Katherine Sackie

POLI/INTL 352-001

June 2, 2019

Take-Home Essay #1

On my honor, I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid on this assignment, and I

pledge that I am in compliance of the VCU honor system.

common European government has had a great effect on France due in part to it being a unitary

state (47). France has a strong executive, however the creation and implementation of the EU has

reduced its autonomy (57). The EU has also weakened national parliaments (63-64). While

France’s parliament was already fairly weak, the EU has not helped increase its power, and the

executive is still very much in control with little restrain from parliament, which really just

approves legislation or policy developed by the French executive in the EU, specifically in the

Council of Ministers (66, 79). However, the French executive has lost a substantial amount of

autonomy because of the EU (54). The decision-making from the EU, as well as increased

autonomy for regional authorities in regards to implementation of EU decisions, as well as

lobbying, and an increase in judicial power has all lead to the decline of France’s executive

autonomy (54, 69). In spite of this, France has been able to insert its own interests and “policy

preferences” onto the EU and the European community as a whole, as well as having partial

control of the EU itself (55, 59, 76-79). This is largely because of France’s strong executive, as

well as its early involvement with unification and the idea of a European community in which

they favored an intergovernmental “union of nation-states” that would not impede on France’s

unitary state, but rather, be an “extension of national sovereignty” (46, 55, 66, 82, 96).

In addition, while certain regions of France have gained more financial and

administrative autonomy due to the EU, the French central government still has ultimate control

(79-80). The French judiciary, on the other hand, has gained greater autonomy from the powerful

executive, and while much of this has to do with internal workings, part of it is from the ECJ,

which grants the judiciary power to “uphold decisions even against the executive” (80). When it

comes to implementation of EU policy, France has the institutional and administrative capacity

2
to do so, but it lacks the political desire, and this has been true for governments on both the left

and the right (59, 62). As Schmidt summarizes, “The EU, in short, has altered the unitary

architecture of the French state by undermining executive autonomy and reducing legislative

power while increasing the independence of subnational authorities and the judiciary” (81).

Almost ironically, countries that place great importance on the executive, such as France and

Britain, have lost more autonomy than Germany, for example, which does not place much

emphasis on their executive (90-91). This makes sense however, as executives with more power,

have more power to lose.

When it comes to policymaking, the EU has shifted from what France was use to. In a

state like France, where there is centralized power, and therefore centralized control over many

state affairs, adjusting to the EU’s approach to more consensus policymaking has been

necessary, and at times difficult. France’s policymaking is traditionally state-oriented, with

practically no involvement from societal actors, or organizations outside of the state. This dates

all the way back to the French Revolution where according to “Jacobin understanding,”

institutions outside of the government “are by their very nature suspect because they violate

principles of democratic equality and electoral accountability” (121). This direct opposition to

interest groups has declined immensely over the years however, and societal actors do have

power when it comes to implementation, which can affect policy due to certain responses from

these organizations or businesses. However, the state has been and remains the dominant power

in policymaking in France (120-122, 133). This is very different from the EU policymaking

process where according to Schmidt; “the EU has generally reduced state actor’s autonomy by

including societal actors in policy formulation processes from which they had typically been

excluded” (109).

3
 The standard types of lobbying in France include illegitimate “lobbying,” consultation,

and “lobbying à la française” (123). Issues in France are considered political and as Schmidt

says, “the most important level of decision-making is at the top” so that decisions can be

adjusted with greater ease (123). The EU lobbying process is noticeably different, and almost

opposite from the French style, in that it works from the “bottom” up, as civil servants have

greater power over policymaking making it harder to reverse. Societal actors from France

therefore struggled to adjust to the type of lobbying involved in EU policymaking, although

lobbying does not necessarily guarantee success in EU policy outcome (110-112, 116, 120). As

a result, French leaders often underscore the influence of the EU on policy (112). Actual effects

of the EU on policymaking depend on the specific policy being implemented, for example,

policies regarding the regulation of water pollution in the 1980s greatly affected France, which

did not enforce regulations in the past, whereas other policies, such as those regarding banking

sectors and public utilities, which better aligned with France’s approach, were not hard to

implement (115, 119). Despite societal actors playing a larger role in policy formation, and

France having to implement varying policies, both because of the European Union, France has

remained statist with the main power being centralized (120).

Over the years the many governments of France have had different views on EU

membership, and varying opposition and support, with some suggesting that being a member of

the EU is crucial for the future, and others arguing that France has already given up too much

sovereignty (180-182, 186). However, one element that has remained the same is the idea of

France in the leadership role of the EU (182). In 2005, there was much debate over the proposed

Constitution for the EU. A referendum was held to help determine approval of the constitution

by the French people. As a result of the referendum, in which the majority of French citizens

4
voted against the proposed constitution, the constitution ultimately failed. The right argued that if

France were to accept the constitution it would give up too much sovereignty, and the left argued

that it went against the French constitution and the more socialist leaning government it

described (186-188). Schmidt explains the reasons for the failed referendum in France by saying,

“The immediate causes were the combination of an unpopular government, economic and social

pessimism, and fear of the ‘other’—meaning immigrants as much as the EU” (189-190). This

made people question whether the actual issue was with the proposed constitution or the EU

itself. New French leaders will have to find ways to make the French people feel more involved

in the decision-making process with the EU, as the referendum showed that the French people

were interested in national politics that played out on a European scale (190,218).

These observations about the effects of the EU on France’s government are very

significant to Europe as a whole. The idea of a European community reduces national

sovereignty and the autonomy of certain national institutions, particularly legislatures and

countries with strong executives. A collective European identity goes against the strong

nationalism that came to a violent head in the 1940s in Europe. While many countries still feel

that it is important to have a national identity, some countries are more willing and eager to join

in a European collective identity as well. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the

future, as the far right in some European countries become more predominant, and the far left,

though not as popular or relevant, also oppose greater European integration. Increased regional

autonomy and involvement of these regions in the EU also adds another layer to the idea of

unification. Ultimately, it will be worth watching how citizens in the member states of the EU

vote not only for the European parliament, but also their own national government, as this could

have an impact on the EU.

5
 Works Cited

Schmidt, Vivien A. Democracy in Europe: The EU and National Polities. Oxford

University Press, 2009.