Το κατωτέρω άρθρο του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου επιβεβαιώνει τον κανόνα. Ότι δηλαδή οι περισσότερες ουσιαστικές αναλύσεις των τελευταίων δεκαετιών για τις πολιτικές και στρατηγικές πτυχές της ευρωπαϊκής ολοκλήρωσης προέρχονται από τις ΗΠΑ. Αυτό είναι λογικό γιατί επί δεκαετίες την στρατηγική κάλυψη της Ευρώπης την διασφάλιζαν οι ΗΠΑ με την στρατηγική της περιμέτρου της Ευρασίας, της οποίας η Δυτική Ευρώπη δεν είναι παρά μια περιοχή. Το άρθρο θίγει μερικές μόνο πτυχές του προβλήματος αντιπροσώπευσης που αντιμετωπίζει το ευρωπαϊκό πολιτικό σύστημα. Την αδιαφορία των κοινωνιών, τον «ευρωσκεπτικισμό» και το φάσμα πολιτικών αποτελεσμάτων στις επικείμενες εκλογές τα οποία όπως λέει το άρθρο θα επιτείνει την αντίσταση για εμβάθυνση της ολοκλήρωσης. Αυτή είναι μια τυπική αντίληψη πολλών δυτικών αναλυτών που ελάχιστα σχετίζεται με τα πραγματικά προβλήματα της ευρωπαϊκής ολοκλήρωσης. Αυτά μεταξύ άλλων, όπως πολλά κείμενα που αναρτούμε επισημαίνουν, είναι και τα εξής: Η έμμεση αντιπροσώπευση γίνεται πολλαπλά έμμεση όσο αυξάνονται τα επίπεδα λήψης αποφάσεων και όσο οι «αντιπρόσωποι» εκλέγονται κάθε 4-5 χρόνια, εξαφανίζονται και επανέρχονται στις ευρωεκλογές όχι για να συζητήσουν θέματα ευρωπαϊκής ολοκλήρωσης αλλά θέματα εθνικής πολιτικής. Ούτως ή άλλως, επιπλέον, όχι μόνο δεν εκλέγονται ευθέως από κάποια ευρωπαϊκή κοινωνία (ποια είναι αυτή;) αλλά και οι αρμοδιότητές τους είναι ρευστές, αμφίσημες και χαοτικές, προκαλώντας ενίοτε πολιτικό ανορθολογισμό. Ποιος ήταν για παράδειγμα ο ρόλος του Ευρωκοινοβουλίου τα τελευταία χρόνια και ποιες πρωτοβουλίες πήρε για αποφασιστική αντιμετώπιση της κρίσης που ολοένα και βαθαίνει. Στην συνέχεια βέβαια, είναι και η πορεία της Ευρωπαϊκής ολοκλήρωσης. Το άρθρο λέει για εμβάθυνση. Δηλαδή, περισσότερους θεσμούς πάνω σε ένα διαφοροποιημένο εθνοκρατικό περιβάλλον, τα μέλη του οποίου κινούνται με διαφορετικούς ρυθμούς ανάπτυξης αλλά και στο πλαίσιο διαφορετικών κοινωνικοπολιτικών συστημάτων. Μήπως εμβάθυνση χρειάζεται το εγχείρημα της ολοκλήρωσης ή αντίθετα μεταρρύθμιση για να εξορθολογιστούν οι δομές με λιγότερους υπερεθνικούς θεσμούς. Όσοι δε μείνουν να υπακούνε στα διακρατικά όργανα για να διασφαλίζεται πολιτικός ορθολογισμός και να μειώνεται η αυτονόμηση των τεχνοκρατών. Βέβαια, πάνω σε ένα τέτοιο περιβάλλον, μπορεί να επιβληθεί πολιτικοοικονομική δικτατορία. Δεν θα το δεχθούν οι ευρωπαϊκές κοινωνίες. Αυτή είναι κάτι που κανείς δεν έχει την πολυτέλεια να το παραγνωρίζει. Για την θέση και τα σχέδια των Αμερικανών όσον αφορά την ΕΕ, βέβαια, πάντα υπάρχουν πολλά ερωτήματα.
