Search for 18 ”ghost MEPs” ─ Scandal in the making?

Some EU member states failed to provide for the election of the additional members of the European Parliament at the European elections in June 2009, and the member states as a whole neglected to start the treaty amendment process as a separate exercise to enter into force with the Lisbon Treaty, as proposed in the blog post: Lisbon Treaty & European Council: EP composition (until 2014) (19 March 2009).

We are now in a problematic situation with regard to the so called “ghost MEPs”, the additional members provided for by the Lisbon Treaty, plus the problem of three elected “supernumeraries” from Germany.


The latest official conclusions from the EU member states have been inconclusive, but Nicolas Gros-Verheyde on the French blog Europe sociale au jour le jour has a great post on the latest developments: La designation des députés supplémentaires conforme à la Charte des Droits? (13 December 2009).

According to the post, designating additional MEPs by national parliaments, without a direct election, seems to contravene the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.



Two more problems

Let me just add two more problems, which severely limit the scope for “creativity” by the member state governments. In my humble opinion:

1) Article 223 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides that the rules for the election of MEPs are laid down by the Council on a proposal by the European Parliament (and later after obtaining its consent). Can an intergovernmental conference dispense with this provision? Hardly.

Anyway, an IGC without a Convention would need the consent of the European Parliament under the Lisbon Treaty (Article 48(3) TEU).


2) Not only does the treaty (now Article 223(1) TFEU) require “direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States or in accordance with principles common to all Member States”, but the amended Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage states that the elections have to be proportional:

Article 1

1. In each Member State, members of the European Parliament shall be elected on the basis of proportional representation, using the list system or the single transferable vote.

2. Member States may authorise voting based on a preferential list system in accordance with the procedure they adopt.

3. Elections shall be by direct universal suffrage and shall be free and secret.

Source: Council Decision of 25 June and 23 September 2002 amending the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, annexed to Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom, published OJ 21.10.2002 L 283/1.



Conclusion

Indirect appointments by national parliaments contravene the requirement for direct universal suffrage.

Future elections in the neglectful states would be “first past the post” elections, or close. In no way would they fulfil the criteria for proportional representation, with a maximum hurdle of 5 per cent nation-wide.

As far as I understand, the only legally tenable solution (in a bad situation) is to designate the new members of the European Parliament in the neglectful member states on the results of the June 2009 European Parliament elections, using objective criteria: the constituency next in line for an additional seat, the candidate next in line to win the seat.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Read, comment and discuss our future on the 494 euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, our common European “village well” for fact, opinion and gossip.

To the Press service of the European Parliament

You have informed the public ahead of the European Parliament elections, and you continue to update the official results. I am grateful for your innovative and informative work.

We have now entered a new stage, where the political parties negotiate to establish the political groups. Officially, the formations are announced at the inaugural session on 14 July 2009.

There is still a month to go, and even longer before the announcements are published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

I wonder, could you do something to bridge the gap, by collecting unofficial announcements of the political groups and parties, and by publishing them in one place?

Could you add an unofficial page on the election results, with the anticipated group sizes, because as it is, “known” changes are not reflected on the official results page?

I understand that you cannot take responsibility for informal agreements or statements by players, but you could indicate the sources responsible.



Ralf Grahn

European elections 2009: MEPs from Sweden

Here are the 18 elected Swedish members of the European Parliament, as presented by the EU Information Centre (EU-upplysningen):




Socialdemokraterna
PES 5

Marita Ulvskog
Olle Ludvigsson
Åsa Westlund
Göran Färm
Anna Hedh



Moderaterna
EPP 4

Gunnar Hökmark
Anna Maria Corazza Bildt
Christofer Fjellner
Anna Ibrisagic



Folkpartiet
ALDE 3

Marit Paulsen
Olle Schmidt
Cecilia Wikström



Miljöpartiet
Greens 2

Carl Schlyter
Isabella Lövin



Centerpartiet
ALDE 1

Lena Ek



Kristdemokraterna
EPP 1

Alf Svensson



Vänsterpartiet
GUE/NGL 1

Eva-Britt Svensson



Piratpartiet
(Greens or ALDE?) 1

Christian Engström



Totalt 18

Gender balance: Ten women and eight men.


