“Nobody votes about the issues”, that was the basic complaint about the recalcitrant voters of those countries that voted No in the Referenda. Giscard and Sarko, Cowan and al dismissed the votes pointing out that it was local issues (Anglo-Saxon capitalism, the Turks, and so on) not the European Constitution that was being voted on. Oh everybody pays lip-service to the concept of voting and participatory democracy. These are enlightened times, but they don’t like letting the ignorant unwashed have their say. No, no, no, they say you vote for people who represent you. They are the people who should decide these things on your behalf.
And thus everybody loves the European Parliament. A paradigm of representative government. An amending chamber for rules and regulations that affect the world. The second largest democratic assembly on earth representing upwards of 450 million people, only the Lok Sabah in India is greater.
Here is the democratic representation of the European Demos. The Agora, the Tribune.
Well sort of. The problem is that nobody actually votes on European matters. If they did there would be no need of the constant taxpayer funded initiatives to create a European public space. Big posters abound “Europe my Country” they declare in some vague attempt to create a fellow feeling where none currently exists.
And what happens during the European elections. Except on the perhaps the green fringe people vote on national issues not on European Issues. Oh the well meaning manifestos of the political groups and European Political Parties, not to mention the European Political Foundations are completely meaaningless when it comes to electoral mathematics. Put it this way, who runs the election campaign? Is it a bunch of chaps and chappesses who spend their time flitting between Brussels and Strasbourg, or is it the hard nosed politicos back in the national capitals? Of course its the party bosses. And their calculus is nothing to do with the European Union.
It is not in the interests of any party that has aspiration, make that realistic aspiration to government, to highlight the importance of the European Union in making legislation. They would be cutting their own throats.
Think about it© what political party would go into a European Election campaign seriously highlighting the importance of the EU in the creation of legislation? After all only a year or so later the same people (MEPs often vanish during national elections – curious) are standing up infront of the same electorate trying to persuade them into voting again, but this time for national Government.
“Vote for me” says important political type
“Why?” says vaguely interested punter.
“Because I can change the world into a better place”
“No you can’t” says punter.
“What do you mean?” says politico, clearly hurt and aggrieved, “vote for me and I will water into wine, or sand into sugar”
“Rubbish” laughs punter, “You said only in June 2009 that the EU is really important these days and that nigh on 85% of new laws and regulations are written there. You said that in reality these days if you want to change stuff you have to be involved at a European level. You said that all trade matters, all agricultural matters, almost all environmental matters, many training matters, well most policy is now run from Brussels that was why we had to vote for the European elections. So tell me what are you for Mr Prime Minister?”
You see the point. Elections are run by national parties, national parties have a vested interest not to highlight the European elections.
The only parties that d talk about European issues are oddly either the Greens, who despite broad Geographical spread have limited electoral impact, and the increasing crowds of more Eurosceptical parties. They of course talk about Europe, but almost (Libertas notwithstanding) from a national perspective
There is no real European public space, unless you count that bit next to the European Parliament near Place Luxembourg – but there again that’s a wind tunnel.
(12 votes, average: 3.58 out of 5)
Loading ...
That’s better than the last one.
Indeed, it’s good point you are making. Nevertheless, if national parties were Europeanised enough, they could even point out the importance of winning national elections by highlighting the necessity of a strong representation in the Council, a good co-operation with the Commission President (or to propose a constant challenge of him).
If the parties took their role seriously, they would say how much of the 85% (or whatever figure is correct) have been actually supported at the European level, how many of these still need national measures which depend on the “right” government or parliamentary majority.
I agree with your point as of today: There almost nothing European neither in referenda on the Treaty/the Constitution nor in the EP elections, and it’s mostly the national players’ fault that it’s like this.
But if in fact Europe has this legislative importance, it’s high time to wake up and play the game as it is designed!
Who wants to emphasize the importance of the EU over national governments?
How about opposition parties in member states with very low approval ratings? In countries like Bulgaria, Romania, perhaps even Greece, a significant percentage of the electorate might be persuaded by the notion of more direct administration.
In fact, even in Old Europe countries with a long-standing tradition of political dominance by one part of the spectrum might see enough of a cohesive minority. The opposition can campaign that the EU is capable of bringing about change that the local society is unwilling to support.
Just so people know:
Gawain has also posted this on his own blog, here:
http://englandexpects.blogspot.com/2009/04/european-or-national.html
Some other interesting comments have been made there as well, and Gawain has promised to respond (hopefully in another post).
Joe
Josef, I will respond here rather than there.
I’ll re-post my comment from the England Expects blog here:
Perhaps the best thing to do would be to separate national parties from European parties (though since the groups are federations of parties, new parties would need to be created). That, or both local party branches and central European group executives should have greater say in the selection of candidates and on campaigning.
In fact, it might be worth looking at separating/federalising(decentralising) national parties from those who run in local elections - if local elections are treated as referendums on the gov/opposition, then it means that local concils aren’t under the scruntiny they should be under.
It wouldn’t solve all the problems, but if councillers and MEPs had to sell themselves more without depending as much on national politicans (and national politicans didn’t have to sell the same solutions at all levels), then the messages may be a bit clearer.
I should point out that I don’t mean that smaller/national parties should be banned from the EP or anything, just that perhaps there should be clearer dividing lines between the levels of the parties, or the option of separate EP-level parties.
@Andrei your point about Bulgaria, Greece and Romania is a rather moot point: the same kind of fringe movements exist everywhere else and nobody bothers with them. And even so, most of them are simply made up of people disgruntled with some national policy or behaviour and seeking the solution at European level, all the while criticizing its many inadequancies.
@Eurocentric: wouldn’t that cut down the much beloved point of sovreignity, go against the current regulations on European Political Parties and over all, without any European debate at national level, look like a total circus? I daresay it would.
@ Patrick
The regulations mostly concern funding transparency and requirements and a commitment to the values of the EU (democracy, etc. This doesn’t exclude eurosceptics in the EP). Wikipedia has a summery of the regulations here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_political_party
I don’t think that they have any impact on the internal organization of the parties, so they can be federalized if they want to be.
I also don’t think that such a move dilutes national sovereignty - unless you see control by national party executives over their MEPs to be a sovereignty issue - which I don’t. It does weaken the control of national party executives over how their MEPs vote - or decentralize the power within national parties.
MEPs are there to represent their constituents - and while there should be party organization to ensure ideological coherence so that people can be relatively confident in the consistency of their party’s position, surely that should be up to the European level party, rather than MEPs being, even occasionally, dictated to by a group outside the parliament? If a party is to be credible, then doesn’t it need to be in control of its own voice and votes in parliament?
(That said, studies have shown that EP Party groups are more cohesive in their voting than the parties in the US House of Congress - though this is perhaps connected to the greater number of group options in the EP, which could mean that their constituent parties are closer ideologically than fractions within the US Democratic and Republican parties…)
As to European debate, I did say that it wouldn’t solve everything, but it would prompt more media interest in the positions of party members who would be running for the EP, rather than just national party positions. That doesn’t mean that there’d automatically be more media interest (which is essential if there’s going to be a debate of any significant scale) but by removing some of the “referendum on the government” aspects and by prompting MEPs/candidates to state their case more, it would help. I can’t see how it could hurt.