A European Inauguration?

The sky was great, the air was cold. The first week-end of december did not stand out. The news was focused on the upcoming Nato Summit, Black Friday and COP19. However within European institutions this was less so. A flurry of activity was taking place. Juncker and his Commission were stepping down and a new one, under von der Leyen, was taking over. At the same time, former Belgian Prime minister Charles Michel, became Europes other president (of the European Council). While this change had been months in the making, it happened with relatively little fanfare. Tweets were posted, speeches were held, but very little of it was covered. I almost missed it myself. Most newspapers, if they mentioned it at all, mentioned it in passing. New proposals as well as the political intrigue in the European Council received some coverage, yet outside of dedicated EU newspapers coverage remained scarce.

A lot is said about the need to create a more European identity, that the European Commission and European policies should be closer to the common European citizens. At the same time most Europeans do not know the first thing about the European institutions. While many will know they have voted for them, few know the distinctions between Parliament, Council and Commission. The Commission being one of the most influential regulatory bodies in Europe, we would expect a certain amount of coverage of a change in leadership. Considering it influences almost every aspect of your life, food, medicine, cars, you name it, a healthy debate should be expected to keep it to account. Especially when so many newspapers criticise the EU for being undemocratic and unrepresentative of the European citizen. However it isn’t covered very well. It reflects the indifference that many people have towards European politics. Many newspapers do not cover the event as there is little interests for their readers/viewers. Some countries, such as the Netherlands lack a healthy contingent of journalists covering European affairs. Little interest means little coverage, which means interest will remain low. Making sure that everyone is informed about a change of leadership in the Union is important. With little understanding of Union structures, people will find it difficult to relate. No less because data shows that when Europeans care about a topic and show this, that the commission is more likely to take these into consideration. One way of creating more awareness is to create an inauguration style day where there is a formal handover of power. A day not too dissimilar to the American one.

The American inauguration is an eye catching event. People and media remain obsessed with it for days. It dominates the media headlines and generates great pomp. It creates, at least in part, awareness about the president. It is a strong message, a symbolic start to the presidency marking the start the first hundred days, a time during which presidents will announce many new policies. The hundred days also serve as a measuring stick against previous presidents, to see how successful they will be. Inauguration day is an important day in American political life.

While I am not advocating for anything as elaborate as the American day, I do believe in the need for a European equivalent. While European political tradition is a lot more humble, with inaugurations being the exception rather than the norm, doing it for the EU has many benefits. It creates a formal cycle that will be followed. It attracts the attention of the crowd, and will give newspapers something to write about. This will ensure that more people passively learn about the EU and thus create more awareness about the different institutions. It would also further create a platform to announce new policies. While already people are talking about the first hundred days of the Commission, it is worth thinking about spreading the message further than the circles in which it exists now.

Such an event does not necessarily have to be a standalone thing nor does it have to be expensive. For example it could be merged with a European summit, making it more flamboyant and special. All European leaders would already be in attendance, which would create more fanfare. Equally, there is no need for large military parades, or the closure of the entire city to accommodate the event. It does not even have to happen in Brussels every time and could rotate between different regions. The aim is to have a ceremony which attracts attention so that awareness about the functioning of Europe is spread. Giving the platform and the show however will attract journalists which will lead to coverage, and citizen involvement.

Europe should develop its own day for the transfer of power as there are many benefits to having one. While it does not have to be as grand or as imposing as American inauguration day, there should at least be a visible sign of change. It can bring the Commission president closer to European citizens and send a stronger message than a change of colour of the huge banner hanging from the Berlaymont. A proper European inauguration event will create news to talk about and share, thus creating more awareness about European institutions and policy.