Ralf Grahn

European Parliament: Two mainstream majorities

The overall results of the European Parliament election results shifted only marginally yesterday, with the recount awarding one MEP to the Greens at the expense of the PES (provisional results 10 June 2009 12:20 CEST).



The European Citizen has written a thoughtful post on the power balance and prospects in: The Battle for the Commission Presidency (10 June 2009).



The results of the vote counting are probably almost final, so the potential changes will have to do more with how the political groups are formed.

Beyond the question of the vote for the Commission President and the various internal EP posts, the European Parliament needs a majority of its constituent members to amend legislative proposals: 369 out of 736 MEPs.

Let us assume that the mainstream groups prefer to work with each other, instead of courting the fringe groups (which have yet to materialise). In that case there would be one constant and two possible variations (with the numbers we have today).


Indispensable EPP

In each case, there is no going around the Group of the European People’s Party (EPP), the largest political group with 264 representatives.


Grand coalition

The traditional “grand alliance” would add the Socialist Group in the European Parliament (PES), which is second largest with 161 members of the EP.

This alternative reflects the current coalition government in Germany, but there it seems to be in its dying days. It is also possible that the socialists, social democrats and Labour movements at European level feel the need to rebuild their political message, without being tainted by daily compromises.


Non-socialist coalition

It looks probable that the German voters will offer the Christian Democrats and the Liberals a mandate at the next election. In German terms this would be a black-yellow coalition, but in the EP blue-yellow (incidentally like the Swedish Council Presidency).

The problem is that in the European Parliament a coalition of the EPP and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) would fall short of the needed majority (by 25 votes at the present time; as it happens, the exact number of the emigrating UK Conservatives).

The Greens made a strong showing in the European elections, so it would be an acknowledgement of the vote to include them in a coalition. With the Greens on board, an EPP-ALDE-Green coalition would represent 397 votes, which attains the needed majority.

But the Greens have campaigned with a view to build a coalition with the PES. They have resisted the appointment of Barroso. A shift in alliances might not go down well with their MEPs or voters, despite the obvious advantages.


Jokers in the pack?

The decisive issue will be, where the EPP finds its future partners. For them the ideal would be to entice into their group a sufficient number from the ranks of nationalists and others, MEPs who at the present time are labelled as Others, UEN or IND/DEM. The second option might be a permanent understanding without group membership.

Here the EPP competes with the nationalist ‘European Conservatives’, who have already bagged 49 MEPs and are looking for representatives from at least four additional member states to be able to form a group.

Neither the EPP nor the ‘European Conservatives’ can contemplate recruiting the most xenophobic and fascistoid elements among the remaining 97 MEPs, so the remaining options are fairly slim for both of them.

We are still waiting for the fat lady to sing.


Ralf Grahn

Political groups in European Parliament: Nationalists and others

Here is an invitation to a virtual collaborative effort. We need the help from readers who know the various national parties, which made it into the European Parliament 2009.


At least temporarily outside the mainstream groups in the European Parliament 2009 are the MEPs from domestic parties I have bunched together as nationalists or others.

At this point there are 146 MEPs (20%), distributed among the unspecified collection Others (93), Union for Europe of the Nations Group (UEN) (35) and Independence/Democracy Group (IND/DEM) (18).


***

Others


The nationalist anti-federalists will reduce the Others group by at least 34 MEPs: UK Conservatives 25 and Czech ODS 9.

The Italian Partito Democratico (21) will probably join the PES group (or ALDE).

The Swedish Pirate Party (1) aims to sit with the Greens or the Liberals.

There isn’t going to be a Libertas group, so Timo Soini of the True Finns (Perussuomalaiset) will have to look for a new option.

These moves would leave 37 members to join some political group if they want to avoid the fate of non-attached representatives (NI). Where are they going to end up?


Others
• Belgium 3 (Vlaams Belang 2, List Dedecker 1)
• Bulgaria 2 (National Union Attack - Ataka 2)
• Czech Republic 9 (Civic Democrats - ODS 9)
• Estonia 1 (I. Tarand Independent 1)
• Ireland 1 (Socialist Party - SP 1)
• Spain 1 (Union, Progreso y Democracia - UpyD 1)
• France 4 (Front National 3, Alliance des Outre-mers 1)
• Italy 21 (Partito Democratico 21)
• Cyprus 1 (Dimokratiko Komma - DI KO 1)
• Latvia 2 (Saskanas Centrs - SC 2)
• Lithuania 1 (Lietuvos lenku rinkimu akcija - LLRA 1)
• Hungary 3 (Jobbik 3)
• Netherlands 4 (Freedom Party - PVV 4)
• Austria 5 (Liste Dr Martin 3, Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs - FPÖ 2)
• Romania 3 (Paridul Romania Mare - PRM 3)
• Slovakia 1 (Ľudová strana - Hnutie za demokratické Slovensko - LS-HZDS 1)
• Finland 1 (True Finns 1)
• Sweden 1 (Pirate Party 1)
• United Kingdom 29 (Conservatives 25, British National Party - BNP 2, UUP 1, DUP 1)


***

UEN

When the Polish Law and Justice Party, PiS, of the Kaczynski twins leaves for the new nationalist group, the current UEN fails to reach the country and membership thresholds to establish a political group, without recruiting new members.

The battered Irish Fianna Fáil will join ALDE.

Is the new nationalist Tory-PiS-ODS group going to welcome the populist Danish People’s Party?

What else is going to happen?


Union for Europe of the Nations Group UEN
• Denmark 2 (Dansk Folkeparti - O 2)
• Ireland 3 (Fianna Fáil FF 3)
• Italy 9 (Lega Nord - LN 9)
• Latvia 3 (Pilsoniska Savieniba PS 2, Tēvzemei un Brīvībai/LNNK TB/LNKK 1)
• Lithuania 2 (Partija Tvarka ir teisingumas - TT 2)
• Poland 15 (Law and Justice Party - PiS 15)
• Slovakia 1 (Slovenská národná strana - SNS 1)


***

IND/DEM


The IND/DEM group is well below the needed seven member states and 25 MEPs, so it is not viable as a group without hefty recruitment.


Independence/Democracy Group IND/DEM
• Greece 2 (Popular Orthodox Rally - LA O S 2)
• France 1 (Libertas MPF-CPNT 1)
• Netherlands 2 (ChristenUnie-SGP 2)
• United Kingdom 13 (UKIP 13)

***

Will xenophobic and fascistoid parties be able to form a group of their own, or to join one?

***

If you know what the EP “loose ends” are going to do, please share your knowledge in the comments section.


Ralf Grahn

European Parliament: Forming political groups

The European Parliament’s web page Election results offers an update as of yesterday (provisional 9 June 2009 18:51 CEST)



If we sort the parties into rough categories, we get the following preliminary view of the balance of power in the European Parliament 2009 to 2014.

***

LEFT

Left 32 (4%)
• Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL) 32

***

MAINSTREAM


Centre-left 162 (22%)
• Socialist Group in the European Parliament (PES) 162


Centre 132 (18%)
• Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA) 52
• Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) 80


Centre-right 264 (36%)
• Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) (EPP) 264

***


NATIONALISTS AND OTHERS


Nationalists and others 146 (20%)
• Others 93
• Union for Europe of the Nations Group (UEN) 35
• Independence/Democracy Group (IND/DEM) 18


***


The categories are mainly based on historical affinities, although the sub-group of European Democrats has been eliminated.

Theoretically 369 is a majority, but often it is needed in practice, when a majority of the component members is required. The total number of MEPs is 736.

The combined strength of the mainstream groups is 558 at this moment. This number will probably rise as others, like the Italian Partito Democratico and the Irish Fianna Fail, join the mainstream political groups.

