Illustration by Peter Schrank, from economist.com
In an article published yesterday, the Economist gives a comprehensive overview of why they feel the European Parliament is “an unloved Parliament” and why “voters are not interested in the forthcoming European elections”.
Below, I’ve condensed five reasons the Economist have kindly provided for why they think the EU is just one big yaaaawwn…
1) Hypocrisy
Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German foreign minister, declared last month that turnout would “depend largely on how positively we speak about Europe and the reform process” in the new treaty. Alas, such high-minded talk is undermined by the election posters hung from every second Berlin lamppost by his own Social Democrats. These depict the Free Democrats as grinning “financial sharks”, the Left Party as hairdryers blowing hot air and the Christian Democrats as “wage crushers”, symbolised by a wilting coin. They do not mention the Lisbon treaty.
2) The practice of “packing the European Parliament with failed politicians and cronies”
France must “send its best” to Europe, pledged President Nicolas Sarkozy. Once elected, MEPs should serve out their full terms, he added. Yet Michel Barnier, running the European campaign for Mr Sarkozy’s ruling UMP party, is not expected to take up his seat. He is a figurehead who hopes instead to be picked as France’s next European commissioner. Another top UMP candidate, Rachida Dati, is being sent to Strasbourg in disgrace after failing as justice minister. The French Socialist Party is as bad, handing safe spots on its list to figures from all its factions, regardless of merit. Both parties have dumped hard-working current MEPs for party barons. In Italy, Silvio Berlusconi was widely reported to have chosen eight models and soap-opera actresses to run for his People of Freedom party. His wife called the idea “shameless” (he now says it was never his plan). In the end, he chose a single ex-beauty queen to run, while accusing other parties of favouring “smelly” and “badly dressed” candidates.
3) It is inevitably about national not EU concerns
In Britain, the opposition Conservatives base their campaign on a demand that the Labour government hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. The campaign is in reality about the next general election: MEPs have no powers over national referendums.
4) Some pesky structural reasons
There are structural reasons why European elections do not thrill voters from such countries as Britain, France and Spain, where elections can turn out governments overnight. To draw an economic analogy, the House of Commons is a free-market body, in which winners take all, brilliant speeches can make careers and power can shift with brutal speed. The European Parliament is a corporatist assembly, in which big parties rule by consensus and horse-trading, office is awarded by rotation and grandees have safe berths. Enoch Powell, a British politician, used to say that all political lives end in failure. In the European Parliament political lives end in the constitutional-affairs committee.
5) And finally … the Parliament is “worse than dull”
It does not work properly. Like a student union, only with better expenses, it spends an inordinate amount of time on subjects way outside its mandate, such as foreign policy and defence. Its views can betray an undergraduate lack of realism: in the words of one Brussels diplomat, “that place is one big fucking NGO.” And its members can be loopily intolerant of dissent. At one Brussels dinner, Charlemagne heard MEPs howling “make him stop”, when a British Conservative ventured to suggest that the single currency might fall apart.
I know from a lot of the conversations that have been taking place on Th!nk that quite a few non-Brits are genrally pretty puzzled by the UK’s invariable indifference to all things European. In my view, this piece has pretty successfully summed up all that EU-evangelists find themselves up against.
(3 votes, average: 3.33 out of 5)
Loading ...
Surprisingly, the Economist doesn’t seem to mention the most obvious fact: The EP doesn’t have powers of taxation, of making war, and a major role in determining where budgets are allocated - all the things that get people really animated in national parliaments. The reality is that National Parliaments/Governments have delegated to the EP all the stuff they don’t want to have to do themselves, because it is boring, unpopular, or very technical in nature. Then they can safely blame the EP for decisions they don’t like whilst taking credit for everything they do like.
If the EP weren’t there, we would have to invent it…. if only to have someone to blame.
Frank Schnittger forgot the most important power lacking: the power to nominate the government.
This in turn means that we lack competition between the candidates offering different alternatives for government.
In my view, the Economist is unfair in criticising the European Parliament for debating issues outside its limited mandate.
The EP is the only institution inclined to improve the direct representation of citizens and to monitor the important issues the member states would conveniently keep betwwen themselves and behind closed doors eternally, if not remided of the existence of European interests and citizens.
Would Westminsterdemocracy ever have evolved, if nobody had broached subjects outside the original mandate?
The ability to elect a government and having candidates elected (like in, e.g., Ireland, NI, Malta) would help, but the parties need to put forward a “European dimension” to their policies - “we’re fighting for this in Europe” rather than government/opposition bashing.
I think the economist article is a bit harsh on MEPs for heckling in the EP (watching PMQs in Wesminster makes me wonder if Parliament is there to give its members a second go at puberty). Whether or not the President of the EP ensures MEPs right to be heard is the key point - and in some cases more needs to be done. Also, the Lisbon Treaty is outside the EP’s control, and the SPD are trying to show the gap between their political philisophy and those of the other parties - which I think is relevant, since strengthening a certain political line in the EP will shape the laws and regulations it makes.
Still, the Economist has some good insights.
As a EUrosceptic I would love the EU to levy its taxes directly on the people, instead of just taking credit for the spending it does.It would certianly increase peoples interest in it.