European Union legislative process - Essay Example

?European Union legislative process Introduction The European Union is a treaty that was created by the Maastricht Treaty, and it was founded to enhance political, social and economic cooperation. The EU legislative powers are specified in the treaty provisions, which command the union to adopt legislation and other legal acts in pursuit of the set objectives in the treaty. The degree to which a certain association involves in the lawmaking procedure depends on the system employed in the legal process. This also depends on the legal base for the lawmaking proposal. The EU legislative procedure is an issue of concern because it lacks the basic essentials of openness and lucidity (G Bermann 2011, 45). This is because it offers inadequate time to the principle players to respond to agreements made by the EP and the EU Council. Therefore, Lisbon Treaty instituted the ordinary legislative procedure following the Article 289 of the EU employed a system of decision making process from all associate states in the establishment of the legislative process. EU Legislative Process The EU legislative process is ample because the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty offer two main decision making process for agreeing legislation. The entry of 1Lisbon Treaty led to the introduction of ordinary legislative procedure and distinct legislative procedures as the significant process through, which EU can make an effective decision power of the EP (T Christiansen and L Torbjorn 2007, p, 36). However, the ordinary legislative procedure became significant and it replaced the co-decision without amending its substance, but the Lisbon Treat extended this process to include varied areas of EU decision-making process. Although EU consist of 30 particular legislative procedure, which involves the council or EP who play varied roles in the legislative process, but most of them offer the qualified majority voting for the ordinary legislative procedure. Ordinary Legislative Procedure (OLP) This is an effective lawmaking procedure, which is formally well known as co-decision. It was established in 1992 by the Maastricht pact and made effectual in 1999 by Amsterdam pact. The Lisbon Treaty made the legislative process more adequate and renamed the OLP; hence, it became the main EU legislative process through following a decision-making system. OLP is the key legislative process through which directives and rules are implemented. This procedure is based on the 2parity principle and requires the EP and council to implement legislation jointly (G Papagian 2006, 123). The OLP is effective because it is used for agreeing legislation in many areas of union competence. This law requires the EP, council and the commission proposal to agree on the amendment before it becomes law. The First Reading by the European Parliament (EP) The EP adequately takes into considerations the legislative proposal first from the European Commission before making any decision. This is effectively made through delivering a position for various proposals made from the European Commission. The committee analyses any modifications that has been proposed to the commission and makes adjustments. The committee level discusses the proposal, which the EP considers as a plenary session. The parliament is invited to agree on the proposed amendments; thus making their stand on the commission’s proposal (D Judge and D Earnshaw 2008, 34). The simple voting majority is one way of adopting the amendments that have been proposed on the commission’s proposal. The Commission has powers of altering the legislative proposal thereby allowing it to incorporate into the EP amendments, which they feel can contribute to better improvements of the legislation. The First reading by the EU Council The EU Council also has to consider the modified legislative proposal of the EU Commission. The considerations usually take place in the majority groups whereby they make decisions and hand them to the sectoral meeting of the councils. In this case, the Council accepts the adjustment and they do not make any changes on the proposal made by the commission, which the EP has not amended and adopted. They also acknowledge the adjustments made by the EP that the commission has included in the adjusted proposal. However, the Council implements a universal position in all other law cases. It can take approximately 15 months for the Council to take a 3‘common position’ on the proposal and amended act, but it can take a longer period for some complex dossiers (T Selck 2006, 23). Therefore, the European Commission prepares a speech in order to view and take reactions on the amendments of the EP once the Council agrees on the common position. The EP’s Second Reading The EP takes 3 months to deliver the legislation once the EP receives the universal position from the Council. The Council can adopt the legislation based on the common position in case they fail to meet the required deadline. The common position from the Council during the amendment term should focus on the proposed amendment from the first reading. However, they should not accept or relate the common position to the section, which is substantial dissimilar from the original proposal made but the Commission. Therefore, the parliamentary Committees are responsible for making changes to any amendment, and this requires a simple, majority voting process (C Blankart and D Mueller 2004, 90). They should meet the plenary session of agreeing the position of the amendments agreed by the Committee; thus further voting of the amendments are done by a minimum of 40 members. The