Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Democracy and 1992 — Integration without accountability?

  • Published:
Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. The pre-1979 E.P. consisted of delegates from the Parliament of E.E.C. Member States — that, therefore was the period of the ‘dual mandate’. After 1979, MEP's were elected directly but not “in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States” as demanded by Art. 138(3) E.C. Treaty.

  2. V. Herman and J. Lodge,The European Parliament and the European Community, Macmillan, 1978.

  3. Art. 144 — Motion of Censure.

  4. Art. 158 E.C. Treaty as repealed and replaced by the Merger Treaty (Arts. 19 and 11).

  5. J. Fitzmaurice,The European Parliament, Saxon House, 1978, 150.

  6. Treaty of 22nd July 1975.

  7. Fitzmaurice,supra n.6, referring to A206b of the 1975 Treaty.

  8. Herman and Lodge,supra n.3 at 45–6.

  9. V. Herman & N.P.C.M. Van Schendelen,The European Parliament and the National Parliaments, Saxon House, 1979, 2.

  10. Fitzmaurice,supra n.6 at 148–49.

  11. By the Single European Act 1986, Art. 9 replaces Art. 238 (2nd para) of the E.C. Treaty. With regard to agreements with ‘third countries’ (short of Accession) theassent of the European Parliament becomes a pre-requisite.

  12. C. Sopwith, “Legal Aspects of the Community Budget”, 17C.M.L.Rev. (1980), 315, 345, discussing the implications of the Treaty of 22nd July 1975.

  13. Single European Act 1986, Art. 7: “Art 149 of the EEC Treaty shall be replaced by the following provisions...” “... If the E.P. has rejected the Council's common position, unanimity shall be required for the council to act on a second reading” (cf. previous Qualified Majority) — new Art. 149 (2)(c).

  14. R. Bieber, “The Settlement of Institutional conflict on the basis of Article 4 of the E.E.C. Treaty”, 11C.M.L.Rev. (1984), 505, 511.

  15. C.D. Ehlermann, “Applying the new Budgetary Procedure for the first time (Article 203 of the E.E.C. Treaty)”, 12C.M.L.Rev. (1975), 325.

  16. K. Bracher, inEuropean Community, Vision & Reality (eds. J. Barber and B. Reid), Croom Helm, 1973, 99–100.

  17. “Democracy”, in Herman and Lodge,supra n.3 at 189.

  18. Ibid. at 160.

  19. Ibid. at 175.

  20. A series of constitutional criteria whereby the efficacy of Parliamentary activity is assessed.

  21. Introduction of the Commission's Programme for 1987, Statement to the E.P., January 1987.

  22. Commission of the E.C., ‘Completing the Internal Market’, White Paper, June 1985, paras. 203 & 204.

  23. The Community in 1992. A Brief for European Taxpayers, European Commission, 1987.

  24. Current (July '87) EMS exchange rate parameters are 2% (apart from the Italian lira which is the subject of allowable derogation).

  25. Andrew Fisher,Financial Times, 13th July 1988.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Liverpool Polytechnic, UK

    H. G. Thomas LL.B., M.A. (Barrister, Senior Lecturer in Law)

Authors
  1. H. G. Thomas LL.B., M.A.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thomas, H.G. Democracy and 1992 — Integration without accountability?. Liverpool Law Rev 10, 185–201 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01082757

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01082757

Search

Navigation