The debate over the European Union, continued

Over the past six months Henry Farrell and I have had a friendly debate over how to define the European Union. It it a supranational organization transforming itself into a state — as Henry argues? Or is it a garden-variety international organization that is managed by its most powerful member states — as I have argued? Henry’s last post on this matter argued that what really mattered was the Euroopean Court of Justice:

[T]he real evidence that the EU is not the mere plaything of its more powerful member states can be found in the rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The ECJ has succeeded in effectively ensuring the primacy of EU law over the law of the member states, which is not something that you would expect if the European Union were a simple international organization. Even big member states such as France and Germany, have complied with ECJ rulings that went against their interests.

Henry makes a valid point — but if the ECJ acts strategically, it will be reluctant to issue rulings that powerful states would flout, weakening the ECJ’s repitation. Which brings me to this Financial Times story suggests that beyond the ECJ, compliance is tough to come by:

Brussels delivered a double blow to the French government on Wednesday, combining a legal challenge against a French law on awarding government contracts with an order to repay more than €90m in farm subsidies. France will now have to defend its public procurement code in front of the European Court of Justice, Europe’s highest court, amid allegations that tendering procedures fall below European Union standards. In a separate development, Paris will also be forced to re-examine the way it distributes the billions in farm aid it receives every year, after the Commission found that payments to cattle farmers had not been properly supervised. As a result, France will have to repay €91.12m ($114m, £62m), almost two thirds of the total farm subsidies recovered by the Commission in the most recent period. The two decisions are likely to reinforce France’s position as one of the worst performers on implementing EU legislation – a standing that has led to clashes between Paris and Brussels. France’s poor record on this front is matched only by Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg, all of which are founding members of the EU and frontline supporters of a two-speed Europe led by Paris and Berlin. Their poor record in following EU law has led some to question whether these countries can provide the leadership required. Earlier this week, Frits Bolkestein, the internal market commissioner, launched a thinly-veiled attack on this drive for a two-speed Europe. In a speech in London he said: “It is about time certain member states put their money where their mouths are. The self-appointed vanguard should begin at home by implementing existing community law.” Paris and Berlin, traditionally the Union’s leaders, were also berated last month for their poor record in implementing EU law, as well as for running big budget deficits and for their failure to push through reforms.