1. What is the EU?

• Unifying ideal: a peaceful, united and prosperous Europe
• Four freedoms established in 1958
• When UK joined in 1973, it was clear that membership involved much more than trade
• EU now has near-frictionless trade in goods and services between member states (see trade section)
• EU uses a democratic model to govern the European Commission and approve laws
• As a member state, UK had strong influence in the EU
• EU has areas to address but democratic deficit often exaggerated

Click here for summary of Brexit FactBase

EU history

Founding principles

The EU came into existence in 1993, following the Maastricht Treaty. The predecessors came into being in the aftermath of the Second World War. The unifying ideal of the founding fathers was a peaceful, united and prosperous Europe.
The first steps fostered economic cooperation because countries which trade with one another become economically interdependent and less likely to start a conflict.

Figure 1.1 shows the sequence of countries joining the EU:

• In 1951, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands founded the European Coal and Steel Community.
• Later, in 1957, they founded the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community.
• On 1 January 1958, the Treaty of Rome established the four freedoms of movement of persons (initially workers), capital, goods and services.
• In 1973, the Denmark, Ireland and the UK and  joined
• Between 1981 and 1986, Greece, Portugal and Spain joined
• In 1995, Austria, Finland and Sweden joined
• In 2004, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia joined
• In 2007, Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania joined
• On 1 July 2013, Croatia became the 28th Member State of the European Union.

Since then, the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020 and no other countries have joined the EU.
However, there are several countries in the process of joining the EU (listed in the box in Figure 1.1). Note that Turkey’s accession process is at a standstill, but it has received financial support from the EU for Pre-accession Assistance. Negotiations with Montenegro and Serbia are also paused.

Figure 1.1: History of country accession to EU

Sources:
European Union and image from BBC website (no longer available); text boxes have been added (prior to UK exit)
Treaty of Rome (in French), signed 25 March 1957, effective 1 January 1958
European Union, EU enlargement (accessed May 2024)

European flag

The European flag (Figure 1.3) was originally adopted by the Council of Europe in 1955. The Council of Europe is an international organisation with 46 members (including the UK) that is separate from the EU. It defends human rights and promotes European culture. In the years that followed, the Council of Europe encouraged the emerging European institutions to adopt the same flag.

The flag symbolises identity and unity of Europe. It features a circle of 12 gold stars on a blue background. They stand for the ideals of unity, solidarity and harmony among the peoples of Europe. The number of stars has nothing to do with the number of member countries.

In 1983, the European Parliament decided that the Communities’ should use the Council of Europe flag in 1983. Then, in 1985, EU leaders unanimously adopted it as the official emblem of the European Communities, later to become the European Union.

Figure 1.3: The European flag

Source: EU website

UK accession and referendum

In 1973, the UK joined along with Denmark and Ireland. 

It was clear to the UK at the time of joining that the EC was about much more than trade – see the open letter from the then Prime Minister in Figure 1.4.

“The Community which we are joining is far more than a common market”, Edward Heath, Prime Minister, December 1972

Figure 1.4: Open letter from Edward Heath – 1972

After the UK had joined the European Community in 1973, a referendum in 1975 approved the UK’s decision to stay in the EC:

• 17.4 million voted in favour of staying in and 8.5 million voted against – a majority of 8.9 million
• The vote was 67.2% to 32.8% (a majority of 34.4%) with a turnout of 64.6%
• As a percentage of the whole electorate (i.e. not just those who voted), the majority was 43.4% in favour to 21.2% against, with 35.4% not voting.

For a comparison with the 2016 referendum result, please see Appendix A – referendum analysis.

EU treaties

The EU is a union of sovereign nations; it is not a state or a country. The basis of the EU is in the treaties agreed by all the member countries. In 2007, the latest main update was signed in Lisbon and came into force 1 January 2009. EU treaties define in legal terms the rights and obligations of the member states and the roles of the institutions of the EU.

When, in 1950, French Foreign Minister, Robert Schuman, proposed integrating western Europe’s coal and steel industries, his ideas were set out in the Treaty of Paris and the European Coal and Steel Community was born. Since then, the EU and its predecessors have regularly updated and added to the treaties to ensure effective policy and decision-making. The Treaty of Paris was signed on 18 April 1951 and entered into force in 1952. It expired in 2002. These treaties followed:

• Treaties of Rome, establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), were signed in Rome on 25 March 1957 and came into force in 1958. The treaties of Rome set out the four freedoms.
• Single European Act (SEA) was signed in February 1986 and came into force in 1987. It amended the EEC Treaty and paved the way for completing the Single Market.
• Maastricht Treaty – the Treaty on European Union – was signed on 7 February 1992 and came into force in 1993. The Maastricht Treaty established the EU, in which member states confer competences to attain common objectives. It also introduced ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.
• Amsterdam Treaty signed on 2 October 1997 and came into force in 1999. It amended previous treaties.
• Nice Treaty signed on 26 February 2001 and entered into force in 2003. It streamlined the EU institutional system so that it could continue to work effectively after the new wave of Member States joined in 2004.
• Lisbon Treaty signed on 13 December 2007 and came into force in 2009. It simplified working methods and voting rules, created a President of the European Council. It introduced new structures with a view to making the EU a stronger actor on the global stage. It also determined the areas, limits and arrangements for exercising the EU’s competences.

