Point of no return? The European Parliament after Lisbon and Stockholm

Abstract

The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has raised new expectations in the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ). The extension of co-decision increases the capacity of the European Parliament (EP) to have an influence on decision-making. This article engages with securitisation theories in order to analyse the evolution of the AFSJ as well as the role of its main actors in the securitisation process. It evaluates the past role of the EP as well as the recent changes introduced by the extension of co-decision in order to establish whether it will become a new securitising actor or will have the potential for de-securitisation of the agenda. The macro-institutional changes in the Treaty of Lisbon indicate that the EP will have opportunities to de-securitise, although the emphasis on EU citizens’ rights introduced in the Stockholm programme offers it a chance to appeal to domestic audiences at the expense of more diffuse issues such as immigration and asylum.

Keywords:

• EU
• Lisbon Treaty
• Stockholm programme
• area of Freedom
• Security and Justice
• European Parliament

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this article was presented at the conference on 'European Internal Security Policies - After the Stockholm Programme: An area of freedom, security and justice in the European Union?' in Salford. I wish to thank all participants for their input and especially the editors of this special issue, Christian Kaunert and Sarah Léonard. I would also like to thank Jörg Monar and Paul Taggart for their support and comments, as well as Alex Mackenzie and Dan Keith for their feedback and linguistic help.

Notes

1. Article 3(2) TEU: The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.

2. Family law and legal migration, together with third pillar matters (police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters) continued to function under consultation and unanimity in the Council.

3. Since the expansion of co-decision took place in 2005, i.e. during the same parliamentary term (2004–2009), it can be assumed that the positions of MEPs did not shift fundamentally and that external factors such as enlargement might have had only a minor effect (for instance, only four new MEPs joined the LIBE committee after the 2007 enlargement).

4. Article 78 establishes the necessity to create a common asylum policy, requiring uniform standards instead of the previous minimum standards.

5. Article 16 TFEU states the right to the protection of personal data processed by EU bodies or member states when carrying out activities related to EU law and provides for EU competences on freedom of personal data.

6. Note that all instruments agreed before the entrance into force of the Treaty of Lisbon will be subjected to a 5-year transitional period that will prevent the ECJ from examining them.