Which EU reforms should Labour argue for?

The wrangle over choosing the next president of the EU Commission has highlighted how undemocratic the EU truly is. Forget the Euro elections – real law-making power lies with the Commission, only the Commission can initiate legislation over trade, employment laws, immigration rules and even criminal justice matters. It’s this appointment that actually decides who runs Europe. But until a dose of democracy is brought into the way the Commission is chosen and held to account, the charge that the EU is run by unelected bureaucrats is likely to stick.

The Lisbon Treaty took one baby step towards reform by requiring the Council of Ministers to “have regard for the results of the Euro elections” in selecting the Commission President. Yet, as recent weeks have shown, this hopelessly vague explanation means different things to different people. For Cameron (backed by Labour and the Lib Dems) it was an affront to pick a “federalist” when so many people had voted against the status quo in the Euro polls. But, as Cameron has found to his cost, most European leaders felt the democratic answer was to appoint the choice of the European People’s Party (EPP), the political group who’d come first across the EU.

My view is that that reform did not go nearly far enough. Labour are right to talk of the need for the EU to be reformed, but must we must start setting out what is will mean. In economic terms this will involve a focus on growth and jobs. But we also need a plan for the democratic changes we would like to see. Here are 3 ideas:

1) For the Commission to be elected by the European Parliament alone

2) A requirement for Commissioners themselves to be MEPs

3) End the Commission’s monopoly on putting forward legislation and give this power to both MEPs and national parliaments.

What difference would this make? Firstly, it would establish a clear link between voting in European elections and deciding who runs Europe. Secondly, it would give Commissioners themselves democratic legitimacy.

One objection made by David Cameron to making this link is that it would “politicise” the Commission. My response to that is that a body charged with deciding policy on employment rights, bailouts and foreign policy (to give but three examples) is already highly political. At the moment, the problem is it’s not accountable.

My final point is to widen the power to initiate legislation beyond the narrow group of Commissioners, including to national parliaments. The Lisbon Treaty already created a “yellow card” system whereby if a third or more of national parliaments object to a piece of legislation the Commission has to reconsider it. As the electoral reform society have argued, red cards (allowing the blocking of legislation) should be added to this.

But reform should not just be about ways of limiting EU action. Alongside red cards could be added green cards, enabling national parliaments to group together to put forward EU wide initiatives. After all, it’s national parliaments that have to implement EU directives or find the money to pay for EU bailouts, so they deserve a voice too.

These are rough ideas, but I hope they spark debate. It’s currently in vogue for politician to talk about “reforming Europe”, but too often this seems like little more than a mantra that’s endlessly repeated. In the run up to the General Election Labour needs to set out how this can become a reality.