Charlemagne: Those ozymandian moments

The European Parliament is the big loser from the rejection of the EU constitution

VISITING the European Parliament in Strasbourg this week was one of those Ozymandian moments. Ozymandias, as readers of The Economist will instantly recall, was an Egyptian pharaoh who inspired a poem by Shelley, in which a “traveller from an antique land” comes across a ruined statue in the desert, on which are inscribed the words: “My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; Look on my works ye Mighty, and despair!” It is true that the first reaction of many visitors to the European Parliament is not to despair, but rather to head off for a good lunch and then file an expenses claim. But recent developments in the European Union represent such a stunning setback to the entire political vision that is embodied by the parliament that one cannot help wondering whether its grandiose buildings could yet suffer the fate of Ozymandias's statue.

For the time being, the parliament is still expanding rapidly, to accommodate all the new members and staff necessitated by the EU's latest enlargement. A new steel-and-glass extension, running parallel to the existing buildings, is taking shape across three blocks in Brussels. The total cost of constructing the parliament buildings in Brussels is now close to €1 billion ($1.2 billion) - and the debating chambers and offices are suitably well-appointed. A visitor from The Economist in London who recently met the parliament's secretary-general said afterwards that the only person he had ever met with a larger office was the Saudi oil minister. And in a piece of extravagance that even MEPs admit is absurd, the parliament maintains another vast (and costly) building in Strasbourg, a French provincial city, which is used for only four days a month.

Might all this magnificence eventually crumble away? There is no immediate threat. But the subdued atmosphere in Strasbourg this week reflected the fact that, of all the EU's institutions, it is the parliament whose raison d'etre is most directly called into question by the failure of the constitution. The European Commission can, if necessary, abandon its pretensions to being a European government and become a normal civil service. The Council of Ministers brings together politicians from the EU's 25 national governments. But the parliament is largely dependent on further integration of the EU. If the political union of Europe were to proceed apace, the parliament would flourish; if political union were to die, the parliament's role would, eventually, have to come into question.

The parliament has always fancied itself as the answer to longstanding complaints about the EU's “democratic deficit”. When people pointed to a lack of connection between European voters and the institutions of the EU, MEPs routinely responded that the answer was to give the European Parliament more powers. After all, it is the only directly elected EU institution. Over the years it has indeed gained more powers, and the constitution planned to expand these further. But the rejection of the constitution in the French and Dutch referendums has cruelly exposed the fantasy that the European Parliament is the answer to the disconnect between political elites and ordinary citizens. The parliament - including French and Dutch MEPs - voted overwhelmingly to approve the EU constitution, only to find that the voters seemed to disagree.

A comparison of voter turnout in the referendums and in European parliamentary elections leaves little room for doubt about which was the more telling expression of public opinion. In France the turnout in last year's elections to the European Parliament was 43%; in the referendum, it was almost 70%. In the Netherlands the figures are: 39% for the European elections, 63% for the referendum. Far from being the solution to the EU's democratic deficit, it turns out that the parliament may just have been another part of the problem.

Home advantage

No European institution staked as much on the constitution as the European Parliament. The convention which drew up the document even took place in its building in Brussels. It was, joked parliamentarians, a “home match”; and MEPs who took part in the convention exploited their knowledge of the local terrain to the full. Such men as Elmar Brok of Germany, Andrew Duff from Britain and Alain Lamassoure of France, hardly household names in their own countries, were big figures in the convention. And, unlike most national politicians in the convention, the MEPs had been thinking and writing about European constitutional issues for decades. Their mastery of the issues and the clarity of their ambitions allowed them to exercise a disproportionate sway over the writing of the constitution. Unsurprisingly, the result was a considerable increase in the powers of the European Parliament. But, for the MEPs who helped to write the constitution, it was far more than a grab for power: it was their chance to secure a place in history.

In the wake of the constitution's rejection, its parliamentary backers are bewildered and dejected. They feel like novelists who have been working on a book for 20 years, only to see it trashed by the reviewers. Mr Duff disarmingly admits to having trouble sleeping, and to changing his mind repeatedly about the way forward. His latest plan, to reconvene the constitutional convention and redraft the document, is probably not the best he has come up with.

Rather than trying to revive the schemes of the past, creative minds in the parliament should perhaps turn their attention to the problems of the future - such as what to do with their buildings if the EU really starts to unravel. Perhaps they could be turned into a hotel, or a conference centre. Or, if such solutions do not satisfy advocates of social Europe, a hostel for migrant workers might be another option. Or perhaps the parliament's buildings could just be left to rot, Ozymandias-like, as one more monument to the folly of political ambition.

Commentary feature in which author writes that it is the European Parliament which is the big loser from the rejection of the European Constitution by voters in France, 29 May 2005 and the Netherlands, 1 June 2005

• Primary Source