JCMS 2010 Volume 48 Annual Review pp. 95–118

Institutions and Governance: A New Treaty, a Newly Elected Parliament and a
New Commission jcms_2096 95..118

DESMOND DINAN
George Mason University

Introduction
Elections for the European Parliament (EP) and the nomination of a new
European Commission made 2009 a particularly important year with regard to European Union institutions and governance. More significant than these five-yearly events, however, was the long-delayed ratification and implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. In June 2009, EU leaders approved a Decision ‘on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon’, which they annexed to the European Council conclusions. They also agreed that ‘at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty [. . .] the provisions of the annexed
Decision’ would be included ‘in a Protocol to be attached [. . .] to the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union’ (Council, 2009a). The purpose of the promised Protocol was to facilitate a second referendum in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty and to help ensure a successful outcome. The Irish government soon announced that the referendum would take place on 2 October.
The prospect of a favourable result looked bright, thanks to the global economic crisis, which hit Ireland particularly hard. Although ratifying the
Treaty would not make a material difference, it would send a positive signal to international investors and affirm Ireland’s good fortune to be in the euro area at a time of global financial turmoil. Armed with legally binding guarantees from the EU to allay the concerns of many who opposed the Treaty in the first referendum, and the decision by the European Council to retain one
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148,
USA

96

DESMOND DINAN

commissioner per Member State provided that the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, the Irish government conducted a more vigorous campaign the second time around in an effort to increase the turnout and change the minds of as many naysayers as possible. As expected, the Treaty passed by an impressive majority of 67 per cent, with a 59 per cent turnout.
Ireland was not the only country not to have ratified before the end of
2009. President Lech Kaczynski of Poland, who strongly opposed the Treaty,
´
reluctantly signed the instrument of ratification on 10 October. Czech president Václav Klaus, an ardent Eurosceptic, refused to sign the instrument of ratification until the last possible moment. Klaus raised an eleventh-hour concern that the treaty could open the way for property claims by ethnic
Germans expelled from Czechoslovakia after World War II. EU leaders appeased Klaus by giving the Czech Republic an opt-out from the Charter of
Fundamental Rights. Having milked the ratification procedure for all it was worth, Klaus finally signed on 3 November, allowing the Treaty to come into effect on 1 December 2009.
Germany’s parliament had voted in good time to ratify the Treaty, but the president was unable to sign the instrument of ratification pending a ruling by the Constitutional Court on the compatibility of the Treaty with Germany’s
Basic Law. The Court finally ruled in June 2009 that the Lisbon Treaty was indeed compatible, subject to a change in Germany on the role of parliament in EU decision-making. Although proponents of the Treaty breathed a sigh of relief, a closer look at the lengthy court ruling revealed that it raised several red flags about the direction of European integration (see Dougan, this volume). In particular, the court emphasized the limits of EU competence and the existence of a ‘structured democratic deficit’ which only national parliaments, not the EP, could possibly close (Federal Constitutional Court, 2009).
If anything, the ruling should have reassured Eurosceptics as to the limits of
European integration.
This article begins with a comment on the lengthy treaty reform process, the significance of the Lisbon Treaty and the steps taken in 2009 to prepare for its implementation. The article then looks at the conduct and outcome of the
EP elections, followed by the nomination of the second Barroso Commission.
A final section examines the implications of the financial crisis and economic recession for EU governance and institutions.
I. The Lisbon Treaty
The Lisbon Treaty, the latest and probably the last major revision of the foundational treaties, is highly consequential for the EU. It was also politically
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

INSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNANCE

97

costly, having taken eight years to complete, beginning with the Constitutional
Convention and ending with the protracted ratification procedure. The saga of the Lisbon Treaty shows how fraught the process of treaty reform has become and the touchiness of European integration for politicians and the public alike.
The background to the Treaty was the determination of EU leaders – in national governments and EU institutions – to streamline the EU; revise its institutional arrangements; strengthen its decision-making capacity; make it a more credible international actor; clarify and in some cases extend its scope; and make the EU more accountable, appealing and comprehensible to its citizens. EU leaders were reacting to the organization’s manifest inadequacies in the face of growing public disillusionment with European integration; a membership that had more than doubled in less than 15 years; rapid socio-economic change; and a radically altered international environment.
Although a tall order, the rationale for a new round of reform seemed reasonable, even sensible. Yet the process became extraordinarily prolonged and painful, while the outcome – the Treaty itself – was dense and difficult to read. Clearly, the saga and substance of the Lisbon Treaty and the Constitutional Treaty before it reveal much about the nature of the EU more than 60 years after the first, tentative steps toward ‘ever closer union’. Treaty reform
– changing the rules of what the EU does and how the EU does it – had become exceedingly difficult as governments, keenly aware of the potential losses and gains and of the high domestic political stakes, paid extremely close attention to the form and scope of European integration.
With the intensification of European integration, the EU’s impact on policy and politics has become far more conspicuous in everyday life. Referendums on treaty reform give people an opportunity to express their concerns about European integration and dissatisfaction with the EU by either voting against the proposed change or not voting at all. Not that referendums on treaty change always end in defeat (voters in Luxembourg and Spain approved the Constitutional Treaty). Nevertheless fear of defeat has made governments wary of putting painstakingly negotiated treaty changes before the electorate, and fear of challenges before national supreme courts has further curbed governments’ appetites for far-reaching treaty reform.
Given the difficulties inherent in the reform process, the Lisbon Treaty is far from ideal. Nevertheless, as noted in the 2007 JCMS Annual Review, it represents a definite improvement for the EU. The revised foundational treaties
– the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (formerly the Treaty Establishing the European Community)
– are long and complex, yet the EU that they describe is more coherent and comprehensible than the pre-Lisbon EU. The treaty unequivocally states that the EU is rooted in democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

