Direct elections to the European Parliament were a decisive victory for European citizens in 1976, with the first directly elected EP in action since 1979.
But attempts to enact a uniform election procedure have failed miserably.
So has the European Parliament in informing the public, if I did not miss something. I failed to find any relevant information about the common principles or the duties and rights of MEPs on the European Parliament’s web pages dedicated to the European elections 2009.
***
Current treaty
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 190 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) set out the ambition to achieve an electoral code for the elections to the European Parliament.
The aim is expressed as a uniform procedure in all member states, but the fall-back option is the ‘or in accordance with principles common to all Member States’.
.
Paragraph 5 relates to the status and functions of the members of the European Parliament (MEPs).
Article 190(4) and (5) as published in the latest consolidated version of the treaties, OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/132:
4. The European Parliament shall draw up a proposal for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States or in accordance with principles common to all Member States.
The Council shall, acting unanimously after obtaining the assent of the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component members, lay down the appropriate provisions, which it shall recommend to Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
5. The European Parliament, after seeking an opinion from the Commission and with the approval of the Council acting by a qualified majority, shall lay down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the duties of its Members. All rules or conditions relating to the taxation of Members or former Members shall require unanimity within the Council.
***
Original Lisbon Treaty
Article 2, point 117 of the original Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) changed the heading of what became Part Six of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Point 178 repealed Article 189 TEC and point 179 deleted the first three paragraphs of Article 190 TEC (cf. Article 14 of the amended Treaty on European Union).
This left the fourth and fifth paragraphs of Article 190 to be amended as presented i the Lisbon Treaty, OJEU 17.12.2007 C 306/101:
INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS
177) Part Five shall be renumbered ‘PART SIX’ and its heading shall be replaced by ‘INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS’.
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
178) Article 189 shall be repealed.
179) Article 190 shall be amended as follows:
(a) paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall be deleted and paragraphs 4 and 5 shall be renumbered 1 and 2 respectively;
(b) paragraph 4, renumbered 1, shall be amended as follows:
(i) in the first subparagraph, the words ‘for elections by direct universal suffrage’ shall be replaced by the following: ‘to lay down the provisions necessary for the election of its members by direct universal suffrage’;
(ii) the second subparagraph shall be replaced by the following:
‘The Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component members, shall lay down the necessary provisions. These provisions shall enter into force following their approval by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.’;
(c) in paragraph 5, renumbered 2, the words ‘, acting by means of regulations on its own initiative in accordance with a special legislative procedure’ shall be inserted after ‘The European Parliament’.
***
Consolidated Lisbon Treaty
In the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty more constitutional aspects of the institutions are found in the Treaty on European Union Title III, with Article 14 TEU laying down the basic provisions concerning the European Parliament.
More mundane provisions relating to the institutions are collected in Part Six Institutional and financial provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), with Title 1 setting out institutional provisions. The first Chapter is headed The institutions, which begins with Section 1 The European Parliament.
Article 223 TFEU takes over and amends the leftovers, paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 190 TEC, OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/149:
PART SIX
INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS
TITLE I
INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 1
THE INSTITUTIONS
SECTION 1
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Article 223 TFEU
(ex Article 190(4) and (5) TEC)
1. The European Parliament shall draw up a proposal to lay down the provisions necessary for the election of its Members by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States or in accordance with principles common to all Member States.
The Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component Members, shall lay down the necessary provisions. These provisions shall enter into force following their approval by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
2. The European Parliament, acting by means of regulations on its own initiative in accordance with a special legislative procedure after seeking an opinion from the Commission and with the approval of the Council, shall lay down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the duties of its Members. All rules or conditions relating to the taxation of Members or former Members shall require unanimity within the Council.
***
Comment
Direct elections were foreseen in the Treaty of Rome, but it took until 1976 for the member states to agree on a directly elected Assembly (Decision 76/787). The first directly elected European Parliament began its activities in 1979.