Misha Stocker, master student European Governance in Utrecht

On Politicisation

Featured

Why does the EU exist? What is the reasoning behind its continued existence? Why does everyone seem to just assume it is a good idea? These are all questions that a friend was asking me over a beer last week. He deplored the fact that this conversation was not taking place. That the idea that the EU is a good thing seems to be an accepted fact. While I disagree with the assumptions that he is making, I understand the feeling that it conveys. It also raises an important question: Politicisation in the EU. Far from being uncontested, I think that there is a vivid debate going on at the highest levels about the Future of the European Union. The obvious example is Brexit and nationalism. Whether the EU should continue to exist in its current form. However you also have a very existant debate within Pro-European parties or between countries. Within parties visions often mirror ethos on a national level. Social democratic parties want more social, and liberal parties like the economy (Simplifications I know). Countries also disagree about priorities and strategy. France and Germany have very different conceptions of how further Integration should happen, and what should be the focus of change. The ongoing negotiations about the next European long term budget shows this well. Different blocs have formed, pushing different agenda’s. However these differences in visions are not visible, or hidden. Some issues might be salient such as the reforms that Macron is trying to push forwards, but in many areas they are more ambiguous. It is what my friend was referring too. Unless you follow European affairs closely, many of these disagreements will be missed. Instead you will hear about the agreements that have been reached. It will thus seem that you always have an agreement on what happens next.

It is important to note that Europe is a system built on compromise. The EU can only exist if everyone gets a piece of the cake. If there were many losers, and countries felt that they were disadvantaged a lot, it would be disentivising them to remain member states. European policy making tries to compromise a lot in order to ensure that everyone gets what they want. It’s technocracy in many ways is what has allowed it to thrive. When Monnet created the system, the aim was to create an endless negotiation. By creating policy which everyone could agree with broadly, but where there were disagreements about details, the focus shifted away from competition and towards cooperation. While there might still be many disagreements about policy making, economics and various industries, at least they will be put to use in a productive way. This has resulted in a very technocratic and compromising system. As everyone wants certain things, compromises have to be made. Member States are also very aware of this. Permanent representation will try to create circumstances in which other member states can agree to legislation that favours them. Whether this is done through concessions, bartering or creating circumstances for other member states to drop their objections without losing face. The seeming agreement at the top of European politics exists thus not because everyone agrees about the Future of the EU, it’s functioning or out an elitist lack of interest. Rather it exists as it is the most sustainable way to keep the Union functioning and the best way to push your own agenda forwards.

If you are not looking for them, you are likely to miss the European debates going on.They are less visible, and happen at different levels. While specific issues are very visible, such as the rise of populism and nationalism, these debates are also often anchored in national dialogue. Issues on which Europe has competence, also tend to be issues that affect citizens less directly. In the past this has been especially true, with the EU focusing on economic affairs which are either hard to grasp or only affect a section of the population. However I believe this is about to change. New European ideas are starting to flow through. It started with the Juncker Commission, but will surely continue with van der Leyen’s one. With big policies such as European defence capabilities and European Climate Change policy gaining in salience, a lot more visibility will be given to European issues, which in turn will also politicise them. Public interest and discourse will create more awareness about them, and thus make differences in positions clearer.

The more politicisation the more EU responsiveness. However the less public support. LSE How politicisation facilitates responsiveness in the European Union

While to a certain extent this might be a good thing, it might also be a danger. When I was in Brussels last month with my master programme, an official told us that it was already harder to cooperate and to achieve compromise. Increasing public salience about issues is important to create a sense of involvement and interest in European affairs, but it will also make compromise harder. As positions become less ambiguous, Member states will find it more difficult to abandon position they have. Concessions made will be clearer and will thus create more entrenchment. While this will likely only happen in high salient issues (I mean how much do you know about regulation of products, even in your own country?), these high salient issues are often important factor in opinion formation. Take the example of migration. Bad management thereof has soured public opinion about the EU at least in part. Migration, being a highly salient issue in many countries, is also one of the areas in which the EU has the most difficulties to find a compromise. While migration might be an extreme, it does show effect of positional entrenchment. This is turn will push the EU towards a more winner/loser model which will he harder to accept for national governments and people alike.

