5 ways to tackle Europe’s democratic deficit

November 26, 2012 2:52 pm

There is a huge divide in Europe between its citizens and the people who make decisions. The bridging of this divide is crucial to the future of the European project.

Turnout in the first direct elections for the European Parliament in 1979 averaged 62% across the EU. In Italy it was as high as 85%. By 2009, average turnout had plummeted to 43%, with a steady decline at every election in between. UK turnout has remained consistently low, at 32% in 1979 and 34% in 2009.

The growing gulf between the public and the only democratically elected representatives in the structure of the EU may seem unfair given the corresponding increase in the Parliament’s powers from 1979 to 2009. Merely a consultative assembly in 1979, the European Parliament now has co-decision making responsibilities with the Council of Ministers in many areas of EU policy, including the setting of the EU budget.

The disconnect is in part because of the public perception that MEPs do not hold the bulk of power in the European Union, which many see as resting with Member States and the European Commission. It is also hard for people to see how their vote makes a difference. In elections to the House of Commons there is a transparent link that everyone understands between your vote and the make-up of the government. In European elections the link between your vote and the ‘government’ of Europe is opaque.

Below I have laid out five proposals that I believe may go some way to addressing the democratic deficit:

Give the European Parliament the power to adopt legislative proposals

Although the Lisbon Treaty gave the Parliament co-decision making responsibility in many areas of EU policy, the power to introduce legislation lies solely with the European Commission, with Parliament only having the ability to request that the European Commission brings forward proposals for MEPs to consider. Allowing MEPs to bring in legislation themselves would bring the European Parliament in line with national Parliaments in EU Member States and associate MEPs with the most common function understood of Members of Parliament – making laws.

Make the European Central Bank accountable to MEPs

The role of the ECB has increased exponentially since the start of the economic crisis in 2008 and following December’s European Council summit it is likely to take responsibility for the supervision of 6,000 banks across the eurozone, with the power to revoke their banking licenses, issue fines and remove members of their board. Despite this huge increase in the power of the ECB, there is virtually no democratic accountability. The Governor of the ECB visits the Parliament on a quarterly basis to answer questions, but is not bound to do so. MEPs can submit written questions to the bank for answers, but cannot call members of the board to answer questions in Parliament or influence the appointment of board members – as shown this month by the appointment of Yves Mersch to the bank’s executive board despite a vote against his appointment in the European Parliament.

The European Parliament should have the power of the UK Treasury Selection Committee to compel the Governor, board members and senior bank staff to answer questions at the Economic & Monetary Affairs Committee. As in Sweden, the Parliament should be able to dismiss executives of the bank for misconduct. Finally, appointments to the bank’s executive board should require the approval of Parliament after hearings in the ECON committee, similar to the US Senate.

Strengthen democratic oversight of the European Commission

Akin to the US Senate confirmation process, MEPs should have the power to confirm (or not) individual commissioners put forward by each Member State to briefs in the European Commission. Currently, although MEPs do question commissioners, if they don’t think one is suitable, they only have the nuclear option of rejecting the entire commission. However in reality a no vote by the European Parliament on the appointment of a commissioner would make it very difficult for him/her to take up their post. This should be formalised.

Directly elect the President of the European Commission

The European Commission is the most powerful international administration in the world. The Commission has the exclusive right to propose policy, agrees international trade deals on behalf of the EU, has extensive power in competition policy (including a veto on mergers) and ensures compliance with EU law by Member States. The Commission is often described as the ‘civil service’ of the EU, but that understates the power the Commission has. A directly elected President of the European Commission, elected at the same time as MEPs, would address a democratic black hole at the heart of the EU. Critics suggest this would politicise the Commission, but the Commission is already intensely political. Democratically electing its head would give citizens a voice at the top table in Europe and perhaps provide an answer to Kissinger’s famous question: “Who do I call when I want to talk to Europe?”

Reform the way MEPs are elected

I haven’t met anyone who thinks the way we elect MEPs works. In the North West, we have eight MEPs (including two excellent Labour ones) representing a region of over 7 million people spanning 5,500 square miles. As the EU grows, the number we have diminishes. We should look again at the electoral system to improve the link between MEPs and their constituents.

I’m not saying these measures would boost turnout in European elections by themselves. Clearly there are a range of issues that need to be addressed, but increasing democracy in the institutions of Europe and strengthening the role of our elected representatives is a good place to start.

What do you think? Tweet your ideas to @kevpeel using the hashtag #eureform.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Dan.Filson Daniel Filson

    It is a nonsense for a London MEP to be accountable, in theory, to 75 UK-size constituencies and maintain any meaningful relationship with them. Thankfully we have political parties keeping track on them, but otherwise they are as accountable to nobody as the EU Commission itself.

    Let’s make a start by urging the scrapping of the EU Parliament meting in both Strasburg and Brussels; just the latter will do.

    Then there’s the ever-rotating EU Presidency. That could be directly-elected, even though it as relatively litte power.

    We, or rather the UK red top press, denigrated Jacques Dellors even though he was possibly the finest leader of the EU it has had, whilst giving minimal coverage to the wok that Cathy Ashton did as Commissioner. And each year British ministers strut to Brussels, or wherever, to be macho about protecting British rights, posturing as if megaphone diplomacy as any virtues. We get the EU we deserve.

  • franwhi

    If Westminster and the red tops didn’t have an EU Parliament to use as a whipping boy then they’d have to make one up. The democratic deficit in European governance actually suits British politicians – they have no wish to make it any less opaque when they can use its existence to whip up the masses without having to take responsibility for EU collective decision making.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jim.crowder2 Jim Crowder

    So because people don’t want to vote for these people, we should give them more power? Surely it should be the other way round. If people don’t vote insufficient numbers, then the power given to MEPs should be reduced. Same goes for the rest of the EU. Votes tend to be given according to the power they wield, hence the low turnout for local government too.

  • Pingback: Addressing the democratic deficit in the EU | Kevin Peel Blog

  • Pingback: Five EU reforms we should be talking about

Latest

  • Comment Europe McFadden’s appointment comes at a time of big opportunity for Labour on Europe

    McFadden’s appointment comes at a time of big opportunity for Labour on Europe

    Pat McFadden is taking over the Europe brief just at the time when the issue can work in Labour’s favour. Provided we hold to Ed Miliband’s decision not to cave in to the calls to offer an in-out referendum. Europe is again becoming toxic for the Tories. How Cameron must be looking back wistfully to that time when he told his party to stop banging on about Europe. That’s exactly what it is now doing. And it’s largely his own […]

    Read more →
  • Comment The Next Portillo Moment

    The Next Portillo Moment

    Undoubtedly the highlight of election night ‘97 was seeing Labour record the unlikeliest of victories where I live in Enfield Southgate. We did it through hard work, at the time all three Enfield seats were blue and though the Labour swing meant that Edmonton and Enfield North were going red regardless it took a special campaign lead by an extraordinarily good candidate in Stephen Twigg to record what was an iconic victory in the Party’s history. We held the seat […]

    Read more →
  • Comment The business backlash against Tory EU exit plans 

    The business backlash against Tory EU exit plans 

    It’s not just José Manuel Barroso who has warned David Cameron that his party is taking the wrong approach when it comes to talk of an EU exit. There is a clear sense of concern and anger from the UK and international business community in respect of the Tory plans for an in/out referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU in 2017. This has led to a serious business backlash against the Tories. Standard & Poor’s, the international rating […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Miliband sets out 5 point immigration reform plan (but won’t join “Operation Pander”)

    Miliband sets out 5 point immigration reform plan (but won’t join “Operation Pander”)

    Ed Miliband is in Rochester today, where he’s campaigning for the party’s by-election candidate Naushabah Khan against what he called the “two Tory opponents” of UKIP and the Tories in the Rochester and Strood by-election. But the main purpose of Miliband’s speech was to set out what Labour’s approach to immigration will be – specifically an Immigration Reform Bill in the first Queen’s Speech of the new Parliament. Miliband announced it’d be based around five key principles (most of which […]

    Read more →
  • News Sadiq Khan asks Mansion Tax critics – how would you fund the NHS?

    Sadiq Khan asks Mansion Tax critics – how would you fund the NHS?

    Since Labour conference, the majority of Labour’s potential London mayoral candidates have been critical of the party’s Mansion Tax proposals. However one presumptive candidate has been consistently positive about the plans – Sadiq Khan. That’s understandable and expected, as he’s a Shadow Cabinet member and a Miliband loyalist. But Khan has now launched a public defence of the tax (calling it “absolutely fair”) and a broadside against critics, asking them “why they are opposed to hiring thousands more nurses and doctors […]

    Read more →