The uniform electoral code remains the first option in Article 223(1) TFEU, but these efforts have failed, and only principles common to all Member States have been agreed, leading to huge variations between the member states. The elections are not even held on the same day in the whole European Union.
Even if the wording on the Council decision has changed, the essentials remain as cumbersome as before: Unanimous decision and approval by every member state.
The second paragraph has been reworded to underline the internal autonomy of the European Parliament.
The Treaty of Lisbon offers little new. The same can be said about the European Parliament’s web pages about the European elections 2009.
I failed to find any basic information about the common rules for the elections, or about the general conditions governing the performance of the duties of the MEPs to be elected.
Ralf Grahn
Showing posts with label European elections 2009. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European elections 2009. Show all posts
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Wednesday, 17 December 2008
Europarties
European level political parties will hopefully field candidates for the Commission Presidency and present platforms for an accountable, democratic and legitimate European Union ahead of the European elections in June 2009.
But until now, we have heard nothing or embarrassed murmurs from the established Europarties.
***
Background
Political parties at European level are recognised and funded by the European Union on certain conditions, including elected representatives in or from a quarter of the member states.
For an overview of the regulations and facts, you can read the Wikipedia article European political party:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_political_party
***
Libertas
Declan Ganley has announced that Libertas launches a pan-European campaign for the 2009 European Parliament elections:
http://www.libertas.eu/
Newspapers have reported that Ganley has applied for European Union funding and called for donations.
Calling itself a pan-European political movement, the ‘About us’ web page of Libertas does not reveal who ‘we’ are.
As long as Libertas has not shown that it has elected representatives in at least a quarter of EU member states (seven), it is not formally a political party at European level.
Then there is the question if Libertas is the first potential pan-European party (possibly even truly based on EU citizens instead of being a confederation of national political parties).
At least two earlier and existing examples come to mind.
***
Europe United
Europe United claims to be a pan-European political party established by citizens who believe in a stronger and more accountable European Union. Europe United believes the EU is the best forum to deal with the challenges of globalisation. Europe United is in favour of greater European integration, but at the same time Europe United remains critical of the way the way the European Union currently works and believes that democratic reform of the EU is necessary.
Europe United wants a Europe of the people, by the people and for the people.
For more information, go to:
http://europeunited.eu/modules/start/
According to the party history, United Europe was established and registered in Denmark in 2005, so if it is as potential as a recognised Europarty as Libertas, it is clearly older.
***
Newropeans
Newropeans describes itself as the first trans-European political movement, which will run for European elections in 2009 in all EU Member States with the same name, the same programme and the same objective. Their aim is to help turn the EU from a bureaucratic top-down project into a democratically managed political entity.
The Newropeans refer to a history of twenty years of European networking, with the formal launch of the party dated to 2005.
The Newropeans’ web site is found here:
http://www.newropeans.eu/index.php?lang=en
***
Seniority
Despite media reports to the contrary, we can establish that Libertas is not the first pan-European movement intent on becoming an official trans-European political party.
Actually the older ones, both Europe United and Newropeans seem to offer broadly similar positive messages aiming at a democratic European Union,
For an outsider it is easy to think that these two parties would be wise to join forces, if they want to make an impact.
On the other hand, Libertas has yet to unfold anything but a No vote elevated to the European level.
While the established Europarties doze, President Nicolas Sarkozy glorifies the great nation(s) of Europe. The European Parliament, the Commission and the EU citizens are at the receiving end of the new style of the season: brittle coalitions within the European Council undermining robust institutions and democratic aspirations.
Ralf Grahn
But until now, we have heard nothing or embarrassed murmurs from the established Europarties.
***
Background
Political parties at European level are recognised and funded by the European Union on certain conditions, including elected representatives in or from a quarter of the member states.
For an overview of the regulations and facts, you can read the Wikipedia article European political party:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_political_party
***
Libertas
Declan Ganley has announced that Libertas launches a pan-European campaign for the 2009 European Parliament elections:
http://www.libertas.eu/
Newspapers have reported that Ganley has applied for European Union funding and called for donations.
Calling itself a pan-European political movement, the ‘About us’ web page of Libertas does not reveal who ‘we’ are.
As long as Libertas has not shown that it has elected representatives in at least a quarter of EU member states (seven), it is not formally a political party at European level.
Then there is the question if Libertas is the first potential pan-European party (possibly even truly based on EU citizens instead of being a confederation of national political parties).
At least two earlier and existing examples come to mind.
***
Europe United
Europe United claims to be a pan-European political party established by citizens who believe in a stronger and more accountable European Union. Europe United believes the EU is the best forum to deal with the challenges of globalisation. Europe United is in favour of greater European integration, but at the same time Europe United remains critical of the way the way the European Union currently works and believes that democratic reform of the EU is necessary.
Europe United wants a Europe of the people, by the people and for the people.
For more information, go to:
http://europeunited.eu/modules/start/
According to the party history, United Europe was established and registered in Denmark in 2005, so if it is as potential as a recognised Europarty as Libertas, it is clearly older.
***
Newropeans
Newropeans describes itself as the first trans-European political movement, which will run for European elections in 2009 in all EU Member States with the same name, the same programme and the same objective. Their aim is to help turn the EU from a bureaucratic top-down project into a democratically managed political entity.
The Newropeans refer to a history of twenty years of European networking, with the formal launch of the party dated to 2005.
The Newropeans’ web site is found here:
http://www.newropeans.eu/index.php?lang=en
***
Seniority
Despite media reports to the contrary, we can establish that Libertas is not the first pan-European movement intent on becoming an official trans-European political party.
Actually the older ones, both Europe United and Newropeans seem to offer broadly similar positive messages aiming at a democratic European Union,
For an outsider it is easy to think that these two parties would be wise to join forces, if they want to make an impact.
On the other hand, Libertas has yet to unfold anything but a No vote elevated to the European level.
While the established Europarties doze, President Nicolas Sarkozy glorifies the great nation(s) of Europe. The European Parliament, the Commission and the EU citizens are at the receiving end of the new style of the season: brittle coalitions within the European Council undermining robust institutions and democratic aspirations.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 9 August 2008
Elected EU President 2009?
With the Lisbon Treaty in the doldrums, the next five years for the European Union look set to begin under the auspices of the unreformed Nice Treaty. The European elections in June 2009 will take place without the timid Lisbon Treaty reforms, although few have spoken out against a ‘more democratic’ EU.
Can anything be done to enhance the democratic legitimacy of the European Union, even marginally?
Since the Maastricht Treaty every person holding the nationality of a member state is an EU citizen, according to Article 17(1) of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC).
The European Parliament is elected by direct universal suffrage, as provided for in Article 190(1) TEC.
These provisions offer an objective base for some citizens’ influence in EU governance, although the European Union falls far short of a functioning democracy.
***
The limited powers of the European Parliament and the slow emergence of a ‘European consciousness’ have resulted in the low intensity of European election campaigns and low participation. The electoral campaigns have been fought primarily on national issues, not pan-European ones.
Article 191 TEC offers a germ ‘to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union’ in the form of political parties at European level.
In practice, the European level parties are still in their infancy. Funding for European parties (and foundations) has recently been provided, but they still resemble loose coalitions of national parties more than effective shapers of pan-European programmes.
There are, however, some promising signs. In the 2004 elections the European Green Party campaigned on a common programme, and the Party of European Socialists has conducted a long public web based consultation for its 2009 election manifesto.
The European elections 2009 offer the European parties an opportunity to inform the public about the political choices facing the European Union, but their success is still dependent on the contributions of the national parties, which – in general – have done little to enhance the knowledge of the public or the participation of their activists at the European level.
***
In addition to programmes, politics is about personalities, and democracy is about the citizens’ power to elect the office holders and to set the course for government.
The real President, since the Rome Treaties, is the President of the (EEC/EC) Commission, and the Commission still forms the executive in its areas of competence, as far as the European Union can be said to have an operative government (although the superimposed European Council has increasingly morphed into a ‘transitional government’ with a distinctly intergovernmental flavour).
Neither is democratically accountable in a satisfactory way.
***
The President of the Commission and the Commission are appointed by the Council by a qualified majority, but the preceding nomination of Commission President and the list of the Commission as a block are subject to votes of approval by the European Parliament, pursuant to Article 214 TEC.
Even without the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament has the possibility to make the European election results count, when it approves or rejects the person nominated by the heads of state or government.
Gianni Bonvicini, in his article ‘Elezione “diretta” del Presidente della Commissione europea?’, notes that the conservative European People’s Party has nominated Manuel Barroso for a second term. Bonvicini suggests that the Socialists field Pascal Lamy or Giuliano Amato, and that the European liberals put forward their own candidate.
In Bonvicini’s view this would lead to two positive outcomes. It would give weight to the Commission President and it would give a minimum of power and credibility to the European level parties.
See:
http://www.affarinternazionali.it/
***
In my view, it would enhance the credibility of the European election campaign if the European Council states well in advance that it intends to be bound by the election result, by nominating the candidate of the largest group as President of the European Commission.
This could be one small but important result of the French Council Presidency, at the December 2008 European Council.
Ralf Grahn
Can anything be done to enhance the democratic legitimacy of the European Union, even marginally?
Since the Maastricht Treaty every person holding the nationality of a member state is an EU citizen, according to Article 17(1) of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC).
The European Parliament is elected by direct universal suffrage, as provided for in Article 190(1) TEC.
These provisions offer an objective base for some citizens’ influence in EU governance, although the European Union falls far short of a functioning democracy.
***
The limited powers of the European Parliament and the slow emergence of a ‘European consciousness’ have resulted in the low intensity of European election campaigns and low participation. The electoral campaigns have been fought primarily on national issues, not pan-European ones.
Article 191 TEC offers a germ ‘to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union’ in the form of political parties at European level.
In practice, the European level parties are still in their infancy. Funding for European parties (and foundations) has recently been provided, but they still resemble loose coalitions of national parties more than effective shapers of pan-European programmes.
There are, however, some promising signs. In the 2004 elections the European Green Party campaigned on a common programme, and the Party of European Socialists has conducted a long public web based consultation for its 2009 election manifesto.
The European elections 2009 offer the European parties an opportunity to inform the public about the political choices facing the European Union, but their success is still dependent on the contributions of the national parties, which – in general – have done little to enhance the knowledge of the public or the participation of their activists at the European level.
***
In addition to programmes, politics is about personalities, and democracy is about the citizens’ power to elect the office holders and to set the course for government.
The real President, since the Rome Treaties, is the President of the (EEC/EC) Commission, and the Commission still forms the executive in its areas of competence, as far as the European Union can be said to have an operative government (although the superimposed European Council has increasingly morphed into a ‘transitional government’ with a distinctly intergovernmental flavour).
Neither is democratically accountable in a satisfactory way.
***
The President of the Commission and the Commission are appointed by the Council by a qualified majority, but the preceding nomination of Commission President and the list of the Commission as a block are subject to votes of approval by the European Parliament, pursuant to Article 214 TEC.
Even without the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament has the possibility to make the European election results count, when it approves or rejects the person nominated by the heads of state or government.
Gianni Bonvicini, in his article ‘Elezione “diretta” del Presidente della Commissione europea?’, notes that the conservative European People’s Party has nominated Manuel Barroso for a second term. Bonvicini suggests that the Socialists field Pascal Lamy or Giuliano Amato, and that the European liberals put forward their own candidate.
In Bonvicini’s view this would lead to two positive outcomes. It would give weight to the Commission President and it would give a minimum of power and credibility to the European level parties.
See:
http://www.affarinternazionali.it/
***
In my view, it would enhance the credibility of the European election campaign if the European Council states well in advance that it intends to be bound by the election result, by nominating the candidate of the largest group as President of the European Commission.
This could be one small but important result of the French Council Presidency, at the December 2008 European Council.
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 27 June 2008
EU: Let the people speak!
After the Irish ’no’ vote, Jean Dominique Giuliani acknowledges that the European Union has a problem with its population. The chairman of the Robert Schuman Foundation puts forward his proposal to avoid the crisis in a web article titled ‘If the people say no – let the people speak!’:
http://www.jd-giuliani.eu/en/article/cat-2/91_If-the-people-say-no-–-let-the-people-speak-.html
The European Union must now show that it is possible to respect national identity and yet build a supranational democracy. Giuliani proposes allied national lists to put forward their candidates for the Commission president in the European elections 2009 and a simultaneous referendum on the choice of a president for the European Council.
***
I have supposed, even without the Treaty of Lisbon in force, that the main European level parties are going to put forward their candidates for president of the European Commission. Even under the Treaty of Nice, nothing prevents the European Council to act in accordance with the election result.
The president of the European Council is, in my view, a trickier proposition.
First of all, the semi-permanent president of the meetings of heads of state or government is a creation of the Lisbon Treaty. If the amending treaty is still in tatters ahead of the European Parliament elections, there is no post to fill (immediately).
Second, even with the Lisbon Treaty in force, every move to strengthen the role of the intergovernmental branch of the European Union tends to overshadow the role of the European Parliament and the European Commission, potentially closer to reforms for democratic legitimacy and accountability. Thus, the best option would be to let the Commission president chair the meetings of the European Council, as proposed by the ‘Who do I call?’ campaign:
http://www.whodoicall.eu/
If the member states refuse to combine the posts, they should at least see to fair and transparent procedures, with open nominations, public debate and transparent decision-making.
***
The merit of Giuliani’s analysis is the acknowledgement that the EU needs some democratic reform.
Sadly lacking in Giuliani’s editorial is the wholehearted endorsement of EU level democracy. Instead, his proposals are selective sops aimed at appeasing an increasingly hostile population.
Far from enough, Giuliani’s Europe would still have a problem with its population.
Only wholesale EU level democracy can give the necessary European project the legitimacy and accountability it needs.
Ralf Grahn
http://www.jd-giuliani.eu/en/article/cat-2/91_If-the-people-say-no-–-let-the-people-speak-.html
The European Union must now show that it is possible to respect national identity and yet build a supranational democracy. Giuliani proposes allied national lists to put forward their candidates for the Commission president in the European elections 2009 and a simultaneous referendum on the choice of a president for the European Council.
***
I have supposed, even without the Treaty of Lisbon in force, that the main European level parties are going to put forward their candidates for president of the European Commission. Even under the Treaty of Nice, nothing prevents the European Council to act in accordance with the election result.
The president of the European Council is, in my view, a trickier proposition.
First of all, the semi-permanent president of the meetings of heads of state or government is a creation of the Lisbon Treaty. If the amending treaty is still in tatters ahead of the European Parliament elections, there is no post to fill (immediately).
Second, even with the Lisbon Treaty in force, every move to strengthen the role of the intergovernmental branch of the European Union tends to overshadow the role of the European Parliament and the European Commission, potentially closer to reforms for democratic legitimacy and accountability. Thus, the best option would be to let the Commission president chair the meetings of the European Council, as proposed by the ‘Who do I call?’ campaign:
http://www.whodoicall.eu/
If the member states refuse to combine the posts, they should at least see to fair and transparent procedures, with open nominations, public debate and transparent decision-making.
***
The merit of Giuliani’s analysis is the acknowledgement that the EU needs some democratic reform.
Sadly lacking in Giuliani’s editorial is the wholehearted endorsement of EU level democracy. Instead, his proposals are selective sops aimed at appeasing an increasingly hostile population.
Far from enough, Giuliani’s Europe would still have a problem with its population.
Only wholesale EU level democracy can give the necessary European project the legitimacy and accountability it needs.
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