Euratom is governed by a separate treaty between its members.

Accession process

Accession is the process of joining the EU, which involves five main steps: (1) application submission, (2) European Commission offers opinion, (3) candidacy status granted, (4) accession negotiations, (5) treaty signature and ratification.

On average, it took about nine years for each of the 21 current members that underwent the accession process to join the EU (see Figure 1.2). However, it’s important to note that Finland (three years), Sweden (four years) and Austria (six years) were able to join a lot more quickly than the average. The negotiation process (lasting an average of four years, or a median of five years) is the longest phase in all cases but took only about a year for these three countries.

1. Application submission
   • Applying country chooses to apply for EU membership.
   • Any European country that agrees to promote the EU’s common values – respect for human dignity and human rights, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law – and meets certain conditions, referred to as the “Copenhagen criteria,” is eligible to apply.
   • Countries must have a functioning market economy, stable democratic institutions, and be able to implement EU laws and fulfil membership obligations.
2. European Commission offers its opinion to the European Council on three assessments:
   • Political criteria
   • Economic criteria
   • Ability to assume obligations of membership
3. Candidacy status is granted by the unanimous decision of the European Council, informed by the European Commission’s opinion.
   • Council and candidate country agree to a framework for accession negotiations.
   • Candidate countries receive financial and technical assistance throughout the accession process.
4. Accession negotiations commence, as the candidate country adapts its national laws to align with the EU’s rules, called the ‘acquis’.
   • Negotiations formally conclude once each of the 35 acquis chapters (topics like taxation, the environment and defence policy) are unanimously closed.
5. An accession treaty is signed by the candidate country and the EU (with the consent of the Council, Commission and Parliament).
   • Later ratified by the candidate and each EU country, when it becomes binding.
   • The country becomes an “acceding country” until the official accession date, when it becomes a full EU member.

Figure 1.2: How long does joining the EU take?

Source: Pew Research Center, How exactly do countries join the EU?, July 2022

EU institutions

EU institutional framework

“The Union shall have an institutional framework which shall aim to promote its values, advance its objectives, serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of the Member States, and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions.” (Treaty on European Union)

Figure 1.5 shows the seven institutions of the EU and describes their principal functions. The European Parliament, the European Council, the Council of the European Union (sometimes referred to as the Council of Ministers), and the European Commission are the main players, supported by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank and the European Court of Auditors.

Figure 1.5: EU institutions

Two important non-EU institutions

The Council of Europe is not an EU institution. It is an intergovernmental organisation which aims to protect human rights, democracy and the rule of law. It also promotes European culture. Established in 1949, one of its early achievements was to draw up the European Convention on Human Rights. The Council of Europe now has 46 member states, including all EU countries, and its headquarters are in Strasbourg, France.

The European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution. To enable citizens to exercise their rights under the Convention, the Council of Europe set up the European Court of Human Rights.

Source: National Audit Office, Briefing on EU-UK finances, December 2016

EU institutional responsibilities

Figure 1.6 shows the responsibilities of six of the seven institutions (excluding the ECB, which is covered separately below) and how they interact. The Brexit FactBase section on sovereignty and law discusses the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Of the 27 commissioners within the European Commission from each member state, one is President of the Commission and another is High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The UK had 73 MEPs when it was a member, out of a total of 751.

Figure 1.6: EU institutional framework and responsibilities

Source: National Audit Office, Briefing on EU-UK finances, December 2016 (data on MEPs and member states updated to show post-Brexit position)

European Central Bank

The ECB is an official EU institution at the heart of the Eurosystem (the monetary authority of the eurozone) and the Single Supervisory Mechanism. It has more than 5,000 employees and trainees from all over Europe work for the ECB in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. They perform a range of tasks in close cooperation with the national central banks within the Eurosystem and, for banking supervision, with the national supervisors within the Single Supervisory Mechanism.

The ECB’s President is Christine Lagarde and the Vice-President is Luis de Guindos. The main decision-making body is the Governing Council, which consists of the six members of the Executive Board plus the governors of the central banks of the euro area countries.

Twenty of the 27 Member States have also joined the euro. The most recent joiner was Croatia in 2023, having become a Member State in 2013. Of the remaining seven, Denmark (which joined with the UK in 1973) has an opt out from the Euro. Six countries have yet to join, having become member states from 17 to 29 years years ago:

• Sweden (1995)
• Czechia (2004)
• Hungary (2004)
• Poland (2004)
• Bulgaria (2007)
• Romania (2007)

For more details on the ECB please visit its website.

European Court of Auditors

The European Court of Auditors (ECA) examines the accounts of the Union. The ECA reports to the European Parliament and to the European Council. To be effective, the Court of Auditors, like any other audit institution, must remain independent of the institutions and bodies that it audits.