May 5, 2014 | 0902 GMT
Members of the European Parliament vote in Strasbourg, eastern France, on Dec. 12, 2013, on procedures to take after Ukraine rejected an EU association agreement.(FREDERICK FLORIN/AFP/Getty Images)
The European Parliament’s evolution from a consulting assembly to a supranational chamber with significant legislative powers highlights the extent of EU members’ concerns about the democratic legitimacy of the continental bloc. After the May 22-25 election, the European Parliament will face three significant challenges: an electorate that is uninterested in the continental body, the onslaught of Euroskeptical parties wanting to weaken the European Union from within and national governments that will resist EU attempts to deepen continental integration.
The European Parliament is a quintessentially EU product. It is meant to represent more than 500 million citizens. It is unique in the sense that it is the world’s only democratically elected international institution, and it is involved in some of the most important policies of the continental bloc. And yet, only four in 10 Europeans voted in the recent elections for the parliament, and the number is expected to decline again this year. More important, opinion polls show that most Europeans do not really understand what the European Parliament is and how it works.
The History of the European Parliament
Since its inception in the early 1950s, the European integration project was driven mostly by the continent’s elites, with little to no participation by voters. No referendum was held when Western Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg created the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952 and the European Atomic Energy Community and European Economic Community — the predecessor of the European Union — in 1957.
Since the goal of these projects was a progressive transfer of national sovereignty to supranational institutions, its members believed that national parliaments should have some degree of participation. A Common Assembly was created, with members drawn from the national parliaments, but the assembly had no real legislative powers.
The Europeans decided to place this assembly in Strasbourg. The choice was extremely symbolic, as the city is located on the border between France and Germany — a perennial battle zone between Europe’s largest powers. In the 1980s, they built a second chamber in Brussels, so parliamentarians could be closer to the headquarters of most EU institutions. The institution also has administrative offices in Luxembourg. This has led to strong criticism and accusations of squandering money, as EU parliamentarians have to commute between Brussels and Strasbourg and sometimes even Luxembourg. However, Belgium, France and Luxembourg are not willing to give up their seats because they bring prestige, jobs and financing to each country.
Over time, this Common Assembly would evolve into the European Parliament, and its powers would grow substantially. The first milestone took place in 1979, when its members were directly elected for the first time. Along with greater democratic legitimacy came greater legislative powers. Treaty reforms in the 1990s and 2000s progressively enhanced the role of the European Parliament in EU decision-making. With the Treaty of Lisbon (2009), the parliament was given power equal to that of the Council of the European Union (which represents national governments) in almost all areas of EU legislation.
Composition and Powers
The European Parliament is made up of representatives from the 28 members of the European Union, who are elected for five-year terms. Countries are awarded seats in the parliament depending on their population. As in many EU institutions, power and influence are unevenly distributed: eight countries (Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania) account for more than three-quarters of the electorate and for around two-thirds of the seats. These are the key countries to watch during elections. The exact formula for awarding seats and the maximum and minimum number of seats that a country is allowed to have are long-standing subjects of negotiations between member states, sometimes leading to friction.
Despite these national differences in terms of representation, most national political parties belong to some larger political family at the European level, such as the European People’s Party (which includes several center-right parties) and the Party of European Socialists (which includes various center-left parties). Caucuses in the European Parliament are organized according to political ideology and membership in these continental parties rather than nationality, and so are most of the debates.
Since the parties in the European Parliament do not respond to a government in the same way they would in a country, internal cohesion becomes a key element of their power and influence. Sensitive topics such as agriculture and social affairs tend to be particularly disruptive for the otherwise coherent groups in the parliament. In general, populist and anti-establishment groups tend to be less cohesive than their mainstream rivals in the center-left and the center-right. No single group has ever held an absolute majority in the European Parliament, so agreements, compromises and long negotiations are normal during the decision-making process.
