Advertisement

Comparative European Politics

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 919–939 | Cite as

National parliaments in the democratic politics of the EU: the subsidiarity early warning mechanism, 2009–2017

  • Ian CooperEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

With the Early Warning Mechanism (EWM), the Treaty of Lisbon empowered national parliaments to collectively intervene in the EU’s legislative process. Yet at first glance their impact seems to have been minimal. Between 2009 and 2017, national parliaments only formally triggered the EWM on three occasions (with a ‘yellow card’), and in two of those cases they were overruled. However, if we broaden the analysis to include many other cases where national parliaments came close to triggering the EWM (but fell short), and expand the timeline to look at their long-term influence on the legislative process, a more nuanced picture emerges. National parliaments have not had much success in using the EWM to block unwanted legislation—i.e. causing it to be rejected, withdrawn, or permanently deferred. However, they have had some success in using the EWM to engage in policy dialogue with EU institutions. In a few cases, national parliaments’ interventions had a discernable, yet unheralded, impact on the final legislative outcome—in part by influencing their respective governments’ negotiating positions. More generally, the EWM has legitimized the role of national parliaments, individually and collectively, as EU-level actors, and in so doing has enhanced the democratic legitimacy of the EU.

Keywords

Democracy European Union National parliaments Subsidiarity Treaty of Lisbon 

References

  1. Auel, K., O. Rozenberg, and A. Tacea. 2015. To scrutinise or not to scrutinise? Explaining variation in EU-related activities in national parliaments. West European Politics 38(2): 282–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cooper, I. 2006. The watchdogs of subsidiarity: National parliaments and the logic of arguing in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies 44(2): 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cooper, I. 2012. A ‘virtual third chamber’ for the European Union? National parliaments after the Treaty of Lisbon. West European Politics 35(3): 441–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooper, I. 2013a. Bicameral or tricameral? National parliaments and representative democracy in the European Union. Journal of European Integration 35(5): 531–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooper, I. 2013b. Deliberation in the multilevel parliamentary field: The Seasonal Workers Directive as a test case. In Practices of inter-parliamentary coordination in international politics: The European Union and beyond, ed. B. Crum and J.E. Fossum, 51–67. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cooper, I. 2015. A yellow card for the striker: National parliaments and the defeat of EU legislation on the right to strike. Journal of European Public Policy 22(10): 1406–1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper, I. 2016 How the ‘red card’ system could increase the power of national parliaments within the EU, LSE EUROPP Blog, http://bit.ly/1UvltKg. Accessed 13 Sep 2018.
  8. Cooper, I. 2017 Is the Early Warning Mechanism a legal or a political procedure? Three questions and a typology. In National and regional parliaments in the EU-legislative procedure post-lisbon: The impact of the early warning mechanism, eds. A. Jonsson Cornell and M. Goldoni, 17–49. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. De Wilde, P., and T. Raunio. 2018. Redirecting national parliaments: Setting priorities for involvement in EU affairs. Comparative European Politics 16(2): 310–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fabbrini, F., and K. Granat. 2013. ‘Yellow card, but no foul’: The role of the national parliaments under the subsidiarity protocol and the Commission proposal for an EU regulation on the right to strike. Common Market Law Review 50(1): 115–143.Google Scholar
  11. Fasone, C., and D. Fromage. 2016. From veto players to agenda-setters? National parliaments and their ‘green card’ to the European Commission. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 23(2): 294–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fromage, D. 2016. The second yellow card on the EPPO proposal: An encouraging development for Member State parliaments? Yearbook of European Law 35(1): 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fromage, D., and V. Kreilinger. 2017. National parliaments’ third yellow card and the struggle over the revision of the Posted Workers Directive. Journal of European Legal Studies 10(1): 126–160.Google Scholar
  14. Fudge, J., and P. Herzfeld Olsson. 2014. The EU seasonal workers directive: When immigration controls meet labour rights. European Journal of Migration and Law 16(4): 439–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gattermann, K., and C. Hefftler. 2015. Beyond institutional capacity: Political motivation and parliamentary behaviour in the Early Warning System. West European Politics 38(2): 305–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldoni, M. 2014. The early warning system and the Monti II regulation: The case for a political interpretation. European Constitutional Law Review 10(1): 90–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Granat, K. 2014 National Parliaments and the Policing of the Subsidiarity Principle. Ph.D. diss., European University Institute, Florence.Google Scholar
  18. Héritier, A., C. Moury, and K. Granat. 2016. The contest for power in delegated rulemaking. In Rulemaking by the European Commission: The new system for delegation of powers, ed. C.F. Bergström and D. Ritleng, 105–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jalvingh, H. 2016. National Parliaments in EU Policy-Making: When Do They Make a Difference? Ph.D Dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
  20. Kiiver, P. 2012. The early-warning system for the principle of subsidiarity: Constitutional theory and empirical reality. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leifeld, P., and T. Malang. 2014. National parliamentary coordination after Lisbon: A network approach. Paper prepared for the 1st European Conference on Social Networks (EUSN), in Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  22. Leszczyńska, M. 2017. Mandatory quotas for women on boards of directors in the European Union: Harmful to or good for company performance? European Business Organization Law Review 19(1): 35–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miklin, E. 2016. Beyond subsidiarity: The indirect effect of the Early Warning System on national parliamentary scutiny in European Union affairs. Journal of European Public Policy 24(3): 366–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Montero, J. 2014. Rail transport: A balance sheet. RSCAS Working Paper 2014/115. Florence School of Regulation, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, in Florence, Italy.Google Scholar
  25. Nicolaïdis, K. 2004. The new constitution as European demoi-cracy? Critical Review of Social and Political Philosophy 7(1): 76–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parents, Adoptive. 2014. The life of a death foretold: The proposal for a Monti II Regulation. In Viking, laval and beyond, ed. M. Freedland and J. Prassl, 95–109. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Peers, S. 2013 The future of the schengen system. Stockholm: Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies Report No. 6.Google Scholar
  28. Rasmussen, M.B., and M.K. Dionigi. 2018. National parliaments’ use of the political dialogue: Institutional lobbyists, traditionalists or communicators? Journal of Common Market Studies 56(5): 1108–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Raunio, T. 2007. National legislatures in the EU constitutional treaty. In National Parliaments within the Enlarged European Union, ed. J. O’Brennan and T. Raunio, 79–92. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Williams, C.J. 2016. Issuing reasoned opinions: The effect of public attitudes towards the European Union on the usage of the ‘Early Warning System’. European Union Politics 17(3): 504–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Winzen, T. 2017. Constitutional preferences and parliamentary reform: Explaining National Parliaments’ Adaptation to European Integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wolfstädter, L.M., and V. Kreilinger. 2017. European integration via flexibility tools: The cases of EPPO and PESCO. Notre Europe Policy Paper.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brexit Institute, Dublin City UniversityDublin 9Ireland

Personalised recommendations