European Commission then provides their opinion over the amendments made by the council and the opinion is taken into considerations in the second reading by the European Council. The Second Reading by the European Council The European Council takes three months although it can be extended to four months in considering the amendment of the EP to their common position. In case the Council wishes to make approvals to the amendment, they can do so through a qualified majority voting process. This only takes place in case the European Commission has provided a positive opinion towards the amended common position or they have delivered a negative opinion unanimously. The legislation is deemed unsuccessful in case they European Commission fails to reach a concise decision within the allocate timeframe (S Hix 2005, 211). The proposal would be considered to have been implemented in case the Commission endorses the modified ordinary position. The Council may reject some proposed amendments made by the EP to the common position; thus, the European Council and EP presidents will convene a conciliation committee. The Coalition Committee The Coalition Committee takes six weeks to assemble the formal decision of the Council for rejection of the amendment made by the EP. Therefore, this makes the EU legislative process adequate because it allows the council to arrive at effective decision-making process. The Conciliation committee comprises of EP representatives, the Council and the Commission. The commission document is also forwarded together with the common position made from the Commission to the EP who chairs it. This committee plays a significant role of jointly agreeing on the finalized legislation before it is adopted. Each assignment to the EU Committee should endorse the joint proposal in harmony with its regulations, and the time limit is six weeks (W Dale, S Constantine and H Xanthaki 2008, 78). Therefore, the EP and European Council adopts jointly on the agreed text in case the conciliation process becomes successful. Special Legislative Procedures (SLP) The SLP takes into considerations other legal bases, which may include the consultation and the consent. First, the consultation procedure requires the EP to provide an opinion before the commission’ proposal is implemented by the Council. The Commission or the EU Council cannot admit the adjustments without following apparent guidelines. This takes varied stages whereby the commission first signs the proposal and hand it to the council. The Council confers with the EP and then implements the measures either through 4qualified majority voting or accord depending on the issues at hand (L Rodney 2000, 16). Secondly, consent is a legal base aspect whereby the Council acts unanimous in decision-making process. The EP has the right to sanction the lawmaking, under this process. They have to approve or reject the legislative proposal without making any alterations to the amendment. Therefore, the Council does not have authorities to cancel the opinion of the EP (R Thomson 2006, 47). This procedure is necessary for making international agreements, focus on breaching of fundamental rights and arrangements for EU withdrawals. Proposals/ Recommendation for Institutional Reform The EU players should reinforce and make efforts of integrating smart directive principles into lawmaking process. Most member states have made significant efforts of integrating smart, regulation programmes in order to meet the needs of the union. It is the responsibility of the member states to hearten the advancement of national smart directive agendas. This is through changing of administrative culture with an aim of focusing on improved stakeholders and solid institutional set-up approach to impact assessments (B Torbjorn and E Damgaard 2000, 81). The perceived issue that may seem to be a burden in the institution should be taken into considerations serious through strengthening of regulation principles. The member states should ensure that regulations must be efficient and least burdensome. Although, achieving this objective requires the need for cultural change for administrations both at the local, regional and international levels. Moreover, for the administrative to create cultural change in order to achieve institutional reform, the business community should press for a cultural change towards smarter regulations. They should channel resources from tasks that create a direct impact on commercial activities. Regulators should also recognize the desired sectoral policy goals set out at the political arena are not necessarily achieved through adding new policies, but rather smart regulation approach. This may include the need for evaluating the entire existing regulations within the sector in question in order to achieve the desired objectives (G Wyn, D Matthews and P Newell 2000, 101). Lastly, the trade unions and non-governmental organizations should develop policies that can meet the demanding needs of the administrative. This is significant because it may help in diverging varied policy goals; thus meeting the demanding needs of the union. Cross cutting approaches for better implementation of EU legislation is imperative. The government has always made considerable efforts of achieving policy objectives by employing varied range of tools. However, there is a need to focus on effective approaches that may enable the government to achieve their stated objectives. For instance, citizens behave in different ways; thus5 behavioral insights approach is vital (G Papagianni 2006, 56). Some countries such as United Kingdom have a behavioral insight team that was established with an aim of helping the government to develop and apply lessons from behavioral economical. This enables the government to implement public policy and supports the government administrative in designing policy that reflects the way citizens behaves. This is one way of supporting the commitment of the coalition government towards reducing regulatory burdens on business and society. Cross border corporations through employing effective measures for harmonizing member states. Intergovernmental cooperation is essential because it will enable the member states to achieve their stated objectives effectively (P Jean-Claude 2010, 56). The EU should establish the functioning of the internal market in a manner that can enable countries to trade freely without any barriers towards marketing of commodities and other related activities. Therefore, the union should adopt measures that harmonize the requirements across borders and simply the activities of companies in order to enable them improve their business performance across the globe. The EU should provide good governance or model training solutions for better improvement or reformation of the association. The government should understand what is expected in amending the affected legislative (W Philippa 2009, 123). This may require guidance and offering training programs to its members with an aim of reducing institutional problems that may arise. Good guidance should also include a significant cost factor for fulfilling certain tasks without outsourcing the work to costly external experts. For instance, some member states such as United Kingdom and Australian are currently working together to alleviate administrative burdens. Therefore, it is essential for the institution to conduct a risk assessment in order to produce an effective statement that complies with the requirements of the union. Conclusion The EU legislative process is ample because the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty offer two main decision making process for agreeing legislation. One of the lawmaking procedures is the ordinary legislative process, which is formally well known as co-decision. The EP takes into considerations the legislative proposal first from the European Commission before making any decision. The SLP takes into considerations other legal bases, which may include the consultation and the consent. This procedure is necessary for making international agreements and arrangements of EU withdrawals. However, there is need for institutional reform through creating a cultural change and reinforcing smart directive legislative into decision-making process. The EU should also provide good governance or model training solutions for better of the alliance. Bibliography Blankart, Charles B, and Dennis C. Mueller. A Constitution for the European Union. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2004. Barrett, Maxwell. The Law Lords: An Account of the Workings of Britain's Highest Judicial Body and the Men Who Preside Over It. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan, 2000. Bermann, George A. Cases and Materials on European Union Law: By George A. Bermann ...[et Al.]. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West, 2011. Bergman, Torbjo?rn, and Erik Damgaard. Delegation and Accountability in European Integration: The Nordic Parliamentary Democracies and the European Union. London, England: Frank Cass, 2000. Christiansen, Thomas, and Torbjo?rn Larsson. The Role of Committees in the Policy-Process of the European Union: Legislation, Implementation and Deliberation. Cheltenham, Glos, UK: Edward Elgar, 2007. Dale, William, Constantine A. Stephanou, and Helen Xanthaki. Drafting Legislation: A Modern Approach. Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Ashgate Pub, 2008. Dedman, Martin. The Origins & Development of the European Union 1945-2008: A History of European Integration. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis, 2009. Grant, Wyn, Duncan Matthews, and Peter Newell. The Effectiveness of European Union Environmental Policy. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000. Hix, Simon. The Political System of the European Union. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.  Judge, David, and David Earnshaw. The European Parliament. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Joerges, Christian, and Ellen Vos. EU Committees: Social Regulation, Law and Politics. Oxford: Hart Pub, 2000. Leach, Rodney. Europe: A Concise Encyclopedia of the European Union from Aachen to Zollverein. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2000.  Papagianni, Georgia. Institutional and Policy Dynamics of EU Migration Law. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2006. Piris, Jean-Claude. The Lisbon Treaty: A Legal and Political Analysis. Cambridge [U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Piris, Jean-Claude. The Constitution for Europe: A Legal Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Selck, Torsten J. Preferences and Procedures: European Union Legislative Decision-Making. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Stie, Anne E. Democratic Decision-Making in the Eu: Technocracy in Disguise? Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2013. Staab, Andreas. The European Union Explained, Second Edition: Institutions, Actors, Global Impact. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2011. Thomson, Robert. The European Union Decides. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Watson, Philippa. EU Social and Employment Law: Policy and Practice in an Enlarged Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. . Read More