The ECA:

• operates as a collegiate body of 27 members, one from each EU country. The ECA is supported by highly qualified staff originating from all member states. The auditors frequently audit in the other EU institutions, the member states and other beneficiary countries.
• cooperates closely with supreme audit institutions in the member states. The ECA’s work largely concerns the EU budget for which the Commission retains overall responsibility. Its management of over 80% of expenditure is shared with national authorities.
• is free to: select its audit topics, the specific scope and approach to be followed. It decides how and when to present the results of its selected audits. It chooses the publicity to be given to its reports and opinions.
• has no judicial powers. However, its work brings irregularities, weaknesses and cases of suspected fraud to the attention of the EU bodies responsible for taking action, including the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

Sign-off of EU accounts

The ECA signed off on the 2018 accounts as reliable (‘true and fair’) – something it has done for each of the 12 years since 2007.  For 2018, the ECA found that the majority of expenditure was free from material error (that is, most errors were less than 2% of expenditure).

• The EU budget for 2018 was for €157 billion of spending.
• The overall level of error for EU spending in 2018 was estimated at 2.6%, compared with 2.4% in 2017 and 3.1% in 2016. This is spending that did not follow the rules and accordingly should not have been paid out. This covers a wide range of situations and, according to the ECA, is not synonymous with waste or fraud.
• Errors occurred mainly in high-risk spending areas, such as in rural development and cohesion, where payments from the EU budget reimburse costs incurred. These spending areas are subject to complex rules and eligibility criteria, which may lead to errors.

As the President of the ECA said:

Source: 2018 EU audit in brief, ECA, October 2019

EU staffing levels

Around 46,000 people staff the main EU institutions described above. The ECB has a further 2,500 staff.

• The European Commission employs around 32,000 people, divided into departments known as Directorates General (DGs), roughly equivalent to ministries. Each covers a specific policy area or service such as trade or environment, and is headed by a Director-General who reports to a Commissioner.
• In the European Parliament, around 7,500 people work in the general secretariat and in the political groups. In addition, there are Members of Parliament and their staffs.
• In the Council of the European Union, around 3,500 people work in the general secretariat.
• The Court of European Justice employs 2,200 people.
• The ECA has about 800 staff.

By way of comparison, the UK civil service had 389,000 full-time equivalent civil servants at March 2017. Separately, in local UK government, there are 16 county and city councils that each employ more than 20,000 people: Birmingham, Devon, Essex, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Kent, Lancashire, Manchester, Norfolk, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire, Surrey, Warrington, West Sussex, East Riding of Yorkshire, and North Yorkshire.

Sources: Europa, Curia, House of Commons Library, Civil Service Statistics, August 2017, Oscar Research Limited

EU presidents

A president heads each EU institution. However, the term ‘president’ can be misleading. The role of EU presidents is facilitative like ‘chairman of the board’. By contrast, the role of the US president is an executive role. Table 1.1. describes their roles and how they are elected or appointed.

2024 changes

The European Council (the heads of state of the member states) elected Charles Michel (Belgian Prime Minister) as President from 1 December 2019. Charles Michel’s term of office ended on 31 May 2022, but was renewed once for another two and a half years until 30 November 2024.

In July 2024, the Council adopted the proposal of  Ms Kaja Kallas (previously Prime Minister of Estonia) to replace  Josep Borrell (previously Spanish Foreign Minister) as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on 1 November 2024 until 31 October 2029.

Taking into account the results of the 2024 European elections, the President of the European Council consulted with the European Parliament on possible candidates for Commission President. Following the consultations, he proposed Ursula von der Leyen to the European Council to continue for a second five-year term. The European Council adopted the proposal (by qualified majority).

The European Parliament then elected Ursula von der Leyen by a simple majority of its members on 18 July 2024. She won 401 votes from the 720 MEPs that voted. As President-elect, she is currently assembling her proposed team of 26 commissioners, one for each member state, based on nominees from national capitals.

The Commissioners-designate will appear before parliamentary committees in their prospective fields of responsibility. Each committee then meets to draw up its evaluation of the candidate’s expertise and performance, which will be sent to the President of the Parliament. A negative evaluation has prompted candidates in the past to withdraw from the process.

In October the Parliament will vote on the full Commission, including the Commission President and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, in a single vote of consent. The new Commission will take effect from 1 November 2024.

For further information on appointments and responsibilities, please see:

• President of the European Council’s role
• European Commission and Commissioners
• Who are the MEPs in key functions and how are they elected?

