The European Commission had become one of the more contentious actors during both Irish referenda on the Lisbon Treaty. This book discusses the role of the European Commission and institutions more generally, as well as the policy area of justice and home affairs. It argues that it is important to evaluate the role of EU institutions for the process of European integration. The book suggests a reconceptualisation of the framework of supranational policy entrepreneurs (SPEs), which is often referred to by the academic literature that discusses the role of agency in European integration. It focuses on the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) at the policy and treaty levels; primarily on four grounds: academic literature, SPE behaviour, EU's policymaking, and the interplay between treaty negotiations and policy-making. To analyse the role of the European institutions, the book combines an analysis of the Lisbon Treaty in relation to the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice with an analysis of the policy-making in the same area. The public policy model by John Kingdon with constructivist international relations literature is also outlined. The external dimension of counter-terrorism in the EU; the role of the EU institutions in EU asylum and migration; and the role of he Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is discussed. The book also analyses the role of the EU institutions in the communitarisation of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, and thus subsequently in the Lisbon Treaty.
and the following two chapters sketch out the contemporary features of Whitehall’s way of organising for Europe and also how this has
emerged. We trace the pattern of Europeanisation since accession in 1973.
Chapters 6 and 7 look at the inner and outer cores of the EUpolicy-making
process in Whitehall by concentrating on what happens in departments
where the greatest degree of alteration in engagement, activity and administrative capacity has taken place. This chapter concentrates on the three
key organisations and the actors connected to them that are responsible
government to recognise, in interacting with the EU, is that the institutions
of the EU set the context for European policy-making within the member
states. In what follows we look at the following aspects:
• the broad characteristics of EUpolicy-making;
• the institutional arrangements, especially those which impact upon
• where the UK institutions engage at EU level; and
• the norms and culture of EUpolicy-making.
A first, general point to make is that the EU style of policy-making and
administration, inasmuch as there is one
The European Union and ‘inner core’
This chapter explores the way in which the EU has impinged upon the inner
core of departments most engaged in EUpolicy-making in UK central government.1 In seeking a comprehensive approach, we have prioritised certain
parts of the Whitehall European policy-making network. Leaving aside the
‘hub’ of the network, already covered in Chapter 5, these categories are:
• An inner core of ministries with extensive involvement in the EU:
Dilthey (1833-1911). Weber
argued that social science needed to study meaningful social actions.
These actions can be analysed as more nonlinear and cyclical.
Kingdon (1984) provides an excellent starting point for
such a framework. He incorporates many important aspects of public
policy in his model which is a very good representation of EUpolicy-making, notwithstanding the fact that his model was
/EU system and
the respective impacts on EC/EUpolicy-making in the Member States, we
look at the effective use of treaty provisions. For this purpose, we explore
the real ‘demand’ for different procedural ‘offers’ or opportunity structures at hand.
We take the changes, which the architects of the treaties have included
within primary law, as independent variables. Of course, we do not expect
that the intentions of the treaty architects will be fully met. Fifteen
national, aggregated interpretations of the treaties30 produces a productive ambiguity31 which itself serves as
within the EUpolicy-making process, the consultant’s expertise tends to lie in providing advice in a combination of two fields: specific EU
policy areas and the decision-making process itself. The consultant advises on
policy developments and on how these might affect a particular individual,
company or group. Some consultancies are highly specialised; others offer a
suite of services over a broad range of policy areas. As EU policies have multiplied and become more complex, the role of consultants has changed and
become more important. Consultants can no longer
the EU in favour of its project (Tapiola-Shumylo, 2012; Trenin,
2011), leading to dramatic U-turns by Armenia and (before President Yanukovich’s departure), Ukraine, during autumn 2013.
The assumed link between democracy and security within EUpolicymaking towards its Eastern neighbourhood is the subject of this chapter, which
focuses more specifically on the idea that democratisation may lead to
peaceful relations between the states of the South Caucasus, which, through
the ENP and the EaP, have long been involved in these policies, with only
of intervention, who are going to be your friends, what are the key issues?1
In addition to the effect on the style of administration, there has been
cumulatively an emergence of a substantial cadre of civil servants and, indeed,
ministers who have, through dint of participation in EUpolicy-making, built
up a substantial awareness of EU issues, tactics and procedures. These can
simply be shared understandings about how the EU works through to skills
in making it work such as building coalitions and alliances – a necessity
in areas of policy-making increasingly
European Union policy-making
The EU is not a state and is not a traditional international organization. It
is common to characterize it as a hybrid system with a federal component,
but nothing comparable exists at this point in time. To understand EUpolicy-making towards Mercosur it is important to understand the internal
system of the EU, its internal policy-making and the internal system of
Mercosur, particularly given that Mercosur has tried to replicate the institutional design of the EU.
Since its creation in 1957 in the