Recent treaty reforms have sought to put the European Parliament on equal footing with the Council of the European Union in making EU-level decisions, creating a system that loosely resembles a bicameral structure in which the approval of both institutions is required for legislation to pass. But unlike national legislatures, the European Parliament does not have legislative initiative, which is reserved for the European Commission (which is supposed to represent the general interests of the European Union instead of the particular interests of member countries).
The European Parliament therefore has a say on most significant EU policies, including agriculture, energy, immigration, trade regulations and international agreements (for example, association and trade agreements with non-EU states). More important, it is involved in approving the annual allocations of the EU budget — something that has enhanced its political role in Europe substantially — and it has the final say in approving the president and composition of the European Commission and accepting its composition (the parliament has the power to accept or reject a commission as a whole, but not individual nominees). And according to the Lisbon Treaty, the selection of the next European Commission president should take into consideration the results of the European Parliament elections — which could create tensions between the European Parliament and member states.
However, the European Parliament does not have a say on most aspects of EU foreign policy, which remains largely in the hands of individual member states. A key characteristic of EU integration is that member states are more willing to give up some national sovereignty in economic issues than in sensitive areas of military and foreign policy. These are key areas where national prerogatives remain almost intact and where unanimity is required to adopt EU-wide policy. For instance, during the Ukrainian crisis the European Parliament did not have a relevant role in the debate over sanctions against Russia. But this does not mean that the parliament is completely powerless in terms of foreign policy: The institution is in charge of approving foreign aid to countries outside the European Union, a significant factor in EU foreign policy.
Why the Upcoming Elections Matter
A key challenge for the European Parliament in the coming years will be overcoming voter apathy. Average turnout for European Parliament elections declined from 63 percent in 1979 to 43 percent in 2009, with some countries showing turnout below 20 percent. Despite its enhanced powers, the body has not effectively communicated its role and importance to most Europeans. Since the upcoming elections will be held in the context of Europe’s political and economic crisis, turnout is likely to reach a new record low.
At the same time, elections for the European Parliament traditionally revolve around domestic issues, with candidates only marginally campaigning on EU issues and voters using these elections to reward or punish the ruling parties. This means that many voters will see the upcoming elections as a low-cost opportunity to punish the ruling elites and support alternative parties — most notably Euroskeptical and nationalist groups.
As a result, anti-establishment parties will see record performances in the elections. However, they are unlikely to form a coherent alliance in the European Parliament because of their different agendas and personal differences among their leaders. In any case, a greater representation in the continental legislature means more funding and resources to keep growing at home and increased political influence over moderate parties. In recent months, mainstream parties have adopted issues from the nationalists’ agenda to remain popular, and the process will probably continue after the European Parliament elections. An increase in the number of seats held by anti-EU parties will also force those in the pro-EU camp to work closely together — something that could lead to difficult compromises and threaten the cohesion of the largest party families.
The European crisis poses yet another challenge to the European Parliament, as a growing number of national governments are challenging the supremacy of European institutions over national institutions. The most visible case has been the United Kingdom, which is currently proposing that national parliaments have stronger veto powers over European legislation. Recently, the Dutch parliament has also expressed support for keeping decision-making as close as possible to the national level. Recent moves by the German Constitutional Court regarding policies by the European Central Bank also highlight the extent to which constitutional institutions at the national level feel uncomfortable with developments at the supranational level.
Therefore, the next European Parliament will have to deal with a more hostile environment, as some member states will resist its push to give EU-level organizations more influence. It will also face an environment in which some of the most crucial decisions involving the future of the eurozone are made through intergovernmental treaties instead of EU procedures (the Fiscal Compact Treaty is a key example). In other words, the next European Parliament will fight to defend its role amid political fragmentation, which is leading to stronger nationalist tendencies across the continent.