Table 1.1: EU presidents	How selected	Role
European Parliament Roberta Metsola	Proposed by: at least 40 MEPs or political group. Elected by: MEPs (absolute majority) Term: 1 July 2022 – 31 December 2026	Ensures parliamentary procedures are properly followed Oversees Parliament's various activities and committees Represents Parliament in all legal matters and in its international relations Gives final assent to the EU budget
European Council Charles Michel	Elected by: Council members (the 27 heads of state and government of EU countries) by qualified majority First term: 1 December 2019 – 31 May 2022 Reelected unanimously in March 2022 for a second term to 30 November 2024	Leads the European Council's work in setting the EU's general political direction and priorities – in cooperation with the Commission Promotes cohesion and consensus within European Council Represents the EU externally on foreign and security issues
European Commission Ursula von der Leyen	Proposed by: European Council based on political make-up of Parliament Elected by: MEPs (absolute majority) Term: 1 July 2024 – 31 October 2029	Gives political guidance to the Commission Calls and chairs meetings of the college of the Commissioners Leads the Commission's work in implementing EU policies Takes part in G7 meetings Contributes to major debates both in European Parliament and between EU governments in the Council of the EU
Council of the EU Hungary	Council presidency rotates every 6 months through a trio of countries. Term: 1 July 2024 - 31 December 2025 Current trio: Spain, Belgium, Hungary NB national government holds the position, not an individual.	Council of the EU is where national ministers discuss EU legislation Responsible for driving forward the Council's work on EU legislation, ensuring the continuity of the EU agenda, orderly legislative processes and cooperation among member states Works with two other countries in a trio which changes every 18 months. For example, representatives from the presidency country chair its meetings. Next group of three countries: 1 January 2025
European Court of Auditors Tony Murphy	Appointed by: 27 Members of the European Court of Auditors (‘first among equals’) Term: 1 October 2022 – 30 September 2025	Chairs ECA meetings and ensures ECA decisions are implemented and that the institution is soundly managed Represents ECA in its external relations, in particular with the discharge authority, other EU institutions and supreme audit institutions of Member and beneficiary States
Court of Justice of the EU Koen Lenaerts	CJEU elects its President and a Vice-President from among its members for a renewable term of three years. He has been president since 8 October 2015 and current term ends 31 October 2024.	See BFB section on sovereignty and law for discussion of the CJEU.
European Central Bank Christine Lagarde	1 November 2019 for a non-renewable term of 8 years European Council formally decides on appointment following a Council recommendation, after consulting European Parliament and ECB Governing Council.	The key role is to chair the Governing Council of the ECB. President of ECB is also a member of the European Council (the most senior EU institution).
Updated: 21 August 2024

Sources:
EU presidents – who does what?
European Court of Auditors – governance

European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights is separate from the EU. It is an international court set up in 1959 by the Council of Europe. It rules on individual or state applications alleging violations of the civil and political rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ECHR’s judgments are binding on the countries concerned and have led governments to alter their legislation and administrative practice in a wide range of areas. The Court’s case-law makes the Convention a modern and powerful living instrument for meeting new challenges and consolidating the rule of law and democracy in Europe.

The Court is based in Strasbourg, from where the Court monitors respect for the human rights of 700 million Europeans in the 46 Council of Europe member states that have ratified the Convention.

Since 1998 the Court has sat as a full-time court and individuals can apply to it directly. Since the Court was established in 1959, the Court, by 2021, had delivered 24,511 judgments. More than a third of them have concerned three member States: Turkey (3,820), the Russian Federation (3,116) and Italy (2,466).

Council of Europe

The Council of Europe has 46 member states. These comprise all countries with territory in Europe except Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Vatican City. The Russian Federation was expelled from the Council of Europe on 16 March 2022.

The Council of Europe and the EU share the same fundamental values – human rights, democracy, and the rule of law – but are separate entities which perform different, yet complementary, roles. Focusing on those core values, the Council of Europe brings together governments from across Europe – and beyond – to agree minimum legal standards in a wide range of areas. It then monitors how well countries apply the standards that they have chosen to sign up to. It also provides technical assistance, often working together with the European Union, to help them do so.

European Convention on Human Rights

The European Convention 
on Human Rights is an
 international treaty under which the member states of 
the Council of Europe promise 
to secure fundamental civil
 and political rights, not only
 to their own citizens but also to
 everyone within their jurisdiction.
 The Convention, which was signed on 4 November 1950 in Rome, entered into force in 1953.

The Convention’s guarantees include:

• the right to life
• the right to a fair hearing
• the right to respect for private and family life
• freedom of expression
• freedom of thought, conscience, and religion
• the protection of property.

The Convention’s prohibitions include:

• torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
• slavery and forced labour
• death penalty
• arbitrary and unlawful detention
• discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.

Other bodies not to confuse:

• International Court of Justice – judicial organ of the United Nations, based in The Hague.
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights – text adopted by the United Nations in 1948 to strengthen human rights protection at international level.
• Charter of Fundamental Rights – EU text on human rights and fundamental freedoms, adopted in 2000.

Sources: From the links in the text.

MEPs and influence

MEPs and voting

The Parliament has 720 MEPs based on adult population (the UK previously had 73 MEPs).

To be passed by Council, proposed EU laws require a majority not only of member countries (55%) but also of EU population (65%). At least four Member States representing at least 35% of the EU population can block a decision. The Council must then do everything in its power to reach a satisfactory solution within a reasonable time period.

See the section on sovereignty and law for details of the areas affected by EU law.

MEPs and political groupings

MEPs for 2024 – 2029 have joined these eight political groupings (ordered from left-wing to right-wing). The political groupings bring together MEPs with a common ideological outlook. Table 1.2 summarises the numbers of MEPs by country and political grouping (also ordered from left-wing to right-wing).

