Unripe parties are EU’s worst enemy

By John Palmer

Date: 03/06/04

HOPES have been raised that a final agreement on the proposed constitution will be concluded at the June EU summit, following the last meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels on 24 May.

Optimists see light at theend of the tunnel for an agreement, but pessimistsare more worried about thetreaty's ratification.

It may never actually enter into force if only one member state fails to ratify. Little wonder, then, that attention is being focused on how to win the toughest battle of all - in the UK.

This may in part explain why that valiant champion of the treaty, Giuliano Amato, a vice-president of the Convention on Europe's future which drew up the draft, has proposed an important change.

 Amato would like to see the powers of national parliaments to block EU legislation increased beyond those proposed in the draft text. Where the Convention states the European Commission can be asked to re-examine any proposed law, Amato would oblige the Commission to think again if two-thirds of national assemblies so demanded.

There is merit in this idea. It has, predictably, been warmly welcomed by beleaguered ministers in London who face a fearsome referendum campaign probably next year.

In reality, the Commission would be unlikely to persist with any proposal that triggered serious opposition in national parliaments. A more important reason for giving the latter a bigger voice in EU decision-making should surely be to strengthen their capacity tohold their own governments to account. In most 'old' EUstates, parliamentary scrutiny of proposed legislation prior to decisions by the Council of Ministers is woefully inadequate.

Democratic legitimacy

Amato claims that his proposal would result in “increased democratic legitimacy for its [the EU] system of pooled sovereignty”. But will this really prove to be so?

True, there are democratic oddities in the present system.It is very odd, for example,that whereas the European Parliament has powers to shape EU budget expenditure, it hasno responsibility for raising tax revenue. Some also think it strange that the Parliament has no powers to initiate legislation.

But the real problem ofthe Union's “weak democratic legitimacy” has more to do with the functioning of democratic politics in the EU than about the formal powers of the different institutions. This finds its most striking manifestation in the arrested development of the European Parliament partiesand their virtually non-existent relationship with the electorate.

There is a simple way of testing this. Is there a single one of the 25 member states in which the current Parliament election campaign is being fought on specifically European issues?

The only cases are where right-wing populist partiesare fighting for withdrawalfrom EU membership.

The Parliamentary election process is suffering from acute political malnutrition. It simplyis not about enough.

Voters are, typically, presented with an unappealing diet of warmed-up leftovers from the domestic political debate. The only real question they are being asked is “Do you like the current government or would you prefer to see a change?”

This is a perfectly legitimate question to be put to voters in national elections but not inpolls that should be about the direction the Union should be taking and the strategic policies it should be following.

There is another striking difference between national elections and the European Parliament polls. Voters in member state elections get to choose the political executive (government) that assumes power. There is no such direct link between the outcome of the European elections and the future political leadership ofthe Commission.

Credibility easy to question

There is no fight for political power at the heart of the European election and that is what makes it so difficult to sustain voter participation.

Without a serious democratic polity, the popular legitimacy and the credibility of the EU institutions are all too easily called into question.

Member states want the EU to play an increasingly important role in our lives and have given it important executive functions to this end - but they are unwilling to countenance a fully democratic framework.

Citizens will get seriously engaged with EU affairs when they are asked to make serious strategic choices between the different possible Union futures offered by the European democratic parties.

Unfortunately, the Union's political parties have also been their own worst enemy.

They have not put forward their recommended candidates for the Commission presidency as part of the election campaign.

Political adolescence

The party political leaders prefer to haggle in private with heads of state and government about who the next president should be, rather than fight for their candidate openly, before the voters.

For as long as these Europe-wide parties remain in a state of protracted political adolescence, voters across the EU will not take them seriously.

There are some signs thatthis message is getting home.

The Greens have started to create a truly European party and the victory of Poul Nyrup-Rasmussen in the election for the presidency of the Party of European Socialists may presage progress in the same direction.

Hopefully, the others will follow eventually.

Until then, merely giving national parliaments more blocking powers in the decision process will not address the crisis of weak EU democratic legitimacy which Giuliano Amato rightly warns of.

• John Palmer is political director of the European Policy Centre. The article above is written in a personal capacity.

Giuliano Amato, Vice-President of the Convention on the Future of Europe, would like to see the powers of national parliaments to block EU legislation increased beyond those proposed in the draft European Constitution.