I wrote this essay because Kristijan Jordanov hired me on upwork to write essays instead of him.

Unfortunately, he was unfair to me and disrespectful. Therefore I am submitting these essays

online under my name (their original author).

Aleksandra Danailovska
The Lisbon Treaty was created in exceptional political circumstances in order to reconcile the
positions on the open issues over which the Treaty on the Constitution of Europe failed, leaving
strong consequences (Phinnemore, 2013). Given the facts that it was concluded after six years
long debate between the Member States on which reforms should be implemented to make the
Union more democratic and efficient on the one hand, and on the other hand to respond to the
challenges on global economic recession, international cross-border crime, climate change etc
(Bercusson, 2009). The treaty has amended and supplemented the existing founding treaties,
therefore determined its revisionist character. The analytical framework once again highlighted
the two levels – supranational and inter-governmental. On the supranational level transnational
bodies are engines of integration and preserve the legal order of the Union, while on
intergovernmental level the bodies of the Member States protect their national interests
(Blockmans & Wessel, 2009). There were many reasons that demanded reconstruction of the
European Union such as: erosion of national sovereignty, general disagreement within the Union,
extensive legislation in a growing number of areas, Anglo-Saxon liberalism which have reduced
the social aspects of the Union, the challenges of the globalization, the weakening of national
influence, the speeding up of the European integration, the EU’s influence on issues which are
important to its citizen, the democratic deficit, and the growing issues of unemployment,
inflation and economic crisis (Hix, 2008).

One of the two key objectives of this Treaty was to make the Union more democratic. After the
establishment of the European coal and steel community in the early fifties, there were other
problems of European integration anticipated (such as empty chair crisis, ‘eurosklerosis’ etc.),
however it was actually the democratic deficit or the insufficient democratic legitimacy of the
European political institution which caused major criticism (Lord, 2008). The issue of
democratic deficit was particularly actualized after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of
the communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe. The critics of European integration
argued that with the fall of communism has disappeared European Community’s raison d’etre,
and there was no longer need of ‘permissive consensus’ on which European citizen would
support European integration, facing no further danger from the communist regimes (ibid.). The
collapse of the permissive consensus was most evident when Denmark did not accept the
Maastricht Treaty (Milner, 2000). The crisis followed highlighted many of the Union’s problems,
especially the democratic deficit. The democratic deficit has many different interpretations. It has
many causes and the introduction and extension of qualified majority voting was often most
emphasized. The practice in which some issues of common interest were no longer decided by
consensus could have resulted in accepting a particular policy for Member State voted by a
qualified majority, despite being opposed by the national parliament and government
representatives in the Council of the European Union (Hix, 2008). The problem of the
legitimacy of decisions voted by a qualified majority could sometimes be left without a support
of selected national authorities, and reduced or eliminated by the legitimacy of the European
Parliament, which also represents the sovereign will of its citizens (Lord, 2008). However, the
authority of those institutions was far weaker and more limited than the Council of European
Union. Accordingly, the European Parliament was not able to fully assume the role of
representatives of the sovereign will of European citizens, thus legitimize the decision made at
European level (Magnette, 2007).

The issue of democratic deficit is largely linked to the problem of weakening the powers of
national parliaments in the process of formulation, harmonization and decision-making. The
Lisbon treaty was about to bring democratization in EU (ibid.). The Treaty of Lisbon lists three
fundamental principles: democratic equality, representative democracy and participatory
democracy. With this treaty, for the first time in the history of the EU, the national parliaments
were given an active role in the European decision-making process (Dinan, 2011). A new
mechanism for control of the principle of subsidiarity in each EU legislative act enabled them to
control all EU legislative acts and the national parliaments have gained the right to be informed
of all legislative proposals which gave them influence to the final outcome of legislative
procedures through relations with national governments (Blockmans & Wessel, 2009).
Participatory democracy takes on a new form of civic initiative. A novelty in the democratization
of the Union was the civic initiative. According to the treaty at least a million EU citizens from a
significant number of members were given the right to propose a regulation to the European
Commission. Finally, the EU Charter of Human Rights has acquired a legally binding status. Its
recognition strived to make human rights more visible in the European legal order, which should
contribute to the democratic legitimacy of the Union (Bercusson, 2009).

