Abstract
This chapter outlines the institutional framework in the UK core executive and legislature on European policy coordination. It focuses on the institutional organisation in the analysed time period 1976–2007. Together with the attitudes to Europe integration held by the four prime ministers, their parliamentary parties, the media and the public, which are traced in Chap. 5, these are necessary preliminaries for the subsequent case study analysis. The institutional arrangements in European policy-making and the attitudes to European integration taken by actors in and outside the core executive are part of the leadership environment in which a premier’s political leadership unfolds.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This is not to say that the institutional framework described here no longer exists, but this chapter does not refer to changes related the UK’s decision to leave the EU. Theresa May’s government in autumn 2016 began reorganising its institutional framework of European policy coordination, e.g. by establishing Departments for Exiting the European Union and for International Trade (Mance and Neville 2016).
- 2.
In 2018: Department for International Trade and Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; from 1976 to 2007 it was mostly called Department of Trade and Industry; therefore this name is used here.
- 3.
In 2018: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).
- 4.
For details on the FCO’s institutional organisation of EU policy coordination, see Bulmer and Burch (2009: 97–100).
- 5.
This changed with the Lisbon treaty, when the European Council’s membership was restricted (Treaty on European Union (TEU), entered into force on 1.12.2009, Art. 15).
- 6.
Interview with S. Wall, 8 January 2010.
- 7.
For details on the Treasury’s institutional organisation of European policy coordination, see Bulmer and Burch (2009: 135–136).
- 8.
The UK’s budget contribution in the early 1980s was disproportionally high. By 1979 the UK was paying twice as much as France, despite a lower GDP. It was the only other net contributor to the budget beside Germany (Gowland et al. 2010: 90–91).
- 9.
“Under this intergovernmental method, the EU countries are evaluated by one another (peer pressure), with the Commission’s role being limited to surveillance. The European Parliament and the Court of Justice play virtually no part in the OMC process.” Definition available at http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/open_method_coordination_en.htm, accessed 7.5.2016.
- 10.
For details on the DTI’s institutional organisation of European policy coordination, see Bulmer and Burch (2009: 145–148).
- 11.
In this study only the activities of ministers of whom it is documented that they dealt with European monetary policy in detail are analysed.
- 12.
The Cabinet Office Secretariats’ responsibilities have been subject to change, e.g. in 2016 the European Secretariat also covered international economic policy, thus the name European and Global Issues Secretariat (EGIS) (GOV.UK 2016). Moreover, shortly before he left the government David Cameron announced the establishment of a Europe unit in the Cabinet Office (Mance and Neville 2016).
- 13.
PMBs are “Public Bills introduced by MPs and Lords who are not government ministers… A minority of Private Members’ Bills become law but, by creating publicity around an issue, they may affect legislation indirectly.” Definition available at http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/bills/private-members, accessed 7.5.2016.
- 14.
EDMs “are formal motions submitted for debate in the House of Commons. However, very few are actually debated. EDMs allow MPs to draw attention to an event or cause. MPs register their support by signing individual motions.” Definition available at http://www.parliament.uk/edm, accessed 7.5.2016.
- 15.
“Opposition days are allocated in the House of Commons for the discussion of subjects chosen by the opposition (non-government) parties. There are 20 days allocated for this purpose per session.” Definition available at http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/opposition-days, accessed 7.5.2016.
References
Bender, B. G. (1991). Whitehall, central government and 1992. Public Policy and Administration, 6(1), 13–20.
Buller, J., & Smith, M. J. (1998). Civil service attitudes towards the European Union. In D. Baker & D. Seawright (Eds.), Britain for and against Europe: British politics and the question of European integration (pp. 165–184). Oxford: Clarendon.
Bulmer, S., & Burch, M. (1998). Organizing for Europe: Whitehall, the British state and European Union. Public Administration, 76(4), 601–628.
Bulmer, S., & Burch, M. (2005). The Europeanization of UK government: From quiet revolution to explicit step-change? Public Administration, 83(4), 861–890.
Bulmer, S., & Burch, M. (2009). The Europeanisation of Whitehall: UK central government and the European Union. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Department for Business, Innovation & Skills. (2010). Introduction to history of BERR, archived on February 22, 2010. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100216092443/http://www.berr.gov.uk/aboutus/corporate/history/outlines/page19795.html. Accessed September 11, 2016.
Edmonds, T. (2001, July 2). The European Communities (Finance) Bill, Bill 1 2001–02, House of Commons Library Research Paper No. 01/62.
Forster, A., & Blair, A. (2002). The making of Britain’s European foreign policy. Harlow: Longman.
GOV.UK (2016). European and Global Issues Secretariat (EGIS). https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/european-global-issues-secretariat. Accessed September 11, 2016.
Gowland, D., Turner, A., & Wright, A. (2010). Britain and European integration since 1945: On the sidelines. London: Routledge.
Hübner, E., & Münch, U. (1999). Das Politische System Großbritanniens: Eine Einführung (2nd ed.). Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck.
James, S. (2009). Taming the ‘awkward state’? The changing face of European policy-making under Blair. Public Administration, 87(3), 604–620.
Kassim, H. (2000). The United Kingdom. In H. Kassim, B. G. Peters, & V. Wright (Eds.), The national coordination of EU policy: The domestic level (pp. 22–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mance, H., & Neville, S. (2016, July 15). Strategic intends drives reform of ministries. Financial Times.
Marsh, D., Richards, D., & Smith, M. J. (2001). Changing patterns of governance in the United Kingdom: Reinventing Whitehall? Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Miller, V. (2005, December 2). The UK parliament and European business, House of Commons Library Research Paper No. 05/85.
Norton, P. (1993). Does parliament matter? Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Norton, P. (1994). The British polity (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.
Norton, P. (1996). The United Kingdom: Political conflict, parliamentary scrutiny. In P. Norton (Ed.), National parliaments and the European Union (pp. 92–109). London: Frank Cass.
Norton, P. (2003). National parliaments and the European Union. Managerial Law, 45(5/6), 5–25.
Nugent, N. (2000). The European Union and UK governance. In R. Pyper & L. Robins (Eds.), United Kingdom governance (pp. 194–218). Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Pickering, C. (2002). ‘Sir Douglas in Euroland’: Treasury officials and the European Union, 1977–2001. Public Administration, 80(3), 583–599.
Riddell, P. (2000). Parliament under Blair (2nd ed.). London: Politico’s.
Stack, F. (1983). The imperatives of coordination. In F. E. C. Gregory (Ed.), Dilemmas of government: Britain and the European Community (pp. 124–152). Oxford: Martin Robertson.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bujard, B. (2019). European Policy-Making and Coordination in Executive and Legislature 1976–2007. In: The British Prime Minister in the Core Executive. Contributions to Political Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89953-4_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89953-4_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-89952-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-89953-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)