Election: Does Campaign Personalization Increase the Propensity to Turn Out?”, paper prepared for presentation at the ECPR General Conference to be convened at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, 3-6 September, https://docplayer.net/39499494-Spitzenkandidaten-in-the-2014-european-parliament-election-does-campaign-personalization-increase-the-propensity-to-turn-out.html, last accessed 28 April 2020.
• Stratulat, Corina, and Janis A. Emmanouilidis. 2011. “EP Electoral Reform: A Question of Trade-Offs.” Policy Brief. European Policy Centre, https://www.emmanouilidis.eu/download/StratulatEmmanouilidis—EP-electoral-reform.pdf, last accessed 28 April 2020.
• Tiilikainen, Teija. 2016. “Brexit’s Impact on the EU Institutions. Immediate Implications and Possibilities for Reform.” Briefing Paper No. 203. Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
• Torcal, Mariano, and Pablo Christmann. 2019. “Congruence, National Context and Trust in European Institutions” Journal of European Public Policy, 26 (12): 1779–1798. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2018.1551922.
• Tosiek, Piotr. 2017. “Demokracja międzyrządowa – w kierunku rekonstrukcji polskiej koncepcji reformy instytucjonalnej UE [Intergovernmental Democracy – towards the Reconstruction of the Polish Concept of EU Institutional Reform].” Rocznik Integracji Europejskiej 11: 369–381. doi: 10.14746/rie.2017.11.26.
• Tovo, Carlo. 2017. “Delegation of Legislative Powers in the EU: How EU Institutions Have Eluded the Lisbon Reform.” European Law Review 42 (5): 677–705.
• Veebel, Viljar. 2014. “European Union’s Institutional Reform Options and Their Impact to a Small Member State: The Case of Estonia.” Journal of Politics and Law 7 (3): 47–56. doi: 10.5539/jpl.v7n3p47.
• Vogler, Jan P. 2020. “The Political Economy of the European Union: An Exploration of EU Institutions and Governance from the Perspective of Polycentrism.” In Exploring the Political Economy and Social Philosophy of Vincent and Elinor Ostrom, eds. Peter J. Boettke, Bobbi Herzberg and Brian Kogelmann. London: Rowmann and Littlefield (forthcoming).
• Wessels, Wolfgang. 2005. “Keynote Article: The Constitutional Treaty – Three Readings from a Fusion Perspective” Journal of Common Market Studies, 43 (s1): 11–36. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-9886.2005.00574.x
• Wolf, Marie, and Marinus Ossewaarde. 2018. “The Political Vision of Europe during the ‘Refugee Crisis’: Missing Common Ground for Integration.” Journal of European Integration 40 (1): 33–50. doi: 10.1080/07036337.2017.1404054.
• Zalewska, Marta, and Oskar Josef Gstrein. 2013. “National Parliaments and their Role in European Integration: the EU’s Democratic Deficit in Times of Economic Hardship and Political Insecurity.” Bruges Political Research Papers No. 28. College of Europe.