98

DESMOND DINAN

fundamental freedoms; its organizing principles are conferred powers, subsidiarity, proportionality and co-operation between Member States; and its competences vis-à-vis national competences – exclusive, shared or supporting – are clearly spelled out. The pillar structure is gone, but different decision-making procedures remain for foreign and security policy. The confusing distinction between Union and Community is abolished, with the word ‘Union’ replacing
‘Community’ throughout the text. The EU finally acquires legal personality.
The Lisbon Treaty strikes a reasonable balance between institutional efficiency and democratic legitimacy. The double majority system for qualified majority voting, due to come into effect in 2014, is more equitable than its predecessor, which was based on a relatively arbitrary allocation of votes per Member State. The EP, the EU’s only directly elected body, has additional budgetary authority and a greater legislative role, thanks to the widespread applicability of what is now called the ordinary legislative procedure.
Keeping the Commission at one member per Member State – a late revision brought about by Ireland’s initial rejection of the Treaty – is arguably good for the EU. Perhaps it is better to have a Commission in which every country is represented than a smaller Commission from which, at any given time, some countries are bound to feel alienated. National parliaments acquire a formal role in the EU legislative process as gatekeepers of the subsidiarity principle, a function that will be interesting to observe in the years ahead.
The institutional innovations in the Treaty portend an improvement in the effectiveness of EU policy, especially in the areas of external relations and justice and home affairs. The treaty recasts the balance among the institutions, with the European Council clearly in the ascendant. Apart from being given responsibility for decision-making in specific, politically sensitive areas other than law-making, the creation of the full-time Presidency is particularly significant for the future of the European Council. Although the Treaty says little about the powers or prerogatives of the new office, experience suggests that it will evolve into an important and influential post. Overall, the Lisbon
Treaty reinforces the trend within the EU toward the emergence of a commanding European Council, a confident Council and Parliament sharing legislative responsibility, and a politically constrained Commission.
Implementing the Treaty
EU institutions had begun preparatory work in 2008 on implementing the Lisbon Treaty, but acted discretely pending the outcome of the second
Irish referendum. Preparations for the entry into force of the Treaty became a priority of the Swedish Council Presidency in late 2009. At its regularly scheduled meeting soon after the second referendum, the European Council
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

INSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNANCE

99

took note of the preparatory work and endorsed the Presidency’s report on guidelines for the External Action Service, a particularly important innovation that was already causing friction among Member States as well as between the Council, Commission and EP.
As noted by Tony Barber elsewhere in the Annual Review, national leaders reached a political agreement on 19 November 2009 to name Herman van Rompuy as the first full-time President of the European Council and
Catherine Ashton as the new High Representative for Foreign Affairs and
Security Policy. Two weeks later, on 1 December, the day on which the
Treaty entered into force, the European Council formally elected van
Rompuy and appointed Ashton, and also appointed Pierre de Boissieu as
Secretary-General of the Council for the period from December 2009 until
June 2011. De Boissieu, formerly France’s Permanent Representative in
Brussels, had been Deputy Secretary-General to Javier Solana, who had held the combined positions of Council Secretary-General and High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy since 1999. With the
Secretary-Generalship now separated from the High Representative’s office, de Boissieu, who under Solana had been the de facto Secretary-General, could formally assume that position.
At the end of 8 December 2009 the Council of Ministers took a formal decision, based on a political agreement among national leaders, that Uwe
Corsepius, head of the European Policy Division in the German Chancellery and a close adviser to Chancellor Angela Merkel, would take over from de
Boissieu (Council, 2009b). This was a good example of a Franco–German deal on top-level EU appointments, which the other leaders had little choice but to accept.
In addition to electing van Rompuy and appointing Ashton, the European
Council took formal decisions on 1 December concerning its rules of procedure and the exercise of the Presidency of the Council. At the same time, the
Council of Ministers took a raft of decisions relating to Council formations, the rotating Presidency, and the conditions of employment of the European
Council President, the High Representative, and the Council SecretaryGeneral. The Lisbon Treaty established two Council configurations, General
Affairs (chaired by the rotating Presidency) and Foreign Affairs (chaired by the High Representative), and allowed for additional formations (chaired by the rotating Presidency) to be established along sectoral lines. In effect, EU leaders retained the existing Council formations (see Table 1).
On 10–11 December 2009, the European Council met for the first time following implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. Van Rompuy was present but not in the chair, national leaders having previously decided that
Sweden would chair the European Council until the end of its Presidency.
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

100

DESMOND DINAN

Table 1: Council Configurations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

General affairs*
Foreign affairs**
Economic and financial affairs (including budget)
Justice and home affairs (including civil protection)
Employment, social policy, health and consumer affairs
Competitiveness (internal market, industry and research) (including tourism)
Transport, telecommunications and energy
Agriculture and fisheries
Environment
Education, youth and culture (including audiovisual affairs)

Source: Decision of the Council (General Affairs) of 1 December 2009 establishing the list of Council configurations, Official Journal, L 315/46, 1 December 2009.
Notes: * Established by Article 16(6), second subparagraph, of the Treaty on European Union.
** Established by Article 16(6), third subparagraph, of the Treaty on European Union.

Nevertheless van Rompuy spoke at dinner about his plans for the European
Council and the entire Council apparatus, suggesting that he would attempt to streamline procedures and greatly improve efficiency. By virtue of convening under the rules of the Lisbon Treaty, which restricts the European Council to the heads of state or government and the Commission President, plus the High
Representative, the December summit was the first to which foreign ministers were not automatically invited. This seemed to come as a shock to many of them (European Policy Center, 2009).
On 8 December, the newly configured Foreign Affairs Council met for the first time, although the Swedish foreign minister presided (Ashton delayed presiding over the Foreign Affairs Council until January 2010). Having the
High Representative chair the Foreign Affairs Council would deprive foreign ministers of the opportunity to represent the EU internationally with regard to foreign and security policy. Similarly, members of the High Representative’s office would assume responsibility for chairing the Political and Security
Committee, which prepares meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council, and of the foreign affairs working groups. The transition would not be easy for foreign ministers and their officials, especially for the countries coming into the rotating Presidency in 2010, and would likely affect domestic bureaucratic politics with regard to EU policy formulation and representation. Nevertheless the benefits of the new arrangement, in terms of the operation of the European
Council and the Council of Ministers and the continuity and consistency of EU foreign, security and defence policy, were manifest and welcome.
In an effort to improve co-ordination among succeeding Presidencies, each country in the Presidency develops a specific six-month work programme within the framework of an 18-month work programme drawn up
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

INSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNANCE

101

by a ‘trio’ of successive Presidency countries. Spain, the first country to hold the Presidency following implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, formed a
Presidency trio with its successors, Belgium and Hungary. The three countries published a draft programme in June 2009 of the ‘Spanish-BelgianHungarian trio presidency’, covering the 18-month period January 2010 to
June 2011 (Council, 2009c).
II. The European Parliament
The June 2009 elections to the EP took place under the rules of the Nice
Treaty, thereby limiting the EP’s size to 736 seats rather than the 751 provided for in the Lisbon Treaty. Implementation of the Lisbon Treaty in December
2009 paved the way for 18 additional seats, distributed among 12 Member
States, as well as the loss of three of Germany’s seats, thereby bringing the
EP to 751 members (see Table 2). Because of a political agreement to allow
Germany to retain its extra three seats throughout the mandate of the newly elected Parliament, the arrival of the 18 additional members would push the size of the EP to 754, in violation of the Lisbon Treaty. Accordingly, governments would have to amend Protocol 36 on the transitional provisions of the Treaty to enable the new MEPs to take their seats.
There are two methods of treaty reform under the Lisbon Treaty. Both require an intergovernmental conference (IGC) but only in one case – intended for more far-reaching changes – would a Convention have to precede the IGC.
In early December 2009, the Spanish government formally proposed a treaty amendment with regard to the size of the EP, which the European Council endorsed. The European Council then requested consultation with the EP on the suggested treaty change and the consent of the EP not to convene a
Convention. The EP was unlikely to hold out for a Convention for such a specific treaty change. Regardless of how the change came about, however, the ratification process would probably revive opposition to the Lisbon Treaty and give Eurosceptics another opportunity to rail against the EU.
In its ruling of June 2009 on the Lisbon Treaty, the German Constitutional
Court castigated the appropriation of seats in the EP. ‘Measured against requirements placed on democracy in states’, the court wrote, elections do
‘not take due account of equality, and [the EP] is not competent to take authoritative decisions on political direction in the context of the supranational balancing of interest between the states’ (Federal Constitutional Court,
2009). In other words, the fact that the EU is not a federation undermines the
EP’s claim to democratic legitimacy, and even if the EU were a federation a disparity such as one MEP to 66,000 people in Malta and one MEP to 860,000
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

102

DESMOND DINAN

Table 2: Seats in the European Parliament, 2009–19*
Member
State

Germany
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Spain
Poland
Romania
Netherlands
Greece
Portugal
Belgium
Czech Rep.
Hungary
Sweden
Austria
Bulgaria
Denmark
Slovakia
Finland
Ireland
Lithuania
Latvia
Slovenia
Estonia
Cyprus
Luxembourg
Malta
TOTAL

Population
(in millions)**

% of
EU

Seats at end of
2004–09
mandate

Seats at start of
2009–14
mandate
(Nice)

Transitional arrangement 2010–14

2014–19 mandate (Lisbon)

82,438
62,886
60,422
58,752
43,758
38,157
21,61
16,334
11,125
10,57
10,511
10,251
10,077
9,048
8,266
7,719
5,428
5,389
5,256
4,209
3,403
2,295
2,003
1,344
0,766
0,46
0,404
492,881

16.73%
12.76%
12.26%
11.92%
8.88%
7.74%
4.38%
3.31%
2.26%
2.14%
2.13%
2.08%
2.04%
1.84%
1.68%
1.57%
1.10%
1.09%
1.07%
0.85%
0.69%
0.47%
0.41%
0.27%
0.16%
0.09%
0.08%
100.00%

99
78
78
78
54
54
35
27
24
24
24
24
24
19
18
18
14
14
14
13
13
9
7
6
6
6
5
785

99
72
72
72
50
50
33
25
22
22
22
22
22
18
17
17
13
13
13
12
12
8
7
6
6
6
5
736

99
74
73
73
54
51
33
26
22
22
22
22
22
20
19
18
13
13
13
12
12
9
8
6
6
6
6
754

96
74
73
73
54
51
33
26
22
22
22
22
22
20
19
18
13
13
13
12
12
9
8
6
6
6
6
751

Source: Adapted from European Parliament (2007; 2010).
Notes: * For the EU-27, not taking into account post-2010 enlargement.
** Population figures as officially established on 7 November 2006 by the Commission in Doc. 15124/06 on the basis of
Eurostat figures.

people in Germany (following implementation of the Lisbon Treaty) would be democratically unsustainable.
If national governments were to abandon the principle of digressive proportionality and simply divide the number of seats in the EP among the entire population, Germany’s delegation would completely dominate the EU and some small Member States would have no representation at all. Based on such an allocation, the possibility of Turkey – a country almost as populous as
Germany – joining the EU would be even more worrisome for most Member
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

INSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNANCE

103

States. The current arrangement for the distribution of seats in the EP is far from ideal but is politically sustainable – as long as the EP does not continue to argue that it is the epitome of representative democracy in the EU and that giving it more power is the answer to the EU’s democratic deficit. The
German Constitutional Court demolished that argument, but the EP is unlikely to cease its political posturing.
The 2009 Elections
Although the EP’s profile and power have increased greatly since the first elections in 1979, the experience of direct elections themselves – in terms of national political party behaviour and voter turnout – has been hugely disappointing. The EU-wide turnout has declined consistently over time. Voters seem unaware of or unimpressed by the EP’s undoubted importance in the EU system. Much to the dismay of EU leaders, most voters continue to view elections for the EP as second-order or even third-order contests, being less salient than national or regional elections.
The turnout in 2009 was a mere 42.9 per cent. Although high by the standards of mid-term US congressional elections (a point that Europeans like to make), it is low by the standards of national elections in the Member States.
The result was especially disappointing because of the Commission’s and the
EP’s efforts to generate voter interest, especially in light of the fate of the
Constitutional and Lisbon Treaties. More than anything else, the EP wanted to turn the tide of declining turnout and, if possible, break the 50 per cent threshold. As noted in last year’s JCMS Annual Review, the EP launched a public relations campaign in 2008 to apprise voters of the institution’s relevance. At the same time, leaders of the two main political groups, the
European People’s Party (EPP) and the Party of European Socialists (PES), sharpened their attacks against each other in order to heighten interest among the electorate. In a further effort to woo voters, the EP highlighted its major accomplishments since the previous elections, notably the enactment of complex legislation on the control of chemical substances, an issue of great environmental and commercial concern; laws making cell phone calls cheaper by capping roaming charges; and an ambitious energy-climate change package. Whereas most candidates campaigned to some extent on EU issues and proclaimed their political group affiliation, national political parties and issues predominated during the 2009 elections which, as in EP elections past, were really a set of separate national elections. Just as they dominated the
European election campaigns, national political parties also dominated the selection of the approximately 9,000 candidates who stood for election
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