One of the most important novelties of the Lisbon Treaty is the joining of the first and third pillar
and subjecting them to a supra-national method of co-operation among state (Cowles, Caporaso,
& Risse-Kappen, 2001). The Treaty was designed to make EU more efficient by introducing new
institutions and simplified decision making processes. Before the Treaty, the programs and
procedure were designed for a much smaller Union, which was not challenged by the climate
change, transnational crime and global recession (Magnette, 2007). In order to increase the
operational efficiency the European Court acquired the possibility to control the Member States.
Although the criminal justice cooperation between states has expanded, the second pillar
remained separate. The European Union has gained legal subjectivity, leading to a stronger
identity in the international law (Dinan, 2011). Before the Treaty, only the European
Communities had legal subjectivity, but not the Union itself. When the Treaty came into force,
the legal existence of the European communities disappeared as subjects of international
relations, making the Union’s political environment simpler. The Treaty dismissed the structure
of three pillars (Phinnemore, 2013). The European Council was organized as an institution, and
its president was given a permanent function with a mandate of two and a half years, and a
possibility of one re-election (Crombez, 2000). The European Parliament has expanded its
authority related to legislative and budgetary functions. The number of MPs in the European
Parliament can be as high as 750 MPs plus the President of the European Parliament, where the
upper limit, in terms of the number of Members of the Member States, is 96 (instead of the
current 99), and the lower limit is 6 (instead of the previous 5). The European Parliament votes
on the Commission President, who is nominated by the European Council with a qualified
majority. The Lisbon Treaty terminated the pillar system on which the EU was based, and thus
the EU became a consolidated body with its own legislation (Wessels et al. 2008). There were
numerous agencies established at the European level. The agencies were established by
secondary legislation, and their purpose is different. Some of them are the following: Food
Safety Agency, European agency for Fundamental rights, the European Police Office (Europol),
European Judicial Cooperation Unit (Eurojust), etc. The jurisdiction of the European Court has
been extended to the area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (ibid.).

The treaty of Lisbon brought changes in the work or the European institutions. The mode of
operation was adapted to the current composition of the Union and it Member States. The Treaty
contained solutions to institutional problems, but it did not provide answers to certain political
issues, which were also very important for the further progress of the EU. The answers to these
questions should have been sought outside of the Treaty’s scope, in particular on issues such as
borders control, or the continuation of the democratization and politicization of a unified
international body. In conclusion, it was important to emphasize the institutional reform as a
necessary but not sufficient condition for the ‘revival’ of the European Union. Thus, the Treaty
could be viewed as a stepping stone to the Unions long reform plan. In order to continue the
progress, and be able to face the new challenges, the European Union must resume its reforms.

Sources:

Bercusson, B. (2009). The Lisbon Treaty and Social Europe. ERA Forum, 10(1), 87–105.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-009-0104-9

Blockmans, S., & Wessel, R. A. (2009). The European Union and Crisis Management: Will the
Lisbon Treaty Make the EU More Effective? Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 14(2), 265–
308. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krp020

Cowles, M. G., Caporaso, J. A., & Risse-Kappen, T. (2001). Transforming Europe:

Europeanization and Domestic Change. Cornell University Press.

Crombez, C. (2000). Institutional Reform and Co-Decision in the European Union.

Constitutional Political Economy, 11(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009070016507

Dinan, D. (2011). Governance and institutions: Implementing the Lisbon Treaty in the shadow of
the Euro crisis. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 49, 103–121.

Hix, S. (2008). What’s Wrong with the European Union and How to Fix It. Cambridge
University Press.

Lord, C. (2008). Still in democratic deficit. Intereconomics, 43(6), 316–340.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-008-0266-7

Magnette, P. (2007). Democratic Deficit. In Encyclopedia of European Elections. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.

Milner, M. (2000, July 27). Denmark pops crucial question again. The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/jul/27/emu.theeuro
Phinnemore, D. (2013). The Treaty of Lisbon. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137367877

Wessels, W., Bopp, F., & Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS). (2008). The institutional
architecture of CFSP after the Lisbon Treaty: constitutional breakthrough or challenges ahead?
Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.