In theory, the European Commission represents the EU interest, the European Parliament acts as the voice of the people of the EU, and the Council represents the interests of national governments. The reality is quite different. Discuss.

Authors Avatar

Jae Yun Chung 200900240

  1. ‘In theory, the European Commission represents the EU interest, the European Parliament acts as the voice of the people of the EU, and the Council represents the interests of national governments. The reality is quite different.’ Discuss.

        The Treaty on European Union and the Lisbon Treaty allocate various agendas for each institutional settlement of the European Union. On the one hand it could well be argued that these agendas are generally adhered to, given -for instance- that the Commission works under the principle of collegiality. However instances do arise where such notion could be contested, given the bureaucracy of the system and the inevitable invocation of personal agendas of the officials who occupy posts within the system. It goes to say that such features of the institutional settlement allow us to distinguish between the supranational and the intergovernmental aspects of each institution thereby enabling us to juxtapose the state agendas of the institutional settlement and the reality.

        The Commission is often described as the body with the sole agenda of promoting European integration. Consisting of 27 commissioners whose 'independence is beyond doubt,' they are required not to seek or take instructions from any government or any other body, and must also not find themselves in a position where a 'conflict of interest' can potentially arise. Thus they are required not to engage in any other occupation during their period of office. From these facts it seems clear that the Commission represents EU interest and not the interests of individual member states. However, given that the 27 commissioners consist of one commissioner from each member state, the independence of individual commissioners must be seen in relative terms. Chosen because of well-connected and established prior political careers in their countries (with over two-thirds chosen from a party in government at the time of appointment), they often act as links between the Commission and the member states. The Court of Justice have stated that Commissioners were required to ensure that the general interest of the European Union took precedence at all times over both national and personal interests. However, given that slight deviations from this principle are often not censured, and given that censure is available only where the breach is of sufficient gravity, it goes to say that this principle does not operate as rigidly as has been laid out by the Court of Justice in reality.

Join now!

        The Commission's supervisory role as the 'conscience of the Union' supports the notion that it represents EU interest on its face, but the reality is different. The Commission can bring those ember states which it considers to have failed to comply with the EU law before the Court of Justice. This seemingly illustrates the idea that whilst the national governments are focused on their own interests, the commission is focused on the compliance and application of EU law, thus representing EU interests. However, as Curtin and Egeberg have argued, a far more synergistic relationship emerges in reality. The responsibility of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay