Getting all the parliaments of Europe to work together
The formal involvement of the national parliaments in the political decisions of the European Union is one of the main keys to the success of the Lisbon Treaty.
It increases the powers that the EU shares with the Member States, while extending the legislative power of the European Parliament to cover all legal instruments and Community budget expenditure. This means that an increasing number of political decisions will be taken in Brussels and that the European Parliament will have greater involvement in the decision-making process, while the national parliaments will continue to play a vital role in mobilising the budgetary resources and any additional – and sometimes essential – legal means that are necessary for the success of a joint European measure. Take the example of the ‘Lisbon Strategy’ which aimed to make the European Union the most competitive economy in the world in just 10 years: it failed mainly because of the persistent disconnection between the European political debate, which defined the objective, and the debate in the Member States, on which 80% of the resources depended.
Hence the major advantage of systematically coordinating the work of the European Parliament, which has a continent-wide overview, and the national parliaments, which are perceived by the general public (and some high courts such as the German Constitutional Court) as more legitimate.
Admittedly, the new Treaty does give the national parliaments the power to censure a priori any Community projects that might infringe the principle of subsidiarity (known as the ‘early warning’ system), but this development confines them to a purely negative role. We must go much further, and it is perfectly possible to do so under the current Treaties.
An interparliamentary agreement, comparable, mutatis mutandis, to the interinstitutional agreements concluded between the EU institutions, could form the basis for such cooperation between all the parliaments of Europe: this would be a ‘contract’ that would have no binding legal effect but would involve a strong political constraint. Such an agreement could include the following undertakings:
1. Organisation of a system of mutual information and exchange of views in order to implement the ‘early warning’ mechanism.
2. Reciprocal commitments on EU legislation: before the European Parliament adopts a directive, it will inform its national counterparts, which may deliver an opinion if they so wish and as they so choose; conversely, the transposition of directives into national law will involve, for example, a hearing of the European Parliament’s rapporteur in order to determine the intention of the Community legislature.
3. A commitment by the European Parliament to consider any joint proposal submitted by the parliaments of a significant number of Member States; the parliaments must have the same power to make legislative proposals as that given to the people through the citizens’ right of initiative. Such a commitment would have even greater value if the Commission could subscribe to it, thereby speeding up the review process.
4. A joint debate held every spring on the budget guidelines for the following year. To engage the interest of the national media and, through them, the general public, it would be better if people participated from their own countries using video-conferencing. This would require all the Member States to use the same basic economic assumptions for the years N and N+1 and would mean that each parliament would naturally draw up and publish a list of all the national budget headings that help fund common European objectives or common policies. Such an event, which would take place before the parties involved are officially consulted about the future financial perspectives and the reform of the EU’s own resources, would be highly educational.
5. A joint debate held every year on the state of the Union, based on a statement by the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Unlike the previous proposal, this event would be more significant and attract more interest if all the parliaments’ political ‘heavyweights’ met in one place.
6. Launch of joint investigations on the effective application of Community law throughout the European Union.
7. Coordination of the sending of observers to monitor elections in sensitive third countries.
With regard to timing, this initiative would benefit from being launched in the first half of 2010, in close cooperation with the Spanish Presidency, so that initial feasibility tests might be carried out before reaching a formal agreement under the Belgian Presidency during the second half of the year and subsequently applying it on a full-year basis in 2011.
Alain Lamassoure, 30 October 2009