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 The Living Wage has to be more than a photo op

    The Living Wage has to be more than a photo op

    The referendum on Scottish independence casts its shadow over every aspect of Scottish public life these days. This is understandable, the debate on whether Scotland should remain in Union with partners in England, Northern Ireland and Wales is a huge one, but the way it pervades every matter at Holyrood is doing a disservice to the people of Scotland. Yesterday I led a debate on behalf on Scottish Labour in support of the living wage, and specifically on extending it […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Who made my clothes?

    Who made my clothes?

    By Stella Creasy MP and Alison McGovern MP It’s been a long four years in opposition, and each year we’ve seen the country decline further for the lack of a Labour Government. But whether speaking up about legal loan sharks, the misuse of zero hours contracts or promoting the economic case for the living wage, we both believe that there are campaigns worth fighting, even if, from opposition, progress is many times harder, and very much slower. That’s why we […]

    Read more →
  • Featured 5 things Labour’s new rapid-rebuttal team need to get right

    5 things Labour’s new rapid-rebuttal team need to get right

    Yesterday’s story of a new Labour media management team, seemingly in the mould of Alastair Campbell’s famously effective rapid-response unit, and headed by Michael Dugher, should be welcome news to us all. A well-run operation can make a huge difference, and in an election as close as 2015 looks set to be, that difference could be Miliband or Cameron in Number 10. But for it to be truly helpful, it needs to get some things right. 1. Be rapid This may sound […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Should politicians do God?

    Should politicians do God?

    Easter is traditionally a time when Christians reflect on their faith, and there is no reason why politicians shouldn’t do so too. But this year David Cameron forsook his usual Easter message for a much stronger and more personal foray into the religious arena. He urged Britain to be more confident of its status as a Christian country; he spoke of the strength of his own faith; he said that we should be “frankly more evangelical about the faith that […]

    Read more →
  • News Iraq Inquiry report possibly delayed until after election

    Iraq Inquiry report possibly delayed until after election

    We reported recently that the Chilcot Report is now not due to be published until 2015, causing worries among Labour strategists that it could harm the Party’s chances at the general election. However, according to the Mail today, its release date could now be held back until after polling day next year. The article states: “Whitehall sources suggest that with an election due in May 2015, it will be deemed too politically difficult to publish it until after voters have […]

    Read more →