1. GUE/NGL: Left Group  is the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left (46 MEPs).
2. Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D Group) is centre-left, pro-EU, social democrat. Iratxe García Pérez (Spain) is the president. The UK Labour Party aligns with the S&D group (136 MEPs)
3. Greens-EFA (European Free Alliance) are left/centre-left and regional (53 MEPs).
4. Renew Europe is the successor to the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe group (ALDE) which existed from 2004 to 2019. In May 2019, ALDE dissolved and the new group announced the adoption of its name on 12 June 2019 after it formed an alliance with La République En Marche!. The UK’s Liberal Democrat MEPs align with this group. (77 MEPs)
5. European People’s Party (EPP) is the most powerful political grouping in the European Parliament.  The UK Conservative Party used to be aligned with the EPP, but in 2009 aligned itself with the ECR, which was supportive of the EU but wished to see it reform (188 MEPs).
6. European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR Group) is centre-right to right-wing and eurosceptic (78 MEPs).
7. PfE: Patriots for Europe  (84) MEPs.
8. ESN: European of Sovereign Nations Group – no website as yet – far right led by AfD (25 MEPs).

There are also 32 unattached MEPs. Sometimes referred to as ‘SI’ – Sans Inscrit.

The above list adds up to 719 because one Spanish MEP has yet to take their seat.

Table 1.2: MEPs by country and political grouping

Source: Europa, The political groups of the European Parliament

Influence and Commission proposals

The European Commission is the body of civil servants that serves the Parliament and the Council.  The overall process for setting priorities and creating proposals for legislation follows three main steps.

Opinion on UK influence (pre-referendum)

The description of how the EU works can be brought to life by looking at the UK’s influence within the EU.

“The UK has always been successful in seeking beneficial changes to EU proposals/legislation when it has sought it. However the UK’s influence has been decreasing over time” …… senior Brussels-based UK civil servant (retired) – 2016 pre-referendum

The UK’s influence could be seen in:

• Language – English is currently the main language of the EU;
• Form of legislation – drafting of EU legislation follows pattern found in UK legislation;
• Form of deliberation – use of committees and negotiation between opposing political views is as in the UK;
• ‘Anglo Saxon’ economic model – used by many EU states with the UK seen as creator/developer of model;
• UK financial services – UK viewed as EU financial regulatory centre and global hub for EU.

Placements

The UK had also succeeded in placing UK people, or people favourable to the UK, in key positions, for example:

• The UK’s Jonathon Hill was Commissioner for Financial Services until he resigned in 2016, after the referendum.
• Economic and Monetary Committee in last EP was chaired by Sharon Bowles (previously MEP for SE England) – now Baroness Bowles
• Committee for Internal Market and Consumer Protection chaired by Vicky Ford (MEP, East of England)
• UK MEPs often acted as rapporteurs (who write reports for EP and committees and influence content).

Opt-outs

Where the UK felt strongly that it did not want to follow EU law (and had not been able to address that concern during negotiation on the text) it had previously sought and found compromise via ‘opt outs’.

The UK had the greatest number of ‘opt outs’ of any Member State, including:

• Working Time Directive where the UK had a number of opt outs;
• Rebate on UK contribution to the EU budget;
• Non-inclusion in the Eurozone;
• Non-inclusion in the Schengen area (UK retained passport checks on its borders);
• David Cameron’s negotiation with the EU had secured an important UK opt-out on closer political union. Cameron’s agreement also included increased UK veto powers on Commission proposals.

Pre-Brexit decline

Whilst still strong (because of the reasons outlined above, the size of the UK economy and strengths in areas like financial services and security), the UK’s influence had been declining over recent years before 2016. The UK had 73 MEPs, but 29 (over one third) represented the Brexit Party (previously 24 with UKIP). These MEPs played no constructive role in EP.  Even without Brexit, the Brexit Party and UKIP had significantly weakened UK influence within the European Parliament and the Commission.

Civil service influence

The UK Civil Service influenced the EU legislative process because UK civil servants dealt with Commission at a number of levels:

• Via secondment where they had significant control over the drafting of proposals;
• Engagement with Commission Officials during drafting stage (this was viewed as the most productive time for seeking changes);
• Once a proposal had been made, UK civil servants, who specialised on that topic, attended Working Group meetings with representatives of other member states to consider detail and suggest amendments to the text (a lot of the real work on this was done in the margins and before meetings).

NB: when downsizing of Civil Service put pressure on officials’ ability to go to Brussels, much of this work was routed through UK Permanent Representation staff in Brussels who were not technical experts.

To ensure that civil servants were pursuing the correct policy path, they:

• Sought Ministerial agreement and agreement of European Scrutiny committees of Parliament and Lords
• Updated Minister and parliamentary committees as discussions continue.
• Prior to UK agreeing text at EU level, sought agreement from Parliament – albeit UK’s power to change EU legislation at that point was very limited, This element was an area of concern that the UK sought to address with the inclusion of a ‘red card’ in Cameron’s negotiation.