***

The nationalists and others are most fascinating, because considerable movement is to be expected. The UK Conservatives, the Polish Law and Justice Party and the Czech Civic Platform (49 MEPs) will be joined by others to establish the announced nationalist and anti-federalist group, probably the fourth largest.

***

At this stage, the Independence/Democracy Group does not reach the threshold of 25 MEPs from seven EU member states. In its present incarnation, the Union for Europe of the Nations Group is doomed as well, because the Polish Law and Justice Party (PiS) will part with 15 MEPs.

Ultra-nationalists often serve their xenophobic and/or anti-EU views in similar populist packages, but their nationalisms tend to be mutually exclusive.


Ralf Grahn

European Parliament election results (updates)

Reporting on the outcome of the elections to the European Parliament has changed during the cause of the events. In some cases it started with exit polls, then partial results and projections, later provisional counts etc.

The European Parliament’s web page Election results: towards the new Parliament follows the developments, so minor changes were noted yesterday (provisional 8 June 2009 17:19 CEST). Yesterday’s figure for turnout was 42.94%.



The official, final results will be confirmed later in the member states.

The politically interesting events will take place in the negotiations to form the political groups in the European Parliament, ahead of the inaugural session on 14 July 2009.

Changes can take place in any group, but especially the large group Others (93), UEN (35) and IND/DEM (19) are worth following.

From the beginning of the new term, a political group needs at least 25 MEPs from seven EU member states.

***

EP Rules of Procedure

The European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure are useful for those, who want to follow the decisions to be taken at the beginning of the new parliamentary term. The latest update posted on the EP’s web pages is of 6 April 2009.




Ralf Grahn

European elections: A snapshot of gender equality and democratic choice

The European Parliament has not yet published the 2009 gender distribution of the elected MEPs. After the 2004 European elections 31 per cent of MEPs were women.

The election result in Finland will shift the balance to a degree: eight women (about 61%) and five men were elected out of a total of 13 MEPs.

If there is anything remarkable about the result, it is the fact that it is based on the individual choices of voters. Each citizen votes for an individual candidate, on a party list. The lists function as teams, being awarded proportional representation according to their total number of votes. Within the list the order of the candidates is determined by their individual votes.

This means that the outcome is not based on quotas, or closed lists manipulated in a politically correct manner. They reflect the choices of the individual electors.

Besides, the electoral system allows the voter to assess all the qualities of a candidate, of which gender is but one.

In Finland, with a population of 5.3 million, the whole country was one electoral district, so each voter was able to select among all the available candidates (241 representing 13 parties).

Elections are democratic, but some systems are more democratic than others.


Ralf Grahn

Richard Corbett MEP

These things happen, when people vote from other motives than securing the best possible representation in the European Parliament. Dr Richard Corbett, MEP, loses his seat when the newly elected EP convenes on 14 July 2009.

Corbett was one of the foremost representatives for the PES and Labour in the European Parliament, and he drafted many of the EP’s reports and opinions on institutional affairs, with Europe-wide significance.

He was also a frequent blogger, although the absence of comments and discussion was a sad indication of the quality of the EU debate in Britain.. His Blog – Richard Corbett MEP explained the workings and the issues of the European Parliament in reasoned terms.



Britain’s troubled relationship with Europe seems to be about to take a turn for the worse. Whatever happens, Dr Richard Corbett’s knowledge and capacity will be needed during the trying times ahead.


Ralf Grahn

European election results 2009: Finland

I will just pass on the detailed information in the biggest Finnish daily, Helsingin Sanomat, for those interested: SUNDAY NIGHT: True Finns and Greens advance in European Parliament elections as big parties suffer.





Ralf Grahn

European elections 2009: What happens next?

The European Parliament election results are provisional, but almost final results can be expected during the day.

Four out of ten EU citizens voted in these elections (43.09%), continuing the downward trend in turnout.

***

Left failed

Politically, I find the weakening of the centre-left (PES) and left (GUE/NGL) parties most astounding for the long term. In the middle of a financial crisis and a deep economic recession, the mainly opposition left parties failed to put forward a candidate for the Commission Presidency and to convince voters on alternative economic and social policies.

Only one out of four (about 26.3%) voted left, although the PES will remain the second largest political group in the European Parliament (159 MEPs); GUE/NGL 33 seats.

Source: European Parliament: Results of the 2009 European elections (provisional 8 June 2009 03:07 CEST).



***

Governable EP

The mainstream centre-right group of the European People’s Party seems set to remain the dominant group in the EP, with 267 seats (36.3% of the total).

The new European Parliament is governable. Taken together, the “constructive” or mainstream groups – EPP, PES, ALDE, Greens – would total 558 seats, or more than three quarters of the MEPs (75.8%), based on historical affinities, but the gains were generally made by hard or extreme right parties.

***

New political groups

Before the new European Parliament convenes on 14 July 2009, intense negotiations are going to take place to form the political groups, which are the instruments for parliamentary work.

Changes will take place among the nationalist right.

Especially the large group Others (90 seats), which includes the UK Conservatives, and UEN (Union for Europe of the Nations), with 35 seats, and IND/DEM (Independence/Democracy Group), with 20 MEPs, will see considerable movement.

The anti-federalist coalition announced by the UK Conservative Party (24 MEPs according to the BBC), the ultra-conservative Polish Law and Justice Party (PiS, Kaczynski twins) with 16 seats and the Czech ODS (Topolanek, ex Klaus) with 9 MEPs, already has 49 MEPs in the bag. It will encounter no problems with the minimum size of a political group (25), but it needs members from at least four additional member states.

The anti-federalists will have to find their new friends among the remaining 96 MEPs, who represent a wide variety of national populist and protest parties, some of them fascist and racist.

For the sake of propriety, the British Conservatives have to draw a line somewhere, but they will probably take on board enough allies to get the group formed.

For the UK Conservative Party the European Parliament is of secondary importance. They are doing all they can to expedite the demise of Gordon Brown’s Labour government, and to win the next general election.

In government, the Tories can start to put European integration in reverse gear, by demanding repatriation of powers, rejecting the Lisbon Treaty and blocking progress. Nobody seems to doubt the outcome of the next UK general election, but the timing of the election and the possible entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon have profound consequences for Europe.

***

Barroso Commission

The EPP will have to look for support in order to secure a majority for José Manuel Barroso as the President of the Commission. Under the Treaty of Nice, a simple majority is enough, but the EPP is about 102 votes short if they want to be on the safe side.

On the other hand, it is difficult to know how many of the British, Portuguese and Spanish PES MEPs (and perhaps others) are going to vote for Barroso in line with their party leaders and members of the European Council, which will put forward Barroso, probably on 18 to 19 June 2009.

Even theoretically it would be difficult to build a sufficient anti-Barroso coalition, to say nothing about a constructive alliance for a specific alternative candidate, although Guy Verhofstadt and Mario Monti have been mentioned.


Ralf Grahn

European election quiz answers

The quiz ahead of the European elections posed ten more or less serious questions about the European Union and the history of European integration.

There have been quite a few readers, although only one brave soul attempted to answers the questions.

Here are the questions and answers:



1) Which head of state would be your guess to think and act in the spirit of the Sun King, Louis XIV: L’Europe c’est Moi?


The country is the same, and for those who have followed the messages from the French President and the Elysée Palace it is hardly a surprise that Nicolas Sarkozy seems to fit the bill.

***

2) An insular political party which dismisses the obligation of the Article 1 TEU aim of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe as an outmoded irrelevance?

The UK Conservative Party has promised to repatriate EU powers, which is putting European integration in reverse. In addition, they promise to arrange a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, already ratified by the UK, or at least to take action if it is already in force.

***

3) A pan-European party on an anti-sleaze campaign, but practicing no openness or accountability with regard to its own affairs, political or financial?

This has been the stand of Libertas.

***

4) A political foundation in the United States contends that the Lisbon Treaty, approved by the national parliaments in 26 EU member states, lacks legitimacy?

The Heritage Foundation interprets the rules of representative democracy in this way, but they see the European Union as a threat.

***

5) A portal aggregating about 375 Euroblogs?

