Second chamber bandwagon faces bumpy ride

Date: 09/11/00

Calls from some EU leaders for a new parliamentary body to boost the Union's democratic legitimacy and bring it closer to the citizens have sparked a fierce debate. Gareth Harding considers the arguments on both sides

HISTORY shows that when the EU is faced with a crisis, it tends to adopt one of two solutions. It either throws money at the problem in the hope that it will go away, or it sets up a new institution to pretend that the difficulty has been dealt with.

If we are to believe Union leaders, the latest crisis engulfing the European project is one of democratic

legitimacy. Forget for a moment that the Council of Ministers is the only law-making body in the western world which meets behind closed doors. And ignore the fact that giving more power to EU heads of state and governments, as advocated by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and others, would lead to less scrutiny by national parliaments.

Instead, E.M. Forster's dictum to "only connect" is the message blasting out of chancelleries and prime ministers' offices as leaders tire of the nitty-gritty of reforming the EU treaty and start focusing on the bloc's future after enlargement to the east.

In a recent speech in Berlin, French President Jacques Chirac said the construction of Europe had "too often been an affair of leaders and the elites". Calling for more democracy at Union level, he signed off with that great revolutionary rallying cry: "It is time that our peoples become once more the rulers of Europe."

Obviously you cannot buy democracy, so EU leaders have opted for their second tried and tested fire-fighting formula - the creation of a new body to bring Europe closer to its citizens.

Ever since German Foreign Minister Joshka Fischer first mooted the idea in May, the proposal to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament has spread like wildfire through the EU's capitals.

France is already a paid-up believer, having fought tooth and nail for it at the last treaty change talks; Blair threw his weight behind it during a keynote speech in Warsaw last month; and even Czech President Vaclav Havel joined the clamour for a second chamber during a recent visit to Strasbourg.

But it is the Benelux states which have emerged as the staunchest supporters of the project. Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt told an audience in Brussels recently that "a true democracy is founded on a system of checks and balances, and we must dare to admit that this has never actually been the case in the European Union". Decrying the lack of democratic legitimacy within the Union, Verhofstadt said the bicameral system proposed by Fischer was a "step in the right direction".

Fischer's basic idea is that the European Parliament should have two chambers - one composed of directly-elected politicians and the other of representatives of the member states. In essence, this would give the EU a political system akin to that of the United States: the current European Parliament would thus resemble the House of Representatives; the second chamber the Senate; the European Court of Justice the Supreme Court; and the Council of Ministers the presidency.

This analogy is drawn even more explicitly by Verhofstadt, who called for the second chamber to have an equal number of representatives from each of the member states, "exactly like the United States Senate".

It is easy to see why smaller European countries back the idea and not too difficult to understand why supporters of political union champion the move. But why a firm believer in slimmed-down government like Blair should swing behind it is more of an enigma, until you read the small print.

Unlike in the German and Benelux model, Blair argues that the second chamber should "not get involved in the day-to-day negotiation of legislation" as this is the European Parliament's task. Instead, it would act as the member states' Trojan Horse in Brussels by making sure that EU institutions do not overstep the boundaries of subsidiarity, interfering in matters best dealt with at national level. Blair also added that it should "help provide oversight at a European level of the common foreign and security policy".

Supporters of a second chamber insist the new body would in no way undermine the role of MEPs. However, there is an implicit attack on the Parliament's legitimacy in much of the reasoning behind the proposal.

A recent Dutch government paper on the state of the EU warns that, "if legitimacy is insufficient, this poses a direct threat to the Union", adding that as a result, "the general public may become alienated from the Union and everything for which it stands". The finger of blame here is clearly pointed at the Strasbourg-based assembly and its failure to attract more than half of the EU's voters at the last elections. "If involvement is inadequate, it may well be because of the absence of a recognisable European forum in which every European can participate," claims the paper.

It is true that voter turnout has fallen in every

Euro-poll since elections were first held in 1979. But would the creation of yet another institution actually bring the European project closer to its citizens? Most MEPs think not.

Of course, expecting Euro MPs to support the idea of a second chamber would be like expecting turkeys to vote for Christmas. But the vehemence of their opposition has raised eyebrows in some government quarters.

The Liberal Group's constitutional affairs spokesman Andrew Duff says "the creation of another parliamentary chamber made up of national MPs with different mandates, work schedules and priorities would seem at best impracticable and at worst catastrophic".

The UK MEP argues that it was precisely to overcome the ineffectiveness of the old European Parliament, made up of members nominated by governments, that direct elections were introduced in 1979. "Why on earth go back?" he asks rhetorically.

The Socialists' spokesman on the issue, Richard Corbett, also believes a second chamber would not work. He says the experience of the pre-1979 assembly "showed that it was very difficult, even then, for MPs to spare enough time to do their job properly" and that majorities often depended on which delegation was absent due to votes in their national parliaments.

Corbett argues that if a second chamber was given any real power, it would make the EU's decision-making process "more complex and cumbersome" and risk making the European system "even more incomprehensible" to the wider public. However, if it was given only limited responsibilities, it would soon be portrayed in the press as "an expensive talking shop catering for backbench MPs in search of 'jollies'," he adds.

Supporters of a second chamber admit that its creation could further complicate the EU's already arcane decision-making procedures. But they argue that this is a price worth paying to give national parliamentarians a greater say in the crucial decisions taken in Brussels. MEPs, on the other hand, retort that the EU already has a second legislative chamber in the Council of Ministers and that national politicians are perfectly well represented there by their governments.

Many argue that one simple way to give national parliaments greater oversight over Union laws is to boost the power of the select committeeswhich scrutinise draft legislation in national assemblies. The Danish European affairs committee is often held up as a model in this respect, but many others are toothless bodies which fail to comb through planned new laws before they have been agreed by their ministers in Brussels.

Another solution would be for national MPs and their European counterparts to work more closely on specific projects. The convention which drafted the Charter of Fundamental Rights was made up of both national and European politicians and is widely credited with having produced a workable text in less than nine months.

Corbett believes the convention could serve as a model for preparing the next round of treaty talks. But Duff remains sceptical about national MPs' interest in European issues. The Liberal member says that invitations to engage in a closer dialogue with the assembly are not usually taken up by national parliamentarians in the UK and adds that "although they might grumble at their apparent exclusion, very few Westminster MPs have in fact shown themselves either knowledgeable or particularly interested in European affairs".

Until the Nice Treaty is safely in the bag, EU leaders will have to focus on vital but uninspiring issues such as enhanced cooperation and the size of the European Commission. However, once the new blueprint has been signed, they can get back to what they do best - staring into the horizon and building sandcastle structures to tackle problems they imagine exist

Major feature. Calls from some EU leaders for a new parliamentary body to boost the Union's democratic legitimacy and bring it closer to the citizens have sparked a fierce debate.