Directive implementation

The other area where the UK could modify EU legislation was via the implementation of an EU Directive when ‘woolly language’ often allows for flexibility of approach. Some notable examples: bank bonuses and Audit Directive that had over 20 Member State options.

Ironically, the UK had a reputation for ‘gold plating’ EU law, i.e. going further than EU regulation required. This conflicted with the view that UK ‘had to do what Brussels said’.

Democratic deficit?

Some claim that the EU is undemocratic, referring to a “democratic deficit”. Others regard it as more democratic than the UK. The following material considers how the EU democratic deficit might arise and associated perceptions..

Please note that this section offers a point of view and is different to other parts of the FactBase. This section is structured:

• Voter attitudes to the EU
• EU institutions and sovereign member states
  • Eurozone and Lisbon Treaty
  • Role of the Commission
• Legislative process
  • National governments
• Perception and transparency
  • UK journalists and media
• Voter interest in MEP elections
  • EU proportional voting system
• Conclusion

Voter attitudes to the EU

Despite the EU’s shortcomings, EU citizens seem to like it. Voters know the EU could be improved but a large majority values its benefits.

In December 2023, the Eurobarometer survey commissioned by the European Parliament showed that 72% of EU citizens thought that membership had benefited their country. In addition, 70% believe that the actions of the EU have an impact on their daily life. Even in Hungary, 77% said the EU had benefited their country.

These results are consistent with the regular Pew Research Center surveys, the most recent of which was published in June 2024 (see Figure 1.7). Their survey of nine member countries in Spring 2024 found 63% of respondents had generally favourable views of the EU, with 36% having an unfavourable view. Interestingly, the UK favourable view was only slightly lower at 58% with the UK unfavourable view at 41%.

Figure 1.7: Views of the EU

Sources:
European Parliament
Pew Research Center, June 2024

EU institutions and sovereign member states

The EU is a union of sovereign, democratic nations. It is an international organisation, not a state, that follows democratic principles. To join the EU, a country must be a democracy. Similarly, MEPs are elected through proportional representation, which is usually seen as the most democratic way of representing the views of citizens (unlike the first-past-the-post electoral system, which is used in Europe only by the UK and Belarus).

In limited areas defined by treaty, EU institutions can enforce laws, once collectively approved, on all the member states. The Council of Ministers (ministerial representatives from the 27 EU governments) and the European Parliament amend and pass EU laws, which the Commission proposes.

Most international member organisations experience tensions with their members (think of the UN, WHO or FIFA). In the case of the EU, there can be tensions between the EU institutions and member state governments, parliaments, and citizens. However, the EU sometimes struggles to decide how to respond to serious threats to democracy in member states – such as those recently in Poland and Hungary.

The EU Parliament can seem unwieldy and some believe it should provide stronger challenge to the Commission. On the other hand, when MEPs propose amendments to draft EU directives or legislation, they are usually adopted. This is in stark contrast to the UK Parliament where the government usually regards such amendments as exceptions to be resisted.

The heads of member states (through the European Council) take important EU decisions, although Parliament will usually have a say. The Council meets at least twice every six months to set the direction for the Commission and to monitor progress. The quarterly Council meetings were often important milestones in the Brexit process.

For a description of the proportional voting system for the European elections, please click here. Our Excel model shows how the d’Hondt system works and allows you to model different scenarios. Now of historical interest for the UK, the modeller brings the EU proportional voting system alive. It’s simple to use and allows you to input vote shares by party for UK regions. The model then automatically calculates how many seats each party wins. The model is loaded with regional data for the 2014 results, the ComRes poll of 9 May 2019 and the Best for Britain poll of 18 May and the ComRes poll of 21 May.

Source: EU website, How EU Policy is Decided

Eurozone and Lisbon Treaty

The Eurozone and, in particular, the ECB have created tensions. Central bankers run the ECB technocratically and have made politically unpalatable decisions that affect the Eurozone– such as the punitive deficit reduction targets in Greece and in Ireland. Weak political governance and oversight of the ECB has been recognised as an issue for several years – and some regard the failure to address it as evidence of a democratic deficit.

Many saw the pushing through of the Lisbon Treaty as evidence that the EU and some national governments circumvent the wishes of citizens – creating democratic deficits at both levels. In 2004, a Constitutional Convention on the Future of Europe proposed greater powers for EU institutions. It also (in limited areas) let the EU enter into agreements on behalf of the member states.

The Lisbon Treaty refined Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) in the Council of Ministers for several EU competences (such as environment, agriculture and transport). Under QMV, a law passes if it is backed by at least 55% of member states (15 out of 27 countries) that make up at least 65% of the EU population. For the latter, at least 72% of member states must approve, representing the same proportion of the EU population. Abstention counts as a vote against. QMV is also used in the European Council.

The aim was to improve the speed of EU decision-making. On sensitive areas like defence and foreign policy, member states continue to have a veto. The changes meant that the large member states (including the UK) could be outvoted more often.

The proposed treaty changes were the subject of referendums in Spain, the Netherlands and France. Spain approved but France and the Netherlands rejected. However, after some relatively superficial modifications including removal of references to ‘constitution’, the heads of all member states approved the proposals in late 2007. The Irish then held two referendums on the Treaty. The first in 2008 rejected the Treaty, but the second in 2009 approved it.

