(1) The Single European Act (SEA)
The SEA was signed on 17 and 28 February 1986 and came into effect on 1 July 1987. It was not very ambitious (which explains its acceptance by the Member States), but had much potential for expansion.
The strengthening of the concept of the internal market and a provision that it be completed by 31 December 1992.
As a result of this, nearly 300 measures were enacted in order to create “an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured” (Article 14 (2) EC – Article 26(2) TFEU).
The increase in the number of areas of qualified majority voting within the Council.
It is interesting to note that this applied to two-thirds of the 300 measures necessary to create the internal market.
The extension of the legislative powers of the EP
A new co-operation procedure enhancing the participation of the EP in the decision-making procedures in 10 areas was introduced. This procedure, with many modifications over the years, is contained in Article 294 TFEU. It has been renamed under the ToL and is now referred to as the ordinary legislative procedure. Another new procedure, “the assent procedure” (under the ToL it is called the consent procedure), gave the EP an important new role in that the approval of the EP (by an absolute majority) was thereafter required for the admission of new members to the Community and in respect of conclusion of association agreements with third countries.
The extension of Community competencies to new areas
It must be remembered that in some areas the Community was already active in practice on the basis of general Treaty provisions, for example, the protection of the environment, research, and regional policy, the protection of consumers and social cohesion.
The formalisation of the mechanism for European Political Co-operation (EPC)
This was initiated by The Hague Summit in 1969. EPC became recognised and incorporated into the structure of the Community in Title III of the SEA, but was not subject to judicial review by the ECJ.TitleIIISEAdeclared that Member States would endeavour jointly to formulate and implement a European foreign policy.
Accordingly, EPC did not entail the transfer of any legal powers to Community institutions; it essentially formalised a forum for normal inter-state multilateral co-operation. The improvements to EPC effected by the SEA were:
– The distinction between foreign ministers’ meetings within EPC and within the Council was abolished;
– An EPC secretariat was set up inBrussels;
– A mechanism was provided to convene emergency meetings of the Political Committee or foreign ministers of the Member States within 48 hours upon a request from at least three Member States;
– The Commission and the EP became associated with EPC; and
– The Commission and the Presidency of the Council became responsible for ensuring consistency between the external policies of the Community and policies agreed within the framework of EPC.
EPC resulted in adoption of common positions on many issues such as the Middle East, Eastern Europe, andSouth Africa. However, on many occasions vague declarations after events had taken place and little direct action undermined the importance of EPC.
The necessity of adopting a new approach to EPC was further highlighted when Member States were faced with the 1990 Gulf Crisis and the deteriorating situation in the formerYugoslavia. In the 1990 Gulf Crisis, no agreement was reached among Member States on the use of force againstIraq.
The position of Member States varied from immediate and unconditional support for theUSmilitary action (Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of theUKwas inColoradowith President Bush senior when the crisis arose and promisedUKsupport) to the Irish policy of nonintervention based on neutrality. In relation to the crisis in the formerYugoslavia, as Dinan stated: “Far from reflecting well on the Community, the Yugoslav War emphasised deep foreign policy differences between Member States and showed the limits of EC international action.” 35
Each international crisis revealed divergences in opinion betweenMemberStatesand the impossibility of presenting a common front to the outside world. This had contributed to the incorporation of a Common Foreign and Security Policy into the TEU, although the CFSP was still placed on an inter-governmental level and was not communitarised atMaastricht, through the introduction of the Pillar structure. Under the ToL special rules apply to the CFSP.