104

DESMOND DINAN

to the EP. The European elections became informal referendums on the performance of national governments, especially in coping with the financial crisis and economic recession. Accordingly, the governing parties in France and Poland did well; those in Britain, Greece, Hungary, Ireland and Spain did not. Germans used the European elections to indicate how they would vote in the forthcoming national elections, due three months later (they favoured the
Christian Democratic party of Chancellor Merkel).
The Group of the European People’s Party-European Democrats EPPED), an alliance of Christian Democrats and conservatives, went into the
2009 elections with the largest number of seats (288). Regardless of the vagaries of electoral politics, they were bound to come out of the election with fewer seats for the simple reason that the British Conservatives, the main party in the European Democrats wing of the EPP-ED, had decided beforehand to pull out of the combined political group. The decision was driven by domestic politics – in an effort to appeal to Eurosceptics during his successful campaign to become Conservative Party leader in 2005, David Cameron promised that he would withdraw the Conservatives from a political group whose largest component, the Christian Democrats, was avowedly Eurofederal. Once elected, Cameron seemed far from enthusiastic about carrying through his promise, but did so nevertheless. The formation by the British and other conservatives of a new group (see below) robbed the EPP-ED of its ED wing. With barely disguised relief, the Christian Democrats reverted simply to the EPP group. Moreover, they emerged from the election with the largest number of seats (265) in the EP (see Table 3). The EPP group fits under the umbrella of the transnational European People’s Party which, according to its website, has 74 constituent parties from 38 countries; includes 20 government leaders and a majority of commissioners (including the president); and ‘is the leading political force on the continent’ (European People’s Party, 2009).
The PES fared poorly in the elections, having failed to turn voters’ concerns about the dire economic situation into strong electoral support. To be more precise, the PES failed to convince voters that their Christian Democratic rivals, being economically more liberal and mostly in government throughout Europe, were to blame for the financial crisis and should not be trusted to put Europe back on its feet. Instead, the Christian Democrats turned the tables by convincing voters that the socialists lacked the experience and ability to right the economy and by casting themselves as best able to defend the much-cherished European social model. Having gone into the elections with 217 MEPs, the PES came out with only 161, albeit in a Parliament with fewer seats to contest. Nonetheless the PES was buoyed by the decision of
Italy’s Democratic Party, with 21 MEPs, to join forces with it. As a condition of membership, the Democratic Party pressed the PES to change its name to
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

105

INSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNANCE

Table 3: Results of the 2009 European Parliament Elections
Political Group

Abbreviation

No. of
Seats

Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats)
Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament
Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
European Conservatives and Reformists Group
Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left
Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group
Non-attached
TOTAL

EPP
S&D

265
184

ALDE
Greens/EFA
ECR
GUE/ NGL
EFD
NA

84
55
55
35
32
26
736

Source: European Parliament, Results of the 2009 European elections available at «http://www.europarl. europa.eu/parliament/archive/elections2009/en/index_en.html». Note: The EP’s rules of procedure and allocation of resources strongly encourages members to join transnational political groups. The rules governing the formation of political groups have changed over the years, in keeping with the changing size and composition of the EP. After the 2009 elections, the minimum number of MEPs allowed to form a political group was 25, from at least seven Member States.

reflect the combined group’s broader political base. After some confusion,
PES leader Martin Schulz proposed the ‘Group of the Progressive Alliance of
Socialists and Democrats’, which became known as the Socialists and Democrats or the S&D (Parliament.com, 2009). Following the adhesion of two additional MEPs, the group had 184 seats in the newly elected Parliament.
The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) fared better in the elections than they had hoped, given the unpopularity of economic liberals during the economic crisis, winning 84 seats. Once again the liberals emerged as the third-largest group, far behind the Christian
Democrats and socialists, with MEPs from 19 Member States. The group’s new leader is Guy Verhofstadt, a former prime minister of Belgium and an ardent Euro-federalist.
The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, a marriage of convenience between the environmentalist Greens and ‘representatives of stateless nations and disadvantaged minorities’, won 55 seats (Greens/European Free
Alliance, 2009). The Greens, a well-organized transnational party and by far the largest component of the group, fared extremely well, winning 48 seats.
The group includes a member of Sweden’s Pirate Party, whose sole interest is Internet freedom and which came into existence in 2005 to oppose the proposed EU software patent law.
A new group, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), came into existence after the elections with 55 seats, consisting mostly of
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

106

DESMOND DINAN

disaffected conservatives (the former European Democrats). The British
Conservative Party has by far the largest contingent (25 members) in the
ECR group, which includes Poland’s Law and Justice Party and the Czech
Republic’s Civic Democrats. The ECR oppose Euro-federalism and want fundamental reform of the EU ‘to make it more accountable, transparent and responsive to the needs of the people’ (European Conservatives and Reformists, 2009). Being in such an openly Eurosceptical group as the ECR demonstrates how far the British Conservatives have veered from mainstream
European political opinion. It was difficult for the Conservatives to have been allied with the Christian Democrats, who openly espouse a federal Europe, but it is striking that they have relegated themselves to a small group that includes parties noted for political intolerance and extreme nationalism
(Bale et al., 2009).
The European United Left-Nordic Green Left (GUE-NGL) calls itself a
‘confederal group’ in order to emphasize the autonomy of its constituent national parties. It is a collection of 35 far-leftists who oppose the way in which mainstream European politics, society and economics are organized.
The largest constituent party, with eight members, is Germany’s Die Linke, which includes the remnants of the Communist party of east Germany. The group also includes some high-profile former German social democrats.
Two parliamentary groups could not sustain themselves after the 2009 elections: the Independence/Democracy Group and the Union for Europe of the Nations Group. Many of the remnants of these groups decided to come together in a new formation, the Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) group, with 32 seats. Despite its innocuous name, the group consists largely of virulent Eurosceptics, who want their countries to leave the EU or want the
EU to cease to exist. Its members are in the unusual position of serving in a parliament whose legitimacy they reject. The largest and most striking contingent in the group is the UK Independence Party, which won 13 seats in the elections, beating the governing Labour party into third place in Britain
(the Conservatives came first).
The EP after the elections also had 26 non-attached MEPs, mostly individuals or a handful of party members whose far-right, racist views were so objectionable that none of the groups would have them. The independents included MEPs in such notorious parties as Britain’s National Party, France’s
National Front and Hungary’s Jobbik. By virtue of being non-attached, however, these MEPs have limited access to parliamentary funds and other resources and could never get into leadership positions.
Although organized into political groups, MEPs remain acutely aware of their national identity and allegiance to national political parties. MEPs caucus in national delegations within their respective groups. Obviously,
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

INSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNANCE

107

some national delegations are larger and more influential than others. German
MEPs comprise the largest national delegations in five of the EP’s political groups; they are especially preponderant in the EPP, S&D and Liberal groups.
Britain is not represented at all in the EP’s largest group, the EPP, and is poorly represented in the second-largest group, the S&D, having only 13 of the group’s 184 seats (this reflects the poor showing of Britain’s ruling
Labour Party in the elections). Most national delegations are concentrated in the EPP and S&D groups, but some are more diffused than others. Spain’s is an example of a highly concentrated delegation: of its 50 members, 23 are in the EPP group and 21 in the S&D group. By contrast, the Dutch delegation
(25 members) is spread out in all seven groups, and even includes four independents (this reflects the fragmentation of Dutch politics on EU issues).
One of the most striking results of the elections was the failure of Libertas, the anti-Lisbon Treaty movement led by British-born Irish millionaire Declan
Ganley, to win more than one seat. Ganley had become prominent by spearheading the successful campaign against the Treaty in the first Irish referendum in June 2008. Yet the successful Libertas candidate was not Ganley but
Philippe de Villiers, whose Mouvement pour la France had joined forces with
Ganley during the election campaign. The collapse of Libertas, which hoped to become a large, pan-European political group in the EP, reflected dissatisfaction in Ireland and abroad with Ganley as well as the fractiousness of those anti-Lisbon groups throughout the EU not already part of larger political parties or tendencies. Ganley’s poor showing in the election was a harbinger of the outcome of the second Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty
(Irish Times, 2009).
New Leadership
As part of a pre-elections pact, the two biggest groups agreed that a member of the EPP would be elected President of the European Parliament in July
2009, with a socialist to follow in December 2011 until June 2014, when the next elections would take place. It was up to the EPP to decide which of its members to put forward for the post. There were two contenders, an Italian and a Pole, both strongly supported by their national governments. Eventually the Italian withdrew and the Pole, Jerzy Buzek, a former prime minister, was elected president.
Buzek’s election, which for the first time placed someone from central
Europe in a top EU leadership position, was hailed as a breakthrough. Yet it came about as a result of deal making between the EPP and the PES (as it then was) and backroom bargaining among national leaders. Buzek soon proved himself forceful and energetic, especially in presenting the EP’s views at the
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

108

DESMOND DINAN

beginning of meetings of the European Council (being a former prime minister among national leaders undoubtedly enhanced his stature).
The outcome of the Presidential election determines the outcome of the elections for other EP leadership positions (except for political group leaders, who are elected by political group members). Although leadership elections are supposedly open, the political groups decide among themselves who gets what. The leadership’s composition following the 2009 elections reflected the distribution of seats by political group and national delegation. For instance, the EPP took ten seats on the powerful Conference of Committee Chairs
(three German MEPs, three Italian, two French, one Polish and one Spanish).
III. The Commission
There was growing certainty throughout 2009 that José Manuel Barroso would be nominated by the European Council to serve a second term as
Commission President and approved by the EP, unless the socialists won a majority in the June elections and confronted the European Council by opposing Barroso, a centre-right politician. Realizing the unlikelihood that they would beat the EPP in the elections, the socialists did not bother to put forward a candidate for Commission President. Most national leaders were lukewarm about Barroso, but agreed unanimously in the European Council in June 2009 that he was ‘the person they intend to nominate as President of the European Commission for the period 2009–14’, and asked the current and incoming Presidents of the European Council (the prime ministers of the Czech Republic and Sweden) to ‘have discussions with the European
Parliament in order to determine whether the Parliament is in a position to approve that nomination at its July plenary session’ (Council, 2009a). Having become the accidental Commission President for the period 2004–09,
Barroso looked set to become the inevitable Commission President for the period 2009–14.
The Lisbon Treaty was not yet in force when Barroso was being reappointed. Nevertheless the EP pressed the European Council for a political agreement to abide by the Lisbon Treaty rules, which call for the European
Council, ‘taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations’, to ‘propose to the European
Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission [. . .] [who] shall be elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members’.1 Given that the EPP, to which Barroso belonged, won the largest

1

Treaty on European Union, Title III, Article 17.7.

© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

INSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNANCE

109

number of seats, and that the Council Presidency was having discussions with the EP on Barroso’s nomination, the European Council could fairly claim to be acting in the spirit of the Lisbon Treaty.
That did not satisfy some MEPs, especially the socialists and greens, who reviled Barroso for his neo-liberal economic philosophy and his alleged cosiness with big business. Though the socialists were then in the process of divvying up the Presidency of the EP with the EPP, they claimed that pushing through Barroso’s candidacy without due consultation with the EP was a violation of democratic principles. Barroso duly developed a set of guidelines for the next mandate, which he presented at meetings with the political groups in early September (Commission, 2009a). The socialists were split along national lines. For instance, the Portuguese delegation generally supported
Barroso. In the event, Barroso convincingly won the vote on 16 September, although by a smaller margin than in 2004 (of the 718 MEPs present, 382 voted in favour, 219 voted against and 117 abstained).
Wolfgang Münchau, the influential Financial Times columnist, described
Barroso as being ‘among the weakest Commission presidents ever, a vain man who lacks political courage’ (Münchau, 2009). Other prominent critics of Barroso have been kinder in their choice of words but no less fierce in their disparagement of him. Barroso has been widely but unfairly blamed for not having done enough to prevent voters from rejecting the Constitutional Treaty in 2005 and the Lisbon Treaty in 2008, as if he could have changed the minds of people who, often for irrational reasons, deeply dislike the EU and the
Commission. More reasonably, Barroso is blamed for having responded slowly and inadequately to the financial crisis of 2007–09. Barroso may indeed have failed to grasp the enormity of the crisis until late 2008, when he finally rallied the Commission and helped put together the Economic
Recovery Plan. However, Barroso’s initial underestimation of the extent of the crisis was no different from that of many national leaders, and his ability to respond as Commission President was limited by the nature of the office and the preponderance of national governments.
Barroso has been and should remain a competent Commission President; a safe pair of hands at a difficult time for the institution and the EU. He has tried to restore the institution’s prominence and sense of purpose. If not resurgent, arguably the Commission under Barroso is as influential as it could possibly be under extremely difficult circumstances. Barroso is adept at presiding over a fractious Commission of 27 members, partly by introducing procedural changes but largely by adopting a more presidential than collegial style. Under his leadership, the Commission has become more accountable and open and more responsive to the needs of citizens. The Barroso Commission has been pragmatic in highlighting selective policy objectives. Aware
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

110

DESMOND DINAN

of the constraints facing the Commission, Barroso is not inclined to tilt at windmills and challenge the predominance of national capitals. Supranationalists are disappointed with what they see as Barroso’s subservience to national leaders and unwillingness to reassert the Commission’s authority. A more even-handed assessment is that Barroso is doing as much as he can at a time of resurgent intergovernmentalism, compounded by economic uncertainty and grandstanding by the EP.
Commissioners and Portfolios
Governments began to announce their nominees for the new Commission in mid-2009. Domestic political considerations, rather than ability or merit, usually determine a government’s choice of nominee for a lucrative and prestigious Commissionership. This was clearly the case in Germany, where Merkel chose Günther Oettinger, the minister-president of BadenWürttemberg, the third-largest state in Germany, as her country’s Commissioner. Until his selection, Oettinger was mostly unknown outside Germany and had little experience of the EU. Given his background, Oettinger would likely be a staunch defender of German interests in Brussels. As France’s new
Commissioner, Sarkozy chose someone with a prominent international profile and considerable EU experience: Michel Barnier, a former foreign minister and a Commissioner for regional policy in the Prodi Commission
(1999–2004).
An unprecedented aspect of the selection process for the second Barroso
Commission was that, under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, one of the Commission Vice-Presidents would also be the High Representative for Foreign
Affairs and Security, a position that was allocated on the basis of intensive intergovernmental bargaining.2 The selection of Catherine Ashton for the position took care of Britain’s nomination of a Commissioner-designate.
Fourteen of the new Commissioners-designate were holdovers from the first Barroso Commission. The Commission-designate included nine women
(one more than in the preceding Commission). Commissioners may be reappointed any number of times. It is not unusual for them to serve two full terms
(now ten years); Viviane Reding had already served in two successive Commissions when the government of Luxembourg renominated her in 2009.
Reflecting the composition of most national governments at the time of the
Commissioners’ nomination, a majority of the new Commission-designate came from the centre-right of the political spectrum, which also corresponded with the make-up of the newly elected EP.
2

See Tony Barber’s contribution in this volume.

© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

INSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNANCE

111

In principle the Commission President is solely responsible for allocating portfolios; in practice, national governments are constantly interfering.
Ever since the first enlargement there have been more Commissioners than substantial portfolios, despite a formidable increase in the EU’s policy scope. Responding to criticism that some of the portfolios in his first Commission were too insubstantial, and to shifts in policy priorities over the previous few years, Barroso reconfigured a number of portfolios for his second Commission. For instance, Barroso carved a new portfolio, ‘Climate
Action’, out of the old environment portfolio. Barroso also broke up a single portfolio, ‘Justice, Freedom and Security’, into two portfolios,
‘Home Affairs’ and ‘Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship’, in his second Commission.
Similarly, Barroso divided ‘Development and Humanitarian Aid’ (from his first Commission) into two portfolios, ‘Development’ and ‘International
Co-operation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response’. He also moved
‘European Neighbourhood Policy’ from ‘External Relations’ to ‘Enlargement’, external relations being subsumed into the High Representative/
Commission Vice-President’s responsibilities. Barroso kept a separate portfolio for trade. In his announcement of portfolios for the Commissionersdesignate, Barroso noted that the Commissioners for enlargement and
European neighbourhood policy, development and international co-operation would work ‘in close co-operation with the High Representative/VicePresident in accordance with the treaties’ (Commission, 2009b).
It remained to be seen how Barroso, the High Representative and the
European Council President would manage EU external representation among themselves. Barroso was the most eager to be in the limelight, in
Europe and beyond. For that reason Barroso must have been pleased that the
European Council chose such unassuming people as Ashton and van Rompuy to be the first incumbents of the new positions. All three will, literally, be on the stage together at international meetings. The fact that the EU has three external relations representatives, despite the effort to streamline external relations in the Lisbon Treaty, demonstrates the peculiar nature of the EU itself. Some national governments competed fiercely for particular portfolios.
Thus Sarkozy made no secret in 2009 of his determination that France’s next
Commissioner be allocated the internal market and services portfolio, thereby ensuring that it did not go to an economic liberal and especially a Briton (for
Sarkozy the two are synonymous). Given the dearth of weighty portfolios,
Barroso could have split internal market and services into two jobs. Instead, he went along with Sarkozy and handed the portfolio to the new French
Commissioner. Germany would appear to have lost out in the second Barroso
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

112

DESMOND DINAN

Commission, as its Commissioner secured the energy portfolio, an important responsibility but not a high-profile Commission job. Barroso juggled the portfolios in his new Commission so that none of the returning Commissioners kept his or her original portfolio (See Table 4).
The Commission comprises about 40 directorates-general and services, corresponding roughly to its activities, responsibilities and organizational needs. The number and names of the directorates-general and services change constantly, especially with the arrival of a new Commission. For instance, reflecting the growing political salience of energy policy, Barroso established a new energy directorate-general in 2009 (previously energy was part of a combined energy and transport directorate-general).
IV. Implications of the Financial Crisis and Economic Recession
The financial crisis and economic recession continued throughout 2009 and put EU solidarity sorely to the test. Hard-hit countries in central and eastern
Europe, with little money to spend on stimulus plans and no prospect in the near future of entering the euro area, felt increasingly resentful. More broadly, the situation demonstrated the fragility of economic integration and monetary union. The tendency on the part of national governments to protect their own banks and industries threatened to pull the single market apart. Similarly, the rapid deterioration of public finances in the euro area undermined the credibility of the Stability and Growth Pact, the fiscal foundation of economic and monetary union (EMU).
Governments’ behaviour reflected the political realities in the EU. People look to their national capitals, not to Brussels, for solutions to pressing socio-economic problems. Politicians would have been foolhardy to dismiss calls for national action by claiming that their hands were tied by EU competition policy or the budget deficit threshold of the Stability and Growth
Pact. They had to meet urgent national needs within an EU structure that is little liked or understood by citizens, despite the tangible benefits of the single market and the obvious convenience of the single currency. Under the circumstances, most governments managed to strike a reasonable balance between national and European interests, or at least did not blame Brussels unduly for constraining their freedom of manoeuvre. The high and varied number of summits during the crisis demonstrated national leaders’ appreciation of the importance of EU co-operation while also giving them an opportunity to let off steam (see Table 5).
The way in which the crisis played out politically underscores the point that national governments are the decisive actors. The EU does not have
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