For the UK, a key test of whether a democratic deficit existed was whether the EU passed laws that UK citizens did not like.

• The change to QMV did not mean that the UK failed to get what it wanted. Research by the London School of Economics found that the UK was on the winning side 87% of the time between 2009-15 in the Council of Ministers. Even where the UK was on the losing side of a vote it did not seem to cause major problems.
• Despite these concerns, Brexit-supporting politicians find it hard to identify specific EU laws that they would like to change.

Source: Does the UK win or lose in the Council of Ministers?, Simon Hix and Sara Hagemann, LSE blog, 2016

Role of the Commission

When people talk about ‘unelected bureaucrats in Brussels’, they usually mean the European Commission, the civil servants of the EU. The Commission’s powers rest on treaties which EU national governments negotiate and decide. All member state parliaments then ratify the treaty changes (in some states, like Ireland, by referendums).

• The President of the Commission leads the cabinet of 27 Commissioners, which meets every Wednesday.  The President sets the detailed agenda for the Commission within overall objectives approved in advance by the European Parliament.
• The European Parliament has the power to dismiss the Commission before the end of its term.
• The twenty-seven Commissioners are appointed from each member state. This ensures balanced representation of the member states but means that some Commissioners may not be the best people for the job (a feature of most political appointments). The larger countries usually fill Commissioner positions for the more important areas.
• The Commissioners, who are political appointees, are the ministers of the EU. The European Parliament approves their appointments, but they are not elected. Whereas, in the UK and most other member states, ministers of state are usually selected from elected politicians. However, in the UK, MPs who lose elections are sometimes appointed as ministers (such as Zac Goldsmith) and/or elevated to the House of Lords.
• Civil servants staff the Commission’s ministries (‘Directorates’), many on secondment from their home governments. A Director General, a senior civil servant, heads each Directorate. There are relatively few civil servants in the Commission and the other EU institutions for the complex task of serving 27 nations. For example, total EU staff numbers (about 46,000) are similar to two large UK county councils.

Legislative process

The EU is rules-based and the laws of the EU (where they apply) have primacy over national law in member states. A key difference between the Commission and national legislatures is that the Commission is the sole initiator of legislation and regulation. The Council and the Parliament may amend but they cannot propose. However, the idea that the Commission imposes laws is wrong, because of the formulation, review, amend and approval processes:

• The European Council (the leaders of the member states) sets the legislative agenda for the Commission.
• The Commission drafts, enforces and monitors compliance with EU laws, but it does not pass them.
• Laws are passed through a ‘co-decision’ process involving the three bodies. This includes the drafting of detailed regulation (for example the Capital Requirements Regulation which complements the Capital Requirements Directive), which, when passed, has the force of law in all member states and does not need to be transposed into national law.
• The co-decision process means that European Parliament and the Council of Ministers usually amend the laws that the Commission drafts. By contrast, in the UK, it is usually seen as a major event if Parliament amends laws proposed by the government or if the Lords suggests amendments (as we saw with the EU Withdrawal Bill).
• Specialist committees of member state ministers, such as the Economics and Financial Affairs Council usually require drafting changes.  In the preparation of EU regulation, industry bodies, regulatory authorities and others may provide input to the Commission directly and/or through their own MEPs and governments.

For details on the implications for making EU law, please see the section on sovereignty and law.

National governments

Some believe that a national government can use the EU legislative process to initiate unpopular laws secretly with the Commission and hide behind blaming Brussels. If true, this could be a route for a government to avoid scrutiny from its parliament. As we have seen with Brexit, the UK Parliament seems to have more than enough on its hands holding the UK government to account domestically. There is also a danger that a focus on domestic issues may lead to lack of member-state scrutiny of the EU.

Others believe that the EU acts as a source of welcome long-term initiatives on, for example the environment, that short-term national governments would not see as politically rewarding. Similarly, the ECJ has often upheld citizens’ rights against the wishes of national government or large corporations (see section on Sovereignty and Law). For example, the EU Competition Commissioner can block mergers and fine multinational firms with large penalties. In June 2017, the Commission fined Google €2.42 billion for abusing dominance as a search engine by giving illegal advantage to its own comparison shopping service.

Source: LSE, How does the EU actually work?, 2016

Perception and transparency

The public can have a misleading impression of what the EU does. This starts with political expediency: national politicians across the EU are often guilty of blaming the EU for things for which they are responsible (e.g. national gold-plating of EU regulation). The same politicians are quite happy to take credit for popular EU initiatives (e.g. data regulation, environmental policies, reduced credit card charges).

Voters in the EU (not just the UK) often misunderstand the structure of the EU, the roles of its presidents and how they are appointed. The EU institutional structure is complex, but the roles are defined, and the methods of appointment are often more democratic than, say, the appointment of UK senior civil servants. The complexity, though, may look like inaccessibility and lack of transparency to many citizens.