The number has grown since then, but the answer is Bloggingportal.eu.

***

6) The high official, who after securing behind-closed-doors support for a second term, has recorded a message that “Your vote matters. Please use it” for the European elections 2009?

The present and probably the future President of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso.

***

7) An elder statesman, who in 1946 called for a kind of United States of Europe?

British Conservative leader Sir Winston Churchill in his September 1946 speech at Zurich University.

***

8) A younger activist, imprisoned by the Fascists, who wrote the Ventotene Manifesto (1941) together with Ernesto Rossi?

Altiero Spinelli.

***

9) The architect of the European Parliament’s Draft treaty establishing the European Union (1984)?

Altiero Spinelli.

***

10) The only member state with more opt-outs from the existing treaties than the United Kingdom?

Denmark has four opt-outs at the present time (although the government sees them as problems rather than solutions).

The United Kingdom would reach the number of four under the Treaty of Lisbon.


***

In a few hours we will have a fairly accurate picture of the kind of European Parliament we are going to have for the legislative and budgetary work and scrutiny during the next five years.


Ralf Grahn

Towards a free and united Europe

Per un’Europa libera e unita – Towards a free and united Europe (1941).

***

We are not there yet, but we have come a long way:


Draft Treaty establishing the European Union (1984)

Preamble

With a view to continuing and reviving the democratic unification of Europe, of which the European Communities, the European Monetary System and European Political Cooperation represent the first achievements, and convinced that it is increasingly important for Europe to assert its identity;

Welcoming the positive results achieved so far, but aware of the present need to redefine the objectives of European integration, and to confer on more efficient and more democratic institutions the means of attaining them;

Basing their actions on their commitment to the principles of pluralist democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law;

Reaffirming their desire to contribute to the construction of an international society based on cooperation between peoples and between States, the peaceful settlement of disputes, security and the strengthening of international organizations;

Resolved to strengthen and preserve peace and liberty by an ever closer union, and calling on the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts;

Determined to increase solidarity between the peoples of Europe, while respecting their historical identity, their dignity and their freedom within the framework of freely accepted common institutions;

Convinced of the need to enable local and regional authorities to participate by appropriate methods in the unification of Europe;

Desirous of attaining their common objectives progressively, accepting the requisite transitional periods and submitting all further development for the approval of their peoples and States;

Intending to entrust common institutions, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only with those powers required to complete successfully the tasks they may carry out more satisfactorily than the States acting independently;

The High Contracting Parties, Member States of the European Communities, have decided to create a European Union


[Source: ENA]



***

Voting in the European elections today is a small step on this road, leading to a better future for our children and grandchildren.


Ralf Grahn

BBC’s election coverage

BBC World News on the radio just told us that tough choices are made when people are heading to the polls … in Lebanon (population 4 million).

Nothing in the headline news about 19 European countries, with something in the region of 300 milion potential voters, voting today.

Well, about 12 pas the hour, in the World Today programme I heard two questions. One on the unfolding story about UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, where the words ‘European elections’ were mentioned in passing as a part of his troubles, and one about “Europe in general”, answered in about five seconds.

Great coverage for half an hour of listening. Is this the Auntie accused of having a crush on Europe?


Ralf Grahn

European elections: Diverted in unity

Julien Frisch has shown more desperation than euphoria in his reflections on the European Parliament elections, and it is easy to see a number of reasons why.



On the other hand, this Sunday is the big day. On the BBC’s web page (European) Elections 2009 we find the 19 member states, where people are voting for their representatives in the European Parliament:



Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

The political parties at European level have remained on the sidelines, the choices are limited and the campaigns have been mainly national in scope.

The motto “United in diversity” is like a pale shadow of “E pluribus unum”, and today European Union citizens will probably be more diverted than united.

Despite the shortcomings, these are the most European elections we have at this point in history. The 40 per cent or whatever proportion of EU citizens who bother to vote will vote for a candidate or a party aiming for one of the institutions of the European Union, of growing importance at that.

It is true that national elections lead to the formation of governments, and that the Prime Ministers and other Ministers in the Council of the European Union have more of a say in what the EU becomes or isn’t allowed to become. But the weight of European affairs is even less in general elections.

There is something to be said for smooth interaction between national governments and parliaments in EU affairs, but scrutiny through 27 national prisms will never compensate for the lack of real parliamentary democracy and accountable government at EU level.

What would it look like, if national affairs were run by representatives of local Boards, and the important decisions had to be ratified by the local Councils, with a Parliament allowed to have a say on part of the issues?

***

Whatever the outcome of today’s European elections (and the earlier votes), the EU institutions will work the next four years, eleven months and 20-something days.

How well or badly will depend in part on today’s vote. Even when the choices and the impact are limited, some alternatives are more constructive than others.


Ralf Grahn

European elections: Ceterum censeo

With a piffling 19 EU member states to vote today, the BBC has – in an act of rare courage – allowed Mark Mardell to re-post his allusions about the sack of Carthage: Invasion relived (6 June 2009).



“Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam”. The words of Cato the Elder must still hit a raw nerve in the former Empire.

Moreover, I think that the European Union has to be destroyed, is as tenaciously proclaimed by many in Great Britain today.

There have always been people who see only zero sum games.


Ralf Grahn

Bruno Waterfield and a truly constitutional EU debate

Bruno Waterfield ends his column in The Telegraph, The EU elections that we can only lose (4 June 2009), by calling for a truly constitutional debate about the European Union: “The EU debate needs … to become constitutional in the true sense of the word. It needs to be about the nature of politics, who participates in politics, and to ask for whom political structures are organised. It needs to become an argument about what politics should be, in opposition to how it is - I don't see that in this European election.”



Our preferred solutions may point in different directions, but Waterfield is right about the need for a discussion about the fundamentals of European integration. What purposes should the European Union serve, if any? If the EU is necessary, how should it be organised in a democratic manner? Are referendums the way forward?

In my view, the European Union is an imperfect system, and the Treaty of Lisbon is the result of timid consensus. These European elections are not going to bring about sudden radical change, but during the coming five years the European Parliament can at least keep the torch alive. Among the main institutions, the EP is the most respected by and the best hope for EU citizens.

Sensible voting can help.


Ralf Grahn

European elections: Four constructive choices

Most of the members of the European Parliament (MEPs) we vote into office in the European elections 4 to 7 June 2009 are going to work in and with the political groups, which form the backbone of EP work.

Inside the European Parliament, the mainstream political groups run the show, so a vote for a fringe group serves little beyond promoting protest and antics.


The sensible choice is therefore to vote for a candidate or party, which is serious about the work of the European Parliament during the next five years: legislation, budget and scrutiny, as well as initiatives on the future of Europe and selected important issues of general concern.

The Treaty of Lisbon would improve the directly elected EP’s role in legislative and budgetary work (although the member states still hoard important policy areas, and we are far from a parliamentary EU level government).

In my view, there are four constructive choices (despite my critical opinion of internal EP reform).

Here are the four responsible political groups:



EPP

The centre-right Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) will probably be the largest political group in the European Parliament, even after the UK Conservatives, the Czech ODS (Topolanek) and the Polish Law and Justice Party (Kaczynskis) and a few others split to form an anti-Federalist group on the right.

One can hardly blame the EPP for fielding the only candidate to become President of the Commission.






PES

The Socialist Group in the European Parliament (Party of European Socialists; PES) is the second largest political group in the European Parliament, a wide coalition like the EPP. It contains different centre-left shades, from ardent socialists to Labour and social democrats.

In the United Kingdom, the “duck-house scandal” threatens to cause collateral damage among honourable and hard-working Labour MEPs, which would be a pity (as long as the UK remains a member of the EU, despite a probable Conservative government around the corner).






ALDE

Although a coalition like the rest of the groups, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) is perhaps the most pro-European and it has a good record on openness.

For thinking British voters, left without an attractive European home when the Tories split from the mainstream right to the hard right, the Liberal Democrats offer a sensible choice (together with the Greens and Labour).






