33.4.5 Debates about supranational versus intergovernmental approaches

Debates about Supranational versus Intergovernmental Approaches

Supranational Approach

A supranational approach refers to the process where decision-making authority is transferred to a higher institution that is above the level of individual nation-states. In this context, states are not directly represented, and the institution itself has the power to propose and implement laws that member states are obliged to follow.

European Commission

The European Commission is a prime example of a supranational institution within the EU. It is composed of 28 commissioners, each responsible for a specific policy area, but these commissioners do not represent their home countries directly. Instead, they act in the interest of the EU as a whole. The Commission has the exclusive power to propose legislation, making it a central actor in the EU's law-making process. It also serves as a watchdog to ensure that all member states comply with the EU treaties and is broadly responsible for implementing EU policies across the union.

The supranational nature of the Commission allows for a more unified and coherent policy approach across member states, reducing the influence of national interests in favor of broader EU objectives. However, this approach often sparks debate about the loss of national sovereignty, as member states cede significant control over certain areas of policy to a central authority.

Intergovernmental Approach

In contrast, the intergovernmental approach emphasizes the role of individual states in the decision-making process, ensuring that national governments retain more control over policy areas. In this model, member states work together on a cooperative basis, but without relinquishing their sovereignty to a higher authority.

Council of Ministers

The Council of Ministers is an example of an intergovernmental body within the EU. It is composed of ministers from each of the 28 member states, and its primary role is to make decisions on EU legislation. The presidency of the Council of Ministers used to rotate among member states every six months, but since 2009, it has had a permanent chair.

Decision-making within the Council of Ministers can be complex. Some decisions are made through unanimous agreement, particularly on sensitive issues that affect national sovereignty. However, with the rise of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV), the Council has moved somewhat towards a supranational approach. QMV allows decisions to be made even if some member states oppose them, as long as a specified majority is reached. This has blurred the lines between purely intergovernmental decision-making and supranational governance.

The intergovernmental approach is favoured by those who wish to maintain greater national control over policy areas, arguing that it ensures that EU decisions reflect the interests of individual member states. However, critics argue that it can lead to inefficiency and deadlock, particularly when unanimity is required, as the need for consensus can slow down decision-making.

Hybrid Nature of the EU

The European Union exemplifies a hybrid model that incorporates both supranational and intergovernmental elements. The European Commission, with its ability to propose and enforce laws, embodies the supranational aspect of the EU, aiming for a unified policy direction across member states. On the other hand, the Council of Ministers reflects the intergovernmental approach, where member states retain significant influence over EU decisions, particularly in areas of national importance.

The debate between supranationalism and intergovernmentalism in the EU revolves around the balance between efficiency and sovereignty. Supranational mechanisms can streamline decision-making and ensure uniformity across the union, but they may reduce the ability of member states to act independently. Intergovernmental approaches, while preserving national sovereignty, can lead to slower decision-making and potential deadlock.