The UK parliament’s own interactions with the EU are not transparent to voters and parliament has not been pro-active in engaging with the EU. The Electoral Reform Society has suggested that the UK parliament could have played a bigger and more visible role in holding the EU to account, by emulating the Danish approach to the EU. In Denmark, MPs question their ministers and give them a negotiating mandate before they go to European councils, whereas, UK ministers inform parliament after the event.

Voters are not alone in having a hazy understanding of the EU. The Brexit debate has shown many UK MPs, government ministers and journalists to be surprisingly ignorant of the EU, its structure and its rules.

UK journalists and media

Journalism that holds politicians to account is a fundamental feature of an effective democracy. In the UK, the media did not pay as much attention to EU politicians and the Commission as they did to their UK counterparts (or to the US). The media’s lack of focus on the EU contributed to lack of UK public visibility over the EU. Some described this as ‘censorship by omission’. It also meant that the media did not try to hold the EU to account as much as they tried with the UK government.

Several UK media outlets compounded the problem by providing a steady stream of misinformation and Euro-myths. In the UK, the public had been deliberately misinformed. This forced the Commission to set up a team to rebut euro-myths that appear in the British media. The topics are many and varied (see Figure 1.8). Following the UK’s departure, the EU no longer maintains the list, which has been archived.

Lack of media attention to the EU could signify lack of public interest but also reflects lack of transparency and access to the EU’s institutions and its leaders. The Commission holds weekly press conferences and the proceedings of the parliament are televised.

Figure 1.8: Euro-myth tags

Voter interest in MEP elections

Voters have elected MEPs directly since 1979. Generally the voter turnout for MEP elections was lower than turnout for UK domestic elections (see Figure 1.9).

• Turnout for EU elections had been on a downward trend across the EU from a high of 62.0% in 1979 to 42.6% in 2014 but recovered in 2019 and 2024 to over 50%.
• UK turnout for EU elections was lower than the EU average but had increased from 32.4% to 37.2% in 2019.
• In the UK, turnout for general elections is much higher  but fell sharply in 2024. For the latest national parliamentary elections, the turnout was 59.8%.

Some experienced observers feel that the election of MEPs weakened the links between national governments and the EU. Before 1979, EU business was undertaken by nominated representatives from national governments. So, the link between national and EU government was clear. There was certainly a lack of UK voter engagement with the EU – only one in 10 could name their MEP.

MEP elections are different to national elections. The style of electing MEPs has an in-built disconnect with EU-wide issues. Elections are not based on manifestos, unless the party has a clear single objective such as UKIP. Similarly, the political groupings in the European Parliament do not coalesce around EU-wide manifesto objectives at the time of elections.

UK MEPs tended to identify with their domestic political party allegiance but with no specific EU agenda. Unsurprisingly, voters tended to decide largely on national, not European issues.

https://results.elections.europa.eu/en/turnout/

Figure 1.9: Voter turnout (% of electorate)

Sources:
House of Commons, Turnout at elections, Commons Briefing Paper 8060, 10 January 2023
European Parliament, Turnout by year, accessed August 2024
House of Commons Library, General Election 2024 results, 18 July 2024

Conclusion

As with all democratic systems, the EU has a democratic deficit. However it is important to distinguish between an apparent deficit that may arise through misunderstanding and misinformation and a real deficit where the mechanisms to exercise democratic accountability need to be improved.

The more difficult judgment is how serious the deficit is and whether it matters. The EU says that it recognises that it must take steps to engage more effectively with voters to give it greater democratic legitimacy. The Commission’s current agenda includes this as an issue to address.

So, what actions might be taken to improve democratic accountability of the EU? A full discussion is beyond the scope of the FactBase but some fairly obvious steps could include:

• Foster greater transparency in involvement with the EU at national level and better integration of the governance of the EU with national parliaments. This is by no means easy or simple to achieve but it seems essential for the democratic deficit to be addressed.
• Reduce the perception gap. Part of the democratic deficit is a matter of perception. EU structures could be simplified and communicated more clearly. For example, agencies that have been set up with good intentions but duplicate or complicate
  unnecessarily could be wound down.
• Encourage greater media involvement and improve accessibility to improve accountability. The President of the Commission and the 28 Commissioners could take steps to be more proactive in engaging with the media and vice versa. For example, this could include regular scheduled country visits to national parliaments.
• Implement changes regarding the governance of the ECB and the Eurozone. Recent statements from President Macron and others have proposed changes, for example through closer fiscal alignment and the appointment of a Eurozone finance minister. Such changes will only be sustainable if democratic legitimacy accompanies them. The EU and national governments will need to find ways to involve citizens more directly in these developments.

The EU is still young as an institution and has been very successful in its first 60 years. To maintain that success, it needs to adapt and evolve. As with most large organisations, change is difficult. The Brexit vote will likely prove to be a catalyst for accelerated change in the EU.

The big questions are how should the EU change; and, what should be the mechanisms to drive that change forward and hold the EU responsible for delivering it? Brexit provided a unique opportunity for the EU to find the answers.

Sources:
The Lure of Greatness, Anthony Barnett, 2017
The Great Deception, Christopher Booker and Richard North, 2016 (third edition)

Last updated on 11th September 2024 by Richard Barfield