Conclusions
The successive treaty revisions since the European Parliament began to be directly elected were all strongly influenced by Parliament . They illustrate that , while Parliament , like other institutions , is not able to secure all its wishes , it can nonetheless have a major influence and is a catalyst for change . The changes made transformed the European system as a whole and especially Parliament ’ s place within it .
When Parliament proposed its draft treaty in 1984 , the Community was in crisis , and confidence in its future was at an all-time low . Summits had broken down over the issue of the budgetary contributions of Member States , the European economy was in a period of Eurosclerosis and few thought that there was any realistic chance of amending the treaties . Yet , in thrashing out an agreement among the political forces represented in Parliament and pressing it on governments , through national parliaments and via national political parties , Parliament was able to create sufficient political momentum for at least some national governments to press its case , and for a majority of them to accept that there was a case to look at . Of course , the bottom line of unanimity among the Member States meant that there were limits as to what could be achieved , but the momentum was sufficient to enable a compromise package to get through .
This process was repeated several times . Certainly , the general political situation often improved the prospects for change . The SEA was also responding to economic stagnation and the persisting fragmentation of the European market . Maastricht became about more than the single currency , in part because of the dramatic changes in eastern Europe . Amsterdam and Nice were driven , in part , by the prospect of 10 new countries joining . But there is no doubt that the extension of Parliament ’ s powers would not have found its way into these processes , had it not been for Parliament ’ s constant pressure
43