The European Parliament can be another common target of pressure groups. Lobbying in the European Parliament has increased significantly over the years, mainly as a result of the increased powers given to the Parliament. In particular, since the Single European Act Parliament co-operates with other institutions; codecision, introduced in Maasticht and extended with Amsterdam, means that Parliament can add amendments to the legislation, and the Council can only reject them by unanimous vote. With these, lobbying became more important and attractive for pressure groups. Party affiliation can be a factor in the consideration and consultation of pressure groups: for example, the Green MEPs are favourable to environmental groups, while Liberal MEPs are regularly targeted by civil rights campaigners.
A pressure group might also lobby the representatives of their national government in the Council of Ministers, as well as the permanent representatives in Coreper. Historically, there has been a tradition to lobby national politicians; however, the Council is now often lobbied as well. As one of the institutions of the EU’s colegislative body, their influence on decision is significant. Lobbying the Council of Ministers is often advantageous to pressure groups, as there is no need to reach consensus among the similar producers at the EU level – national officials are often much more open to the influences of pressure groups than the officials in EU.
Pressure groups can also occasionally lobby the European Court of Justice in certain cases where the ramifications of a judgement could affect the EU as a whole. The controversial cases bought to ECJ often attract considerable pressure group support (this is mostly common for civil liberties pressure groups). Examples of pressure groups and their effect on the EU in terms of the European Court of Justice include the recent ruling on rights of carers of disabled people.
Since the 1986 Single European Act, the momentum towards closer integration, especially in the economic and monetary union, has significantly increased. Treaties such as the Single European Act and Maastricht served to deepen and widen the responsibilities of the EU. The completion of the single market, the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty and subsequent treaties, the adoption of the Social Chapter, the launch of the single currency, the development of a constitutional treaty (now the Lisbon Treaty) and developments in policy areas such as asylum, security, environment, and defence and foreign affairs – and the UK’s involvement in these developments – have all drawn attention to the growing importance of the EU. New initiatives in policy making mean that decisions taken in Brussels are bound to have an effect on national governments and groups.
In the light of such advances, pressure groups from member states have felt the need to protect and promote their interests in Europe. Many decisions affecting key areas of our lives are now taken in Brussels, and many of our laws originate from directives of the Commission, effectively meaning that in some sectors the bulk of new regulatory activity now takes place not in Westminster, but in Brussels. The actions of the British government are much affected by what is laid down in the Commission. For example, the new proposed legislation regarding the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from cars was initiated in the European Commission.
The activities of pressure groups have helped to offset the problem of the democratic deficit by offering Europeans a channel outside of the formal structure of the EU institutions through which they can influence EU policy. They have also helped to focus the attention of the members of the interest groups on how the EU influences the policies that affect their lives, draw these members more actively into the process by which the EU makes its decisions, and encouraged them to bypass their national governments to focus their attention on European responses to shared and common problems.
Pressure groups have generally had an all-over positive effect in the EU; however, there are some problems with the system with which they operate. One such problem is that of transparency and the influence of larger pressure groups. While some small pressure groups lobby the EU for their cause, they are often pushed out of the scene by larger pressure groups with more finance and influence, and therefore more power. This is especially true of pressure groups campaigning for the environment: as said by Yiorgos Vassalos of the Corporate Europe Observatory, while many environmental pressure groups are campaigning for the reduction of emissions, they often have much less influence than the car industry, who oppose the new legislation.
In conclusion, it can be seen that pressure groups do play a very significant role in the initiating stages of policy-making. Pressure groups are extremely important and involved at every stage of the EU, most especially at the initial stage of formulating policy. The increase in pressure group representation in the EU indicates the growth in importance that pressure groups have attached to Europe. The pace of development towards greater integration has intensified and so activists have increasingly understood the importance of the EU in decision-making affecting their organisations.