113

INSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNANCE

Table 4: The Second Barroso Commission-Designate
Commissioner
José Manuel Barroso
Catherine Ashton

Country of Origin
Portugal
United Kingdom

Viviane Reding

Luxembourg

Joaquín Almunia
Siim Kallas
Neelie Kroes
Antonio Tajani

Spain
Estonia
The Netherlands
Italy

Maroš Šefcovic
ˇ ˇ

Slovakia

Janez Potocnik
ˇ
Olli Rehn
Andris Piebalgs
Michel Barnier
Androulla Vassiliou

Slovenia
Finland
Latvia
France
Cyprus

Algirdas Šemeta

Lithuania

Karel De Gucht
John Dalli
Máire Geoghegan-Quinn
Janusz Lewandowski
Maria Damanaki
Rumiana Jeleva*

Belgium
Malta
Ireland
Poland
Greece
Bulgaria

Günther Oettinger
Johannes Hahn
Connie Hedegaard
Štefan Füle

Germany
Austria
Denmark
Czech Republic

László Andor
Cecilia Malmström
Dacian Ciolos
¸

Hungary
Sweden
Romania

Portfolio
President
High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (Vice-President)
Justice, Fundamental Rights and
Citizenship (Vice-President)
Competition (Vice-President)
Transport (Vice-President)
Digital Agenda (Vice-President)
Industry and Entrepreneurship
(Vice-President)
Inter-institutional Relations and
Administration (Vice-President)
Environment
Economic and Monetary Affairs
Development
Internal Market and Services
Education, Culture, Multilingualism and
Youth
Taxation and Customs Union, Audit and
Anti-Fraud
Trade
Health and Consumer Policy
Research, Innovation and Science
Financial Programming and Budget
Maritime Affairs and Fisheries
International Co-operation, Humanitarian
Aid and Crisis Response
Energy
Regional Policy
Climate Action
Enlargement and European
Neighbourhood Policy
Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
Home Affairs
Agriculture and Rural Development

Source: The Members of the Barroso Commission, available at «http://ec.europa.eu/commission_20102014/index_en.htm».
Note: * Rumiana Jeleva stepped down during her confirmation hearings in the European Parliament in
January 2010; the Bulgarian government nominated Kristalina Georgieva as her replacement.

responsibility for fiscal policy. Stimulus packages, whether in the form of subsidies or automatic stabilizers, can come only from national budgets. Of course national governments are obliged to co-ordinate such action within the
EU and especially in the euro area. But the institutions that manage fiscal
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

114

DESMOND DINAN

Table 5: EU Summits in 2009
Informal meeting of Heads of State or Government, Brussels, 1 March 2009
Brussels European Council, 19–20 March
(Meeting of Heads of State or Government with the US President, Prague, 5 April)
Brussels European Council, 18–19 June
Informal Meeting of EU Heads of State or Government, Brussels, 17 September
Brussels European Council, 29–30 October
Informal Meeting of Heads of State or Government, Brussels, 19 November
Brussels European Council, 10–11 December
Source: European Council, Presidency Conclusions, 2009, available at «http://www.european-council. europa.eu/council-meetings/presidency-conclusions.aspx?lang=en». policy co-ordination – the Economic and Finance Council (of national finance ministers), the Eurogroup (finance ministers of countries in the euro area) and the European Council – influence the direction of national policy without dictating it. When times are tough, governments will not put policy co-ordination ahead of political survival and national recovery.
Apart from the European Central Bank, the EU institutions most directly involved in the crisis were the European Council and the Commission. Once again, the crisis showed that when the political stakes are high, only the
European Council is able to hold the EU together and move it forward. The
European Council was well served by the French Presidency in the second half of 2008 because Sarkozy appreciated the importance of the EU dimension to the crisis and, as president of a big, resourceful Member State, was able to get things done. The succeeding Czech Presidency was not only hobbled by domestic politics but also lacked the clout necessary to lead the
European Council (Beneš and Karlas, this volume). The variable performance of Council Presidencies during the crisis may have strengthened the appeal of the full-time European Council President. But had the Lisbon Treaty been in effect at the time, would Sarkozy – the headstrong leader of a powerful
Member State – have allowed himself to be upstaged by Herman van
Rompuy, the first elected President of the European Council?
The crisis also showed the difficulty of running the European Council effectively in an EU of 27 Member States. On a number of occasions, a few national leaders got together in smaller summits, notably of the G4 (France,
Germany, Italy and the UK), sometimes plus Spain and the Netherlands and always with the Commission President. Having worked out a common position, these leaders were able to foist their views onto the others at the next meeting of the European Council. In theory all countries are equal in the EU; in practice, when it comes to economics and finance, not to mention security and defence, the big countries remain more equal than the others.
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

INSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNANCE

115

Among the big countries, France and Germany predominate. The crisis was another test of their relationship and another opportunity for observers to lament the demise of the Franco–German tandem. Yet once again, despite personal differences (Merkel and Sarkozy could hardly have been less alike) and policy preferences (Germany is deeply averse to deficit spending; France is comfortable with public borrowing), the two countries pulled together and nudged the EU in the direction of their choice. The effectiveness of the Franco–German partnership may have diminished in the enlarged EU, especially in the absence of a project as compelling as the single market or monetary union, but it remains a formidable force.
What more could the Commission have done and what could it have done better? Much of the criticism of the Commission focused on Barroso, who seemed curiously inactive as the crisis unfolded. As noted earlier, he was not the only EU leader to underestimate the severity of the crisis, however. Merkel was similarly detached at the outset. Once roused to action, Barroso led a vigorous response within the constraints that the Commission faced with respect to fiscal and macroeconomic policy. The Commission President’s most useful role was to push for concerted national action, using the bully pulpit of the Presidency and participation in the
European Council. Barroso could hardly have taken centre stage from
Sarkozy or Merkel.
Conclusions
As far as EU institutions and governance are concerned, the year 2009 will be remembered more than anything else for the eventual ratification and entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, most likely the final round in a bout of major reform that began with the Single European Act (SEA) in 1986. In the intervening quarter-century the European Union came into existence, more than doubled in size and acquired a vastly greater policy scope than the earlier
European Community. During the same time, the EU grappled with major institutional and governance issues such as accountability, comitology, subsidiarity and transparency. The Lisbon Treaty may be the last round of major treaty reform not because it has addressed these issues entirely satisfactorily or because the post-Lisbon EU is ideally organized or structured, but because national governments have lost their appetites and European publics have lost their patience for further large-scale reform.
Nevertheless the Lisbon Treaty equips the EU with a robust set of institutional arrangements and policy instruments to address a variety of internal and external challenges. Those arrangements and instruments may be
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

116

DESMOND DINAN

suboptimal in many respects, but they reflect the art of the possible at a particular moment in EU history. Much depends on the ability and willingness of EU actors – at the national and European levels – to make the most of the Lisbon Treaty’s potential. That depends to some extent on the strength and impact of Euroscepticism, which the process of treaty reform unintentionally stoked. With the EU no longer engaged in seemingly perpetual treaty change, the post-Lisbon period of consolidation and relative calm should help to reduce Eurosceptical angst.
The EU’s obsession with the Lisbon Treaty coincided with the global financial crisis. Joschka Fischer, who launched the debate on the future of
Europe at the beginning of the decade, lamented in March 2009 that the crisis ‘is relentlessly laying bare the EU’s flaws and limitations. Indeed, what Europe lost, first and foremost, with the rejection of the Constitutional
Treaty is now obvious: its faith in itself and its common future [. . .]
[Europe] threatens to revert to the national egoism and protectionism of the past’ (Fischer, 2009). Fischer’s alarm may have reflected his frustration with what eventually emerged from the treaty reform process. Undoubtedly
European integration has a long way to go – if the destination is a federal
Europe. A more realistic appraisal of the Lisbon Treaty and of the EU’s response to the financial crisis is that European integration has already come a long way, given the tenacity of national sovereignty in the global system and the immense difficulty of forming and shaping supranational organizations. Key Reading
Arregui, J. and Thomson, R. (2009) ‘ “States” Bargaining Success in the
European Union’. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 655–76.
Blom-Hansen, J. and Brandsma, G.J. ‘The EU Comitology System: Intergovernmental Bargaining and Deliberative Supranationalism?’ JCMS, Vol.
47, No. 4, pp. 719–40.
Fuglsang, N. and Olsen, K.B. (2009) ‘Staying in the Loop: The Commission’s Role in First Reading Agreements’. EPIN Working Paper, No. 25,
September.
König, T. and Junge, D. (2009) ‘Why Don’t Veto Players Use their Power?’
European Union Politics, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 507–34.
Yordanova, N. (2009) ‘The Rationale behind Committee Assignment in the
European Parliament: Distributive, Informational and Partisan Perspectives’. European Union Politics, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 253–80.
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

INSTITUTIONS AND GOVERNANCE

117

References
Bale, T., Hanley, S. and Szczerbiak, A. (2009) ‘ “May Contain Nuts”? The Reality behind the Rhetoric Surrounding the British Conservatives’ New Group in the
European Parliament’. The Political Quarterly, Vol. 81, No. 1, January–March
2010.
Commission of the European Communities (2009a) ‘European Commission President
José Manuel Barroso proposes a partnership for progress and ambition to the
European Parliament’. Brussels, 3 September. Available at «http://europa.eu/rapid/ pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1272». Commission of the European Communities (2009b) ‘President Barroso unveils his team’. Brussels, 27 November. Available at «http://europa.eu/rapid/ pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1837&format=HTML&aged=0& language=EN&guiLanguage=en».
Council of the European Union (2009a) ‘Presidency Conclusions’. European
Council, 18–19 June, Council, Brussels.
Council of the European Union (2009b) ‘Press Release’. 2988th Council meeting,
Environment, Brussels, 17764/2/09 REV 2 (Presse 392), 22 December.
Council of the European Union (2009c) ‘Spanish-Belgian-Hungarian Trio
Presidency of the Council of the European Union, 2010–2011, Operational programme’. 22 June. Available at «http://www.europolitics.info/pdf/gratuit_en/
259687-en.pdf».
European Conservatives and Reformists (2009) Website. Available at «http:// www.ecrgroup.eu/». European Parliament (2007) ‘Composition of the European Parliament after
European Elections in June 2009, Institutions’. 10 December. Available at «http:// www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/008-11449-283-10-41901-20071008IPR11353-10-10-2007-2007-false/default_en.htm». European Parliament (2010) ‘Background: Parliament’s 18 additional seats’.
23 February. Available at «http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/ background_page/008-69361-053-02-09-901-20100223BKG69359-22-02-20102010-false/default_en.htm». European People’s Party (2009) Available at «www.epp.eu/hoofdpagina.php? hoofdmenuID=1». European Policy Center (2009) Post-Summit Analysis: The End of the Beginning, 12
December, p. 2.
Federal Constitutional Court (2009) ‘Press release no. 72/2009 of 30 June, Judgment of 30 June’. Press Office. Available at «http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht. de/en/press/bvg09-072en.html». Fischer, J. (2009) ‘Europe in Reverse’. Project Syndicate, 9 March. Available at
«http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/fischer36».
Greens/European Free Alliance (2009) Available at «http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/ default/rubrik/6/6270.htm». Irish Times (2009) ‘Late Surge of Reality for Libertas as Truth Dawns’, 9 June.
© 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

118

DESMOND DINAN

Münchau, W. (2009) ‘Like a Fish, Europe is Rotting from the Head’. Financial
Times, 11 May.
Parliament.com (2009) ‘Mixed Response to PES Name Change’. 17 June.
Available at «http://www.theparliament.com/no_cache/latestnews/news-article/ newsarticle/mixed-response-to-pes-name-change/». © 2010 The Author(s)
Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd