The Member States’ shared concern with the democratic character of the European Union manifested itself in successive rounds of Treaty reform which over time increased the formal powers of the European Parliament quite dramatically.

Assignment Brief

Module Code:  LA6030

Module Title:  European Union Law

This piece of coursework will be assessed by reference to the following criteria: Demonstrates clear, precise, detailed and up-to-date knowledge of the field.  Recognizes and assesses the relevant critical issues.   Formulates relevant and supported arguments/criticism. It is focused, well-structured, well-supported and clear. Demonstrates an ability to research and use relevant primary and secondary sources.

This coursework assessment is designed to allow students to show how the following learning outcomes have been achieved: Knowledge: An ability to discuss the EU institutions in their political and social context. Thinking skills: An ability to analyse the inter-institutional balance, relate it to the sui generis nature of the EU and formulate criticism. Subject-based practical skills: An ability to retrieve relevant Treaty amendments, and to research and use relevant primary and secondary sources. Skills for life and work (general skills): Enhance communication and presentation skills.

 

ASSESSMENT

Instructions to Students:

PLEASE NOTE:  Assessments MUST be properly referenced and MUST include a bibliography.  Adequacy of referencing will form part of the marking criteria.

Answer the following question

‘The Member States’ shared concern with the democratic character of the European Union manifested itself in successive rounds of Treaty reform which over time increased the formal powers of the European Parliament quite dramatically.’

Critically discuss.

Sample Answer

Introduction

The democratic deficit in the European Union (EU) has long been a source of concern among its Member States. Over successive treaty reforms, these concerns have translated into concrete enhancements to the European Parliament’s powers. This essay critically analyses how reforms from Maastricht (1992) to Lisbon (2009) and beyond transformed the Parliament, assesses whether these changes sufficiently addressed democratic shortcomings, and considers remaining challenges.

1. The Democratic Deficit and Treaty Reforms

1.1 Defining the Democratic Deficit

Critics argued that the EU lacked democratic accountability: national governments dominated decision-making, the directly elected Parliament played a weak role, and citizens felt detached from EU institutions.

1.2 Maastricht Treaty (1992)

Maastricht introduced significant changes:

• The co‑decision procedure (now called the ordinary legislative procedure) gave Parliament power to adopt legislation jointly with the Council in key policy areas.

• Roles in approving the Commission President and the EU budget were enhanced, increasing Parliament’s oversight function.

1.3 Amsterdam (1997) & Nice (2001)

These treaties extended co‑decision into new areas, such as employment and social policy, but retained largely intergovernmental control in other domains. While improvements were gradual, the direction was clear: more legislative balance between Parliament and Member States.

1.4 Lisbon Treaty (2007, effective 2009)

Lisbon marked a milestone:

• Co‑decision became the main legislative procedure, fully involving Parliament in almost all policy areas.

• Parliament gained a formal say on international agreements, the multiannual financial framework, and the EU’s external action.

• The Spitzenkandidaten (“lead candidate”) process further linked European elections to Commission leadership, reinforcing democratic legitimacy.

2. Inter‑Institutional Balance and EU’s Sui Generis Nature

2.1 Nature of the EU

The EU is neither a classic international organisation nor a federal state; it is sui generis, meaning its legitimacy relies on both its intergovernmental structure (Council and Commission) and representative institutions (Parliament).

2.2 Shifts in Institutional Power

The shift marked by Lisbon rebalanced EU governance:

• Parliament is now more than a rubber stamp; it co-shapes most legislation.

• The Council still represents Member States, but must negotiate with Parliament on legislation.

• The Commission’s dependence on Parliament’s approval for its President and legislative proposals has grown.

2.3 Ongoing Tension

Nevertheless:

• The European Council, composed of national leaders, remains influential, especially on major strategic choices.

• The Commission retains initiative power, prompting some to argue that “who gets to propose law still wields real power”.

• The Spitzenkandidaten process, though originally democratic, has faced criticism, some Member States prefer Council-led nominations.