France and the European Stability Mechanism (original) (raw)
Related papers
Beyond France's 2005 Referendum on the European Constitutional Treaty
The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview and characterisation of the rejection of the European Constitutional Treaty by a majority of voters in France's referendum held on 29 May 2005. Whilst pointing to the salience of political discontent with the incumbent right-wing government and some elements of the longstanding crisis in French national party politics, the analysis places the emphasis on the central role played by social issues in the referendum, the transposition at the European level of the mechanism of the evaluation by voters of traditional parties' performances and responsiveness to the country's social malaise and the unilateral termination by a majority of left-wing voters of the social welfare and economic growth confidence pact that they had made with their national political elites on the occasion of the Maastricht referendum in 1992;
France after the elections and the future of the European Union
PISM Report, 2012
Since the presidential election in the spring of 2012, French European policy has been in the spotlight. France’s position under the leadership of the new president, François Hollande, on the possible scenarios of the development of the European project, was the main theme of the conference organised by the Polish Institute of International Affairs. Invited to participate in the debate were: Alain Richard, senator and former defense minister of France, French Ambassador to Poland Pierre Buhler and Professor Zaki Laïdi from the Centre for European Studies Science Po. This report presents the main conclusions from the debate, as well as analysis of the situation within the Socialist Party, Franco-German relations and the French approach to future cooperation within the framework of the Common Security and Defence Policy."
The French Parliament: A European Scrutineer or National Actor?
European Public Law
With the Treaty of Lisbon in force, the expectation for national parliaments to democratize EU decision making has risen tangibly. This raises the question of the relationship between them and the European Parliament, as two channels of EU legitimation. The main argument of this article is that, in circumstances of high political salience of EU initiatives, national parliaments can be deemed to be European actors, performing their constitutional functions within a broader EU legal order as direct counterparts of EU institutions. To demonstrate this, we delve into the French Parliament's scrutiny of the Services Directive and the European External Action Service Decision, both of which have sparked strong reactions in many parliamentary corners of Europe. We focus on the role perceptions of the French MPs and senators in their ex ante monitoring of these two dossiers. The analysis reveals that political control is not always directed only at the Government, but that EU institutio...
The European Union within the French Electoral Discourse 2012’
Polish Quarterly of International Affairs
On 6 May 2012, the French chose a new president, François Hollande of the Socialist party. The future shape of French European policy lies in the most important questions raised by this change. Traditionally, European issues were reluctantly included in the pre-election debate. Nevertheless, the problems affecting the EU and the accompanying discussions about the future of Europe meant the candidates for president could not remain completely indifferent to these issues. Because campaigns never take part in a political, economic or social vacuum, the EU debate was strongly influenced by the country’s economic situation, the public’s expectations as well as the dynamic EU agenda.
The European Union and France's Institutional Architecture
Contemporary French Civilization, 2003
The European Union (EU) is a community of law whose legal activism is the most pervasive instrument of influence. Indeed, until the launching of the Euro in 1999, the EU, lacking a common police, army, or diplomacy, was exclusively a legal construction. In this respect, Alan Cafruny and Carl Lankowski describe the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) judicial action as "stealth federalism" and as "above and beyond the level of controversy." Granted, EU directives constitute "the EU's dominant legal instrument" and "express a joint European decision in a national idiom" (Europe's Ambiguous Unity 8). Granted, European legislation remains impenetrable to the non-lawyer layman and can baffle even skilled practitioner. But for member states, the pervasiveness of EU legislation is an inescapable and growing phenomenon. For instance, the 1992 Conseil d'Etat annual report states that, "(o)ne out of six of the laws which the French have to follow are of Community origin. And this proportion is likely to increase rapidly if the current flood of regulations passed by the Commission and the Council continues." The Conseil's survey of French laws further indicates that in the 1990s, the Community introduced "more laws into our jurisdiction each year than the French government: about 54 percent vs. 46 percent" (Long Rapport, 16-17). Though the EU's legislative influence is most visible in economic and financial domains, no policy area is immune. For instance, Pierre Mazeaud, former (Gaullist) chair of the National Assembly Legislative Committee, fears not so much a direct, "frontal" challenge to the constitutional order as "the insidious 72 MICHEL GUELDRY threat inadvertently included into the highly technical texts that abound in Community law." He castigates the Community's tendency to encroach on national privileges through "secondary law." Community secondary law (droit dérivé) is the constant flow of legislation that comes not directly from the founding treaties but from their implementation, including less visible legal instruments such as the resolutions, communications, délibérations, and Beschlüsse. Invocation of the principle of subsidiarity under Article 3B of the Maastricht Treaty often seems like a poor defense before the EU's invasive legislative dynamism. Says Pierre Mazeaud, "(t)he current proliferation" of EU laws "assumes a character which, from the viewpoint of domestic law, could best be described as cancerous" (L'Europe 13). Technically speaking, EU law may be insidious but politically speaking it is crucial, as the following analyses on Europe's impact on the Constitution, the legal order, the executive and legislative branches of France's government will show.
The role of national parliaments in EU decision-making has generally been considered marginal since national parliaments participate indirectly through national executives. The Lisbon Treaty, however, triggered important developments in this regard. Direct involvement of national parliaments through the Early Warning System and Political Dialogue has prompted internal reforms. This article argues that, because of the new procedures provided for by the Lisbon Treaty and the direct relationship between the Commission and national parliaments, certain legislatures such as the French and Italian have become stronger in their involvement in EU affairs. However, seven years of practice post-Lisbon show that the innovations brought about by the new Treaty have fallen short of fully satisfying national parliaments’ thirst for active engagement. We also observe that changes at the national level have only been implemented progressively and have not yet been exploited to their full potential.