![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
The introduction of co-decision has transformed the European Parliament (EP), changing the patterns of behaviour inside the institution, especially its committees. The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon extends the use of co-decision; thus, more EP committees will have to adapt to the new patterns of behaviour set out by the new decision-making rules. In order to understand how this process of adaptation occurs and what the consequences are, the present study examines the change in decision-making rules that occurred in the committee for civil liberties and justice and home affairs (LIBE) after 2005 as a precedent for future changes. Interviews and analyses of legislative texts indicate that adaptation to co-decision may occur very quickly but that its extent can be limited by forms of dual behaviour, when the coexistence of two decision-making rules oppose two different worldviews, introducing uncertainty inside committees and among external actors.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Sarah Léonard and Charlotte Burns for their comments on an earlier version of the paper presented at the UACES General Conference in Angers (September 2009). I would also like to thank Paul Taggart and Jörg Monar for their help and the anonymous reviewer as well as the JEI editor for their observations. Finally, I would also like to thank Alex MacKenzie for his feedback and linguistic help.
Notes
1. In the Treaty of Lisbon, co-decision becomes the ordinary legislative procedure; however, in order to keep in track with the previous literature and for simplicity, the article will refer to it still as co-decision.
2. The absence of electoral costs for the EP has been explored in the ‘second-order elections’ literature. For more information see, for example, Eijk and Franklin (Citation1996), Hix and Marsh (Citation2007) and Reif and Schmitt (Citation1980).
3. Semi-structured interviews were done during January and December 2009, with a variety of actors from the three main EU institutions. Some interviewees requested anonymity, and I have, therefore, not used their name but used their function instead. Interviews are listed under references.
4. It is important to note that co-decision developed from cooperation, an intermediary procedure that gave the EP some possibilities to participate more effectively in decision-making, compared with consultation. Since cooperation is now almost extinct, I will limit the analysis to consultation and co-decision, since they are nowadays the most relevant forms of decision-making, not only in terms of frequency, but also because they give diametrical access to decision-making to the EP. For an in-depth study of the co-operation procedure and its effects on EP behaviour, see Earnshaw and Judge (Citation1997) and Fitzmaurice (Citation1988).
5. During the first reading, amendments have to be accepted by simple majority, while during the second reading, an absolute majority is necessary. After the conciliation committee, the agreement has to be approved by the majority of the votes cast in the EP. Note also that there is no time limit to reach an agreement during the first reading, while the second reading is restricted to three months (that may be extended to four months).
6. Between 2004 and 2007, 64 per cent of co-decision procedures were concluded at first reading, compared with 28.54 per cent during the period 1999–2004 (European Parliament Citation2007, 9).
7. Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters are still in the third pillar and, together with family law and legal immigration, they continue to be ruled by consultation with the EP and unanimity in the Council.
8. Interview with MEP assistant.
9. Interview with official, European Parliament.
10. Interview with M. Speiser.
11. Interviews with Alvaro; Weber; official A and B, Council of the European Union.
12. Interview official B, Council of the European Union.
13. Interviews with M. Speiser and official A, Council of the European Union.
14. Interview with official B, Council of the European Union.
15. Interview with official, European Parliament.
16. Interview with MEP assistant.
17. Interview with A. Alvaro.
18. Interview with M. Weber.
19. Interviews with M. Speiser; M. Weber; officials A and B, Council of the European Union; officials, European Commission, European Parliament.
20. Interview with A. Alvaro.
21. Interview with official C, Council of the European Union.
22. Interview with MEP assistant.
23. Interview with A. Alvaro.
24. Interview with M. Weber.
25. Interview with M. Speiser.
26. The new Treaty will extend co-decision to almost all the issues of the AFSJ, since it will integrate the current third pillar into the EC framework. Some matters will remain outside the community method though. Family law is to be ruled by consultation with the EP and unanimity in the Council still. Other issues such as maintenance of law and order, internal security cooperation and coordination among national security authorities, passports and other identification documents will continue to have an intergovernmental character or be outside the EU framework.