Politicisation of European policy is good, but it also has its problems. Increases in saliency provides for more dialogue and accountability. It also allows European citizens to be more involved in policy making. Yet it also result in policy making being harder. In a way this paradox shows one of the problems of further European integration. Until now, Integration has worked so well as it has been about negative integration (the taking away barriers to trade, and harmonising). Now that Europe is also thinking about ambitious new projects, that have high visibility with people, stronger opinions are going to become more widespread too, endangering the capacity of member states to work with each other. This is also reflected in research. While it shows that increases in politicisation has a lot of benefits, it comes with dangers. Europe thus has to find a proper balance between creating more saliency and not alienating people and governments to the project.

The benefits of increased European policy is that people will relate more to the policy. That you increase the capacity of citizens to feel as if they have influence. The danger is that it becomes harder to compromise. The answer would be to clarify the roles between the different European institutions and use them as best as possible. The European Parliament power in legislation should be strengthened while the Council is allowed to keep its ambiguity. The Parliament should come to represent the needs of the people while the Member States in the council look after their own national interest. A strong start for increasing politicisation of the Parliament is to give it the right of initiative in certain fields. Fields that are of importance to the citizens, but don’t threaten member states. For example regulation of products, agriculture, environmental policy, privacy, etc can become areas where Parliament can gain more initiative. This will allow it to react and interact to citizen actions. The right of petition can then also be entrenched in this system. It could also further be expanded by creating a system such as exists in the British House of Commons now. For example a system could be set up where the current right to petition is integrated together with a right to allow groups of citizens to request a debate in a specific committee.

The aim should be to increase interaction between European citizens and the European parliament, and allow the latter to become proper representatives. With more access, it would create a strengthening of the debate in the European Parliament itself, which will be healthy for the discourse. If policies that are important to citizens are debated more openly, and that enough access exists, than Europe can benefit from the increased saliency.

Conversely, the Council should remain ambiguous and less visible. While it will of course be expected that national governments represent the interests of their people, the council should strive to remain a forum of compromise. Ultimately all institutions will have to agree with one another, but the council should remain more hidden. For this reason, the European parliament should then also not receive the right of initiative in certain fields. Migration, fishing rights and international affairs comes to mind. These are policies where national governments can have a lot more difficulties compromising. An environment should be created in which citizen pressure on European affairs is pushed towards the European Parliament and not their own member states.

Of course this is easier said than done. Ultimately when emotions and feelings run high, pressure groups and activists will try and influence legislation through any means possible. By facilitating access to the European parliament, and giving them more influence over legislation, this can be mitigated to a certain degree. There will always be a competing interest, with people also being represented in National Parliaments. However by making the EP more political, interests of citizens will be better represented. More interaction with citizens is beneficial and a European dialogue on European issues is required. The Council meanwhile can protect national interest, maintain a strong degree of influence over issues that matter to member states and remain a bastion of compromise.

Misha Stocker, Master student in European governance in Utrecht Netherlands

Inclusion of National Parliaments in the EU Legislative Process.

Featured

“I am proud of what we have achieved together with the national parliaments. The political dialogue both contributes to raising awareness on European issues in national parliaments and to give the Commission a better view of the national political landscapes. This brings Europe a step closer to its citizens.”

Commission President José Manuel Barroso, 2009

National parliaments have two main reasons to be involved in the EU legislative process. First, national legislators are the ones in charge of implementing EU directives in the national legal order. Second and most importantly, members of parliaments are supposed to represent their citizens. Involving national representatives in the decision-making at the EU level was, therefore, perceived as a possible solution against the democratic crisis of European Institutions. The more the EU was integrating, the more legislative powers were passed from the national to the EU level. Thus, national legislators were described as the “victims” of integration.

In the 2000’, the then president of the commission, Manuel Barroso, engaged himself to better involve national parliaments in the policy-making process at the European level. One of the most visible actions was in 2006 when he announced the creation of a substantive political dialogue. It gives the possibility for national parliaments to send opinions to the Commission on any documents produced by the institutions, especially on EU legislation drafts. The Political Dialogue impose on EU institutions to send any documents to national parliaments. Today, this process is simplified via the platform [find name again]. National chambers have the possibility to send opinions on any of those documents. Yet, the Commission has no obligation to consider those opinions. This process has no binding effect.

Another important tool for involvement of National Parliaments in EU legislation is the Early Warning System. It was established in 2009 by the Lisbon treaty. Contrary to the political dialogue, the EWS is instituted in the EU treaties and have a legally binding effect. The early warning system is reserved to the control of subsidiarity. When national parliaments consider than the legislative proposal violate the subsidiarity principle. Those specific communications from national parliaments to the EU Commission concerning the control of the subsidiarity principle are named ‘reasoned opinion’. When a certain number of reasoned opinions are sent on a same legislation draft, the Commission has an obligation to give further justification about its draft or should modify it. Once the threshold is reached, it starts a procedure call “the yellow card”. So far 3 yellow cards have been launched since 2009. Yet none lead to the revision of the Commission proposal.

Nevertheless, these communications between national parliaments and the EU legislative process raised come questions. The first question concerns the substantive ability of national parliaments to influence EU legislation. None of the 3 “yellow cards’ procedures led to a modification of the EU legislative draft. Or at least the commission did not justify the modification of its draft on the basis of the subsidiarity principle. Some complained have raised from national parliaments on their effective power to control the use of the principle of subsidiarity. In fact the wording of the treaty explicitly mention “If reasoned opinions represent one third (one quarter in the area of freedom, security and justice) of the all the votes (each national Parliament shall have two votes), the draft must be reviewed. After such a review, the legislative initiator may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw the draft, but should motivate its decision.” (Article 7, Protocol 2 TEU). This last part of the article let the final decision to be in the hands of the EU legislators. The latest can freely decided to ignore the recommendation of the citizens representatives. This latest mention leads to the question : was the Early Warning System introduced as a make-up against the democratic deficit ? or was it meant to effectively involve national legislators, but avoiding a constant blockade by them ? was the Commission seen as more cooperative as it actually act now ?

source : European Commission Annual Reports on Relations Between the European Commission and
National Parliament, from 2006 until 2017.

Secondly, the action of the national parliaments at the European level is not well known by its citizens. Those are not aware of the influence of EU policies in their national legal order, nor on the influence of national parliamentarians on EU legislation. This lack of awareness could come from a lack of communication between the parliaments and their mandators, or to the complexity of the policies involved. Yet, a better communication towards the citizens is essential. It would improve their understanding of the mechanisms at stake, and their understanding of the role of their deputies. They would, thus, be able to take these information into consideration during elections and have better representation of their opinion. It would also create an incentive for parliamentarians to get involved in the EU decision process, creating a better coordination between the citizens expectations and EU legislation. Therefore, what blocks the communication from national parliaments on their action in the EU decision-making process ? Finally, some parliaments are more involved in EU policies than others. National parliaments are making very different use of the political dialogue. Yearly, the 10 most active parliaments are sending 80% of all opinions. This unequal participation is rising an important question : are all EU citizens defend in the same manners ? If one day, these participation mechanisms become effective, will citizens of certain countries have more influence than others on the decision taken at the European level ? The reasons why some national parliaments get more involved than other stay today unclear. Some scholars argued than the level of contestation over EU integration, the level of division on the right-left scale, the level of integration of a country in a policy of the EU, or even the institutional capacity (budget, administration) of a parliaments had positive impact on their participation in the EU legislation-making process. Yet, what are the incentives to contribution rest confused. In a situation where a more substantial use of the political dialogue or the early warning system would be genuine, we need to insure the equal opportunity of all EU citizens in the influence of EU legislation.

By Mélanie Véron-Fougas – A 1^st year Master student in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht.