The Council of the European Union and the European Council - Jeffrey Lewis

Introduction

Networked Consensus Governance - Key Word - summary of intro

Introduction:
“Let’s begin by exploring the Council of the European Union and the European Council, often
collectively referred to as the ECC. The European Council (informally EUCO) is a collegiate
body (directorial system) that defines the overall political direction and priorities of the
European Union. The European Council is part of the executive of the European Union (EU),
beside the European Commission. Historically, the Council has evolved into a sophisticated
institution, balancing national sovereignty with collective decision-making in an
interconnected system of governance. In essence, the Council is where member states
come together to make critical decisions, ranging from macroeconomic policies to internal
security matters, often operating without formal votes.”

The European Council (informally EUCO) is a collegiate body (directorial system) that
defines the overall political direction and priorities of the European Union. The European
Council is part of the executive of the European Union (EU), beside the European
Commission.

In the Council of the EU, informally also known as the Council, government ministers from
each EU country meet to discuss, amend and adopt laws, and coordinate policies. The
ministers have the authority to commit their governments to the actions agreed on in the
meetings. Council meetings take place in Brussels, except for three months (April, June and
October) when they are held in Luxembourg.

Now that we’ve established that, these institutional arenas represent national interests in a
networked, club-like model of interstate bargaining. Let’s move on to it’s Structure and
Function

Structure and Function:

“The structure of the ECC is incredibly intricate, acting as a system of networked governance
across various levels of technical and political expertise. The Council’s decision-making
process is notably characterized by consensus, even though the qualified majority voting
(QMV) rule exists. This means that while voting is an option, the ECC tends to reach
agreements without a formal vote. The system involves numerous meetings—over 4,600 in
2011 alone—allowing national officials at all levels to participate in the decision-making
process. This system has been described as a ‘network of networks,’ where national officials
engage across various policy fields, making the ECC an unparalleled example of collective
governance.”

= Slide with Table

= Slide with QMV

Before moving on, I’d like to discuss what a QMV is.
Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) is a method used in the European Council and Council of
the EU to pass decisions without requiring unanimity. Meaning, it is a decision-making
method used by the European Council and Council of the EU. It allows decisions to be made
without needing full agreement (unanimity) but still requires more than just a simple
majority.There are two forms: standard and reinforced. The standard form, used for most
legislation, requires approval from 55% of member states (15 out of 27) that together
represent at least 65% of the EU population. The reinforced form, used for specific decisions
like electing key officials, requires approval from 72% of member states, with the same 65%
population threshold. In both cases, abstentions count as votes against the proposal.

Post-Lisbon Treaty Reforms:

“The 2009 Lisbon Treaty marked a significant turning point for the ECC, introducing
important reforms that reshaped the institution. Perhaps the most notable change was the
formal designation of the European Council as an official EU institution, with a fixed
President to lead it. This replaced the previous rotating presidency system, providing more
consistency and leadership continuity. This president is selected by the European Council
(QMV applies) for a two-and-a-half-year term (renewable once) and cannot simultaneously
hold a national office. The role of the President is crucial for maintaining cohesion and
driving forward the work of the European Council, especially during Euro summits, which
were institutionalized to address high-stakes issues like the Eurozone crisis. The Lisbon
Treaty also expanded the areas covered by QMV and solidified the European Council’s
strategic leadership role, particularly in navigating the Union’s democratic deficit.”

Democratic Deficit: How it was resolved by the Lisbon Treaty

As mentioned by the article, The LT, or Lisbon Treaty helped Address the Democratic Deficit.
where decisions seemed disconnected from citizens. The European Council, acting as the
highest decision-making body, became more central in guiding the Union’s political direction,
particularly during crises like the Eurozone crisis, where annual summits became
institutionalized. The Lisbon Treaty (LT) addressed the perceived democratic deficit in the
European Union (EU) through several key reforms aimed at enhancing transparency,
accountability, and citizen involvement in the decision-making process. The LT increased the
role of national parliaments, enabling them to scrutinize EU legislation and participate in
decisions related to the subsidiarity principle. The introduction of the European Citizens'
Initiative (ECI) further empowered EU citizens by allowing them to propose legislation if a
minimum number of citizens supported it. Moreover, the LT aimed to improve transparency
in decision-making by requiring the publication of the Council’s voting records, enabling
citizens to see how their representatives voted. By formally recognizing the European
Council as an official EU institution, the LT clarified the political direction and streamlined
high-level decision-making. These reforms emphasized the importance of cohesion and
consensus among member states, ensuring that major decisions reflect collective
agreement. Overall, the Lisbon Treaty sought to reduce the democratic deficit by making the
EU more responsive to its citizens’ needs and concerns through increased representation
and transparency.

Pooled Sovereignty and Decision-Making Culture: What does the Council system do?
What kind of institution is it?
“The ECC embodies a unique approach to decision-making, often referred to as ‘pooled
sovereignty.’ In this system, member states share the ability to make collective decisions,
especially in areas where national interests intersect. While each state retains its
sovereignty, they delegate certain powers to the ECC to ensure efficient governance. One of
the defining traits of the ECC’s decision-making process is its reliance on consensus, rather
than majority voting. This consensus-seeking culture minimizes formal contestation and
promotes unity, with only around 20% of decisions resulting in formal votes. By avoiding
divisive voting, the ECC fosters a spirit of cooperation and ensures that all member states
feel their interests are represented.”

The concept of pooled sovereignty is central to understanding the ECC's function. It

involves sharing decision-making authority among member states while still retaining some
national autonomy. However, scholars have debated whether this pooling leads to
supranational outcomes or merely facilitates interstate cooperation. While some argue that
the ECC functions primarily as an interstate body, others, like Wolfgang Wessels, suggest
that it has developed into a supranational entity with its own competencies and procedures.

Just in Case: Initially, the ECC was established under the European Coal and Steel
Community (ECSC) to reflect member states' desires to represent their national interests
while sharing sovereignty. Although the system has become more complex over time, its
core purpose remains to act as a gatekeeper in the EU's legislative process, allowing for
decision-making that articulates national interests. While the European Parliament's
co-decision powers have expanded, the ECC retains significant authority in shaping
legislation, reflecting a balance between national representation and collective governance.

The passage notes that the ECC is characterized by continual adaptation and creative
experimentation, with networks of officials engaging in face-to-face negotiations. These
interactions, often held in private settings, foster trust and collaboration among member
states. This evolution has included the development of new policy coordination methods, like
the Open Method of Coordination (OMC), which relies on peer review and best practice
exchanges rather than binding commitments.

The passage emphasizes that the distinction between being a supranational or interstate
body is significant for both scholars and EU practitioners. For instance, Council veteran
Philippe de Schoutheete highlights the importance of referring to the Council as a
"Community institution" rather than just an "intergovernmental meeting." The historical
perspective provided by Ernst Haas supports this view, suggesting that the Council operates
as a community-type organ rather than a traditional diplomatic body.

The passage concludes that pooled sovereignty in the ECC is about enhancing the collective
action capabilities of member states, which involves redefining concepts of sovereignty in
the context of European integration. This transformation challenges traditional notions of
state authority and emphasizes the evolving nature of cooperation within the EU.

Networked Governance: The ECC as a locus of ‘ networks ’ and infranational power

“The concept of ‘networked governance’ is central to understanding the ECC. Essentially,
the ECC operates as a complex web of interactions, where officials from different policy
areas collaborate to make decisions that benefit the collective. This networked structure is
not purely intergovernmental; it also contains elements of supranationalism. For instance,
the permanent committees and working groups within the ECC operate at a level of technical
expertise that often transcends national boundaries. This allows officials to focus on solving
problems collectively, rather than defending narrow national interests. The ECC, therefore,
represents a form of governance where national officials work together in transnational
‘clubs’ to achieve common goals.”

An example of disaggregated networked relationships within the European Council and

Council of the EU (ECC) is the Eurogroup, which consists of the finance ministers from
eurozone countries. This informal body facilitates transnational collaboration by allowing
member states to discuss and coordinate economic policies and fiscal matters without the
constraints of formal voting procedures. Through open discussions, Eurogroup members
share information and negotiate common positions to address shared economic challenges,
such as during the European debt crisis, when they coordinated financial assistance
programs for countries like Greece and Ireland. This collaborative approach exemplifies how
national officials can work together as part of a transnational club to achieve common goals,
highlighting the flexibility and adaptability inherent in the EU’s governance framework.

It is also important that I highlight this specific phrase in the article where it mentioned the
added value of the ‘network’ imagery is that it allows us to move beyond binary thinking in
which everything must be labeled as either intergovernmental or supranational. The simple
fact is that the old intergovernmental–supranational distinction does not capture the essential
qualities of the ECC all that well.

This traditional classification fails to capture the ECC's hybrid nature, which combines
elements of both approaches. By framing the ECC as a network, we acknowledge the
complex and interconnected relationships among member states and institutions,
highlighting how they collaborate through informal interactions and shared decision-making.
This perspective better reflects the essential qualities of the ECC, recognizing its dynamic
functionality in contemporary governance within the EU.

Anne Marie Slaughter Concept:

This passage describes the European Council and Council of the EU (ECC) as a
sophisticated and hybrid institutional structure that effectively balances the defense of
national interests with the ability to make binding collective decisions. The ECC is likened to
Anne-Marie Slaughter’s concept of "disaggregated, networked" relationships, suggesting
that it functions as a "network of networks." This means that the ECC consists of
interconnected groups of national officials who collaborate across various policy areas,
forming transnational clubs that facilitate cooperation.

What Anne Marie Slaughter meant by "disaggregated, networked" relationships.

Disaggregated networked relationships refer to a framework of governance and cooperation
that emphasizes the interconnectedness and collaboration among various actors and
institutions, rather than a centralized or hierarchical structure. Here’s a breakdown of the
concept:

1. Disaggregated: This term indicates that the traditional, centralized authority or structure is
broken down into smaller, more flexible components or entities. In the context of
governance, it means that power and decision-making are distributed among various
national and supranational bodies rather than being concentrated in a single entity.

2. Networked Relationships: This part highlights the connections and interactions among
different actors—such as governments, institutions, and civil society—across national
borders. Instead of working in isolation, these actors collaborate, share information, and
coordinate their actions in a more decentralized manner.

3. Interstate Patterns: The phrase emphasizes that these relationships occur between states
or governments, showcasing how they interact with one another in a more informal and
cooperative way. This stands in contrast to traditional diplomatic approaches, which often
rely on formal negotiations and agreements.

In the context of the European Union (EU) and the European Council and Council of the EU
(ECC), disaggregated networked relationships illustrate how member states engage in
collaborative decision-making and governance through various informal networks,
committees, and working groups. This approach allows for greater flexibility, responsiveness,
and adaptability in addressing complex policy issues that require cooperation among
multiple countries.

Consensus-Seeking and Voting Patterns:

“One of the most striking features of the ECC is its commitment to consensus-seeking. While
the qualified majority voting rule allows for formal votes, these are rarely used. Instead, the
ECC prefers to reach decisions through informal agreement. In fact, most contested votes
are clustered in specific areas, such as agriculture and the internal market, but even here,
the emphasis remains on finding common ground. The practice of consensus-seeking is
deeply ingrained in the ECC’s organizational culture, and it has survived numerous treaty
reforms and institutional changes. This commitment to consensus helps maintain the ECC’s
ability to function smoothly, even in the face of growing membership and diverse viewpoints.”

Now, I had external help to explain this part of the article. This passage explores the
consensus-seeking culture within the European Council and Council of the EU (ECC),
emphasizing that while formal voting is an option, it's rarely used. Instead, the ECC relies on
informal agreements to make decisions. Three key points stand out:

1. Voting is rare: Historically, only about 20% of decisions involve formal voting, and even
then, contested votes tend to occur in specific areas like agriculture and the internal market.

2. Consensus over time: Despite changes to voting rules (such as the introduction of
Qualified Majority Voting, or QMV), the practice of seeking consensus has remained
consistent through institutional changes, showing how deeply ingrained this practice is within
the ECC.

3. Strategic logic behind consensus: There are several reasons why consensus is preferred,
this will be discussed next so hopefully, any questions brought about by this explanation will
be resolved at that discussion. It helps avoid hardline tactics, prevents countries from being
isolated or excluded, and hides the distinction between winners and losers in decisions.
Consensus also builds long-term cooperation, where states expect to benefit over time
rather than in a single deal. Additionally, the social influence within the ECC pushes member
states to conform to group norms, where breaking consensus could lead to social penalties
like shaming or exclusion.

The ECC's commitment to consensus is more than just a decision-making strategy—it's a

part of the institution's culture, driven by both practical considerations and social dynamics.
This emphasis on cooperation and mutual respect ensures long-term unity among member
states, even when formal voting mechanisms exist.

Weiler’s Theory: Refers to how the social context of consensus-seeking in the European
Council and Council of the EU (ECC) connects to Weiler’s theory of the "infranational"
dimension of EU politics. Here's what it means:

Infranational dimension: Weiler's theory suggests that in the EU, there’s a layer of
decision-making that operates below the level of nation-states, but isn’t fully supranational
either. This infranational level involves national officials, bureaucrats, and experts working
together in close-knit networks, often informally. They engage in collective problem-solving
and decision-making that goes beyond national borders.

Social context and influence: The passage highlights that the social norms and interactions
within these networks foster cooperation and consensus. Officials in these networks tend to
internalize the idea that working together and reaching consensus is the "right" thing to do.
This is reinforced by the social environment, where behavior is shaped by expectations of
mutual accommodation and responsiveness.

Contribution to decision-making: The infranational level is crucial to the EU’s ability to make
collective decisions effectively. It’s not just about formal rules and voting but also about the
social relationships and informal agreements that shape how decisions are reached. These
networks enhance the EU's capacity to operate smoothly, often without resorting to formal
votes, which could be more divisive.

In short, Weiler’s theory emphasizes that social relationships and informal networks of
cooperation are central to how decisions are made in the EU. This infranational dimension
helps keep the EU functioning cohesively, even when formal processes might struggle to
accommodate diverse national interests.

Historical Evolution of Consensus Culture:

“The culture of consensus within the ECC has deep historical roots, going back to the 1965
empty chair crisis, when France boycotted meetings in protest over EU integration policies.
The Luxembourg Compromise that emerged from this crisis allowed member states to delay
decisions when ‘very important national interests’ were at stake. This set the stage for a
tradition of informal negotiation and consensus-building, which has become a cornerstone of
the ECC’s decision-making process. Over time, this practice of consensus-seeking has
become institutionalized, allowing the ECC to operate efficiently without resorting to formal
votes. The ability to reach agreements informally has been key to the ECC’s success in
managing the complex and sometimes contentious relationships between member states.”
We discussed how consensus-seeking became a deeply ingrained practice within the
European Council and Council of the EU (ECC). Rather than being a conscious choice,
consensus-building has become a norm within the ECC through a process of socialization
over time, which continues to be reinforced by the behavior of member states. This culture
traces its roots back to historical moments like the 1955 Spaak Committee and the 1965
empty chair crisis involving France, which led to the Luxembourg Compromise. These
events reinforced the idea that decisions should prioritize consensus over majority voting,
creating an environment where asking for a formal vote became rare and politically
significant.

The ECC’s consensus culture is adaptive and changes over time depending on the specific
Council setting or issue at hand. For example, the Single Market Project and the
reintroduction of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) in the 1980s shifted how consensus was
achieved, with new strategies like the "presidency compromise" being used to encourage
agreement once a blocking minority had been ruled out. Even though formal voting has
increased in some cases, such as after EU enlargement, the practice of consensus remains
central to how decisions are made.

This consensus culture is further enabled by the club-like settings within the ECC, where
negotiators can work behind closed doors, free from public pressure. This privacy helps
avoid posturing and encourages genuine compromise. Over time, this organizational culture
has become internalized by member states, including newer ones from Central and Eastern
Europe, who quickly adapt to the norms of consensus-building.

The consensus-seeking culture within the ECC is a result of historical evolution and
institutional norms that prioritize cooperation and accommodation over conflict, helping
maintain unity among diverse member states. However, the passage also warns that certain
"deconditioning" behaviors, such as pushing for votes without accommodating minority
positions or creating permanent voting blocs, could undermine this culture of cooperation in
the future, especially in times of crisis like the Eurozone debt crisis.

Conclusion:
To conclude, the ECC is a remarkable institution that blends national sovereignty with
collective decision-making. Its networked structure and consensus-based culture have
allowed it to navigate complex issues and maintain unity, even in the face of significant
challenges like treaty reforms and economic crises. The ECC’s ability to adapt to changing
circumstances while preserving its core principles of cooperation and consensus has made it
a critical player in the European integration process. As the EU continues to evolve, the ECC
will undoubtedly remain at the heart of its political system, ensuring that member states work
together for the common good.