[MUSIC] Let's start from what the European Union can do on paper. Contrary to what is often argued by its critics, the EU is not omnipotent. It's not a superhero either. Its powers, unlike those enjoyed by each country of the European Union, are not hindering powers, this means that the EU can only act in so far as it has received a mandate to do so by the member states. The other competences, the ones that have not been conferred by the member states, they remain actually in the hands of the nation states. France, Germany, Finland, Malta. So when the European Union acts within the framework of its transfer competences, those received by the member states, the EU is only doing what it is supposed to do. Nobody can really complain. This is exactly what we called, in our first class, the principle of conferral. This principle represents an important break to European action. And it prevents possible abuses and overreaching by the EU. Therefore, when trying to understand the basic rules of the European game, it is crucial to know what powers the European Union actually enjoys. Only this will tell us what the European Union can actually do. But there's another, more pressing, reason showing you why this is important. Unless the EU makes the first move in the European game, no other player is entitled to play. In other words, because the EU game cannot start without that transfer of powers from the member states to the European Union. Well, this is the game we have to play. If you think about it, it is indeed the exercise of transferred powers that determines and prompts what we have defined as the European game. Unless there is a, the EU is empowered to act by the member states, the European game cannot start. Its players, those we have examined in the previous lecture, cannot play their game, but they should stay put. Yet, as soon as the EU makes a first move, the game kicks off. All European moves, be it a new policy, tackling climate change or a new privacy policy protecting your data on Facebook, or those you are sharing with me right now, must rely on a legal basis. That is to say, an article of the treaties explicitly allowing the EU to act in the particular area. In this sense, the European treaties, and its legal basis, lay down the instructions of the European game. All other moves undertaken by the EU outside of these instructions, it means without a legal basis, will be illegal. Thus, for instance, the EU cannot declare war to a country. It is only the member states have that power. Likewise, the EU cannot mandate that all pupils shall have computer programming lessons in primary school. Since it has no power to modify schools' curriculum. Both words in the education remain areas exclusively in the hands of national competence. The European game cannot be played in those areas. However, we will see that the competences are not always clearly stated in the treaties. It is not always an easy task to determine who is competent to do what in Europe. This often gives rise to serious disputes. Not only between the member states and the European Union, but also between corporations and the EU. As well as among the same European institutions. The Commission against the Council, or vice versa. Let me give you an example of how the EU competences play out in the European game. At the end of the 90s, the European Union banned all forms of advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products. Germany who hosts the company running Formula One, voted against this legislation. And objected that the EU was not entitled to do so. Germany argued that the EU, by prohibiting all forms of advertising of tobacco products, went beyond the competences transferred to it by the member states. The EU argued that it drew actually its competence from the need to create common rules on advertising across European countries. It claimed that without its intervention, it would have been possible, for instance, to advertise cigarettes in the movie theater in Germany, but not in France. It would have been possible to distribute tobacco gadgets in Greece but not in Sweden. This situation, due to different standards in the European market, would have created, according to the Commission, significant obstacles to the free movement of tobacco products in Europe. And therefore be against the objective of creating an internal market for all products, including the tobacco ones. In these circumstances, the EU was entitled to step in, in order to remove these obstacles and create common rules thanks to this so called internal market legal basis. This is a specific provision allowing the EU to step in, in every time their different national standards may lead to obstacles to the free movement. However, as suggested by the German government, by prohibiting all forms of tobacco advertising. It was pretty clear that the real objective pursued by the European Union was not to promote the free movement of tobacco products, but instead to reduce the exposure of European citizens to tobacco advertisement. In other words, while the declared objective of the European intervention was to promote the internal market of tobacco products for the creation of common rules in advertising, the European move was a disguised intervention in the area of public health. Ask yourself the question. Do you think this was a legitimate action of the EU? Was the EU entitled to adopt such a policy? Well, what the treaties say is that, in this particular policy area, public health, the EU does not enjoy the authority to establish common rules across the union. Therefore, the EU could not enact this full ban on advertising, and the Court of Justice struck down this directive after its adoption. As a result, the EU had to adopt a new directive, narrower in scope, that prohibits all tobacco advertising only when it has a cross border effect. That mean, when it transmitted across the border. As a result, Germany still allows advertising tobacco in movie theaters, billboards and shows. This is a billboard I came across last time I was in Berlin. This is legal under both German and European law. However, when a marathon or another sport event takes place, it becomes against the European Tobacco Policy. This is because being the event, the marathon or any particular competition broadcasted on TV. It is susceptible to send its advertising message across the border. And therefore, produce its effect also in the Netherlands, in France, in Finland, where these forms of tobacco advertising are prohibited. As the powers of the EU are conferred powers, we can say that the EU has received a mandate by the member states. But this mandate, and in particular the degree of such a competence, varies depending on the policy area. In some policies, the mandate is full. Only the EU is entitled to act. And its move excludes the member states from acting. This is the case of exclusive competences. Let's take a quiz together. Which of the following policy areas belong to the exclusive competence of the EU. Education. Transports. Tourism. External trade. Culture. The right answer is external trade. In some other cases, the degree lies in between, because while both the member states in the EU can in principle act, the member state can legislate only when the EU has not. This is the case of the shared competencies. Let's take a quiz together. Which of the following policy areas fall under shared competencies. Education, consumer protection, energy, environmental protection. [BLANK_AUDIO] The right answer is consumer protection, energy and environment protection. In some other instances, the competences still belong to the member states, who have or accept some forms of coordination among themselves, provided by some EU intervention, which finds its legitimacy on this so-called supportive competence. As previously discussed, trade for example, is an exclusive competence. The member state have decided that in this field, only the EU can act by, for instance, setting the standards for banana shape. Or determining how much should be paid by Apple when importing its iPhones into the EU market. You remember that they are assembled in China. Therefore, member states are out of the game in these particular fields. And in this particular area only the EU can move. This illustrates to you how far fetched and unwarranted are the frequent complaints by political leaders who claim that the EU is overreaching in areas where the very same countries, even those of these political leaders, have fully transferred this power to the European Union. Therefore the European Union can and actually is expected to act. Conversely, in other policy areas, such as education, the EU is entitled to take only supportive actions such as the launch of programs promoting mobility in Europe at different educational levels. You remember Erasmus. Educational systems are indeed still very different across member states. But member states have agreed to accept some supportive actions prompted by the EU. And this is certainly the case of Erasmus, Comenius, Leonardo, many other programs aimed at facilitating the free movement of students. Young graduates across European universities. And you might have heard about the Bologna process, which ensures the compatibility in the standards of higher education qualifications, thanks to common definition of learning out through a credit system. Some other competences are shared. Meaning that member states can legislate only when the EU has not. For example, as we've previously mentioned, energy and transports are areas of shared competences.