The Greens/European Free Alliance

The Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens-EFA) are not alone in professing the virtues of sustainable development and the importance of environmental, cultural and democratic rights, but they have a certain credibility in this area, and are widely seen as a constructive force. The press for a New Green Deal.

In common with ALDE, the Greens have a good record on transparency.




***

You can agree or disagree with my suggestions, but shouldn’t it be self-evident that we vote the right person for the job at hand?


Ralf Grahn

European elections in Britain: In or out?

The European elections today in Britain mark the break-up of the Conservative Partys’s civil union with the European mainstream right and moving in with the right-far right in the European Parliament. The European elections will be an indication of the UK’s future position in Europe.

David Cameron wants to put European integration in reverse gear, but keep the United Kingdom inside the EU. Blocking the Lisbon Treaty and repatriating powers, using Britain’s veto on the EU’s next long term budget, are telling signs of a trajectory towards the fringes.


Social Europe Journal

In the Social Europe Journal, Henning Meyer takes a more principled stand. He sees that the ambiguity of the UK’s attitude towards European integration can only be resolved by a referendum on the membership question: “The Union is far from perfect but becoming better and it is the best hope for Europe to play a leading role in the politics of the 21st century. Britain should decide whether to stay in warts-and-all or leave.”

Britain’s Future in the European Union – Stay in warts-and-all of Leave (3 June 2009) is worth reading before the ballots are cast.



***

Federal Union

Richard Laming on the Federal Union blog has posted: Conservative policy on Europe becomes clearer (3 June 2009).



Laming does not see that a new intergovernmental conference under a veto threat concerning the long term budget would succeed or make Britain more influential.

***

Holding Europe hostage

If the latest UK governments have been fairly unconstructive, the probable future government party has chosen a style even more abrasive and confrontational. This calls for an assessment of their threats.

The advantages of the European Union, including the internal market, are naturally much wider than the “membership fees”, but anti-Europeans are usually obsessed by them.

In addition, it makes sense to evaluate the stranglehold the British contribution has on the European Union financially.


Nosemonkey’s EUtopia referred to the HM Treasury Report: European Community Finances Statement on the 2008 EC Budget and measures to counter fraud and financial mismanagement (Cm 7462, September 2008), which showed the following net contributions of the United Kingdom (£ billion):

(2006) 3.9
(2007) 4.6
(2008) 3.6 (estimated)





The UK net contribution is roughly £4 billion annually, which translates into something like €4.6 billion.

Switzerland and the non-EU members of the European Economic Area (EEA), Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, with access to the internal market, contribute to the EU budget.

***

Voters in the European elections in Britain send a signal on their country’s future relations with Europe. A vote for one of the parties in or near the European mainstream – the Liberal Democrats, the Greens or Labour – is a voice for some sort of constructive engagement.



Ralf Grahn

Europawahlen ─ European elections in German

On the European election pages of CAP, Centrum für angewandte Politiksforschung (Center for Applied Policy Research) Themendossier zur Europawahl 2009, you can find a lot of information about the upcoming European Parliament elections, some available in English.



Some documents link to outside sources, such as the bpb (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung) and European Alternatives, which we mentioned in the previous post.



The BPB has published a thematic issue on the European elections in their publication Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte (APuZ 23-24/2009; 2 June 2009; 48 pages).

The publication Europawahlen contains the following essays on the European Parliament elections:



AndreasM. Wüst •Markus Tausendpfund
30 Jahre Europawahlen

Ulrike Hegewald • Lars Schmitt
Die Deutschen vor der Europawahl 2009

Max Haller
Die europäische Integration als Elitenprojekt

Erich Röper
Sinnhaftigkeit von Plebisziten in europäischen Fragen

Sonia Lucarelli • Lorenzo Fioramonti
Das globale Image der Europäischen Union

Barbara Pfetsch • Annett Heft
Europäische Öffentlichkeit

JürgenMittag
Europäische Parteien imWandel

***

The publication is one of many quality examples of the civic education the BPB offers Germans and foreigners.


Ralf Grahn