EU DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

The Future of Europe Group comprised of the Foreign Ministers of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Germany, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain presented its Final Report in September 2012.

Here below are their views regarding EU Democratic Legitimacy and Accountability.

“A fundamental deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union must go hand in hand with greater democratic legitimacy. Wherever new competences are created at European level or closer coordination of national policies is established, full democratic control has to be ensured.

The European Parliament should be closely involved in the further development of the EMU in line with the Community method and its role should be strengthened. If actions at the European level- either within the framework of the EU or through intensified coordination of member states concern EU competences, the European Parliament has to be part of the decision-making either through co-decision or consultation. For example, the European Parliament should, among other things be consulted within the scope of the European semester before the formulation of fundamental aspects (e.g. the Annual Growth Survey) or on concrete recommendations affecting the EU or the euro area as a whole. If we introduce more binding coordination at European level with regard to specific elements of the Euro Plus Pact, the European Parliament should be consulted here, too. Most members were of the view that, if a decision applies only to the Euro area plus other “pre-in” member states who wish to participate, ways should be explored to involve the MEPs from these countries, while fully respecting the integrity of the European Union and the European Parliament as a whole. If funds from a possible central budget involving these countries are drawn upon to support structural reforms in one of these Member States, the European Parliament with a specific role for the MEPs of the countries involved has to agree according to the procedures foreseen in the treaties.

If additional actions at European level concern national competences, in particular the budget, the national parliaments have to agree. The European Parliament should also be informed. In addition, cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments should be placed on a new footing in the sphere of economic and fiscal policies by creating a permanent joint committee.

Regarding Institutional Reforms and the strengthening of the EU’s effectiveness and democratic legitimacy

In addition to the specific aspect of EMU reform, additional rights at European level or a closer coordination of national policies require a strengthened EU capacity for action and enhanced democratic legitimacy.

Improved capacity for action

The Commission must be strengthened so that it can fully and effectively fulfil its indispensable role as the engine of the Community method. Its internal organization and its procedures should be strengthened (one possibility would be the creation of specific clusters with “senior” and “junior” Commissioners); in the medium term the number of Commissioners should be addressed.

Cooperation with the Council needs to be improved, also with a view to ensuring that the European Council is suitably prepared by the different Council formations, above all by the General Affairs Council which should fully assume its coordinating role foreseen in the Treaty. Internal consultations in the different Council formations must be made more efficient (e.g. through the use of bundled interventions). In the medium term, we should create more permanent chairs and strike the right balance between permanent and rotational chairs, also in the General Affairs Council to increase the efficiency of the work in the various Council formations. Moreover, the possibility of better dovetailing the work of the Council and the Commission could be examined. Some Ministers suggested the creation of a double-hatted post of President of the Commission and President of the European Council.

The efficiency of European decisions can also be created by making more use of differentiated integration, a possibility provided for in the treaties, but hardly implemented so far. In the medium term, to improve the European Union’s capacity to act, we should extend the scope of decisions to be taken by qualified majority.

Increasing democratic legitimacy

The European Parliament’s democratic visibility should be further increased: one key step would be, for instance, the nomination of a European top candidate for the next European Parliament elections by each European political group who could also stand for the post of Commission President. In addition, we need a greater distinction between majority and minority in the Parliament, European Parliament elections on the same day in all member states, the drawing up of a (limited) European list and a more public procedure in the Parliament to appoint the Commission President. European political parties should work towards the building of a truly ‘European political space’, which would draw European citizens’ attention to key political issues concerning their common future.

National parliaments should become more effectively involved in the work of the European Union in the spirit of the Lisbon Treaty. To this effect, contacts between the EP and national parliaments should be strengthened further. This could be done e.g. through regular meetings, the presence of MEPs’ during strategic EU debates in national parliaments, by reinforcing the COSAC-framework and by enhancing EU-wide networks of national parliamentary committees dealing with the same particular EU-dossiers. The core task of national parliaments will however remain to control the action of their national governments.

Regarding the long-term overall functioning of the European Union

In an EU with 28 or more Member States, treaty reform will be more difficult. Most members of the Group believe that both the adoption and the subsequent  entry into force of treaty revisions (with the exception of enlargement) should be implemented by a super-qualified majority of the Member States and their population. A large majority of member states should not be restrained of further advancing in integration due to either lack of political will or to significantly delays in the ratification processes. A minimum threshold representing a significant majority of European member states and citizens should be established for the entry into force of amendments to the European treaties. They would be binding for those member states that have ratified them.

Finally, we also need to think about the long-term governance structures of the EU. At the end of a longer process, we need a streamlined and efficient system for the separation of powers in Europe which has full democratic legitimacy. For some members of the Group, this could include the following elements: a directly elected Commission President who appoints the members of his “European Government” himself, a European Parliament with the powers to initiate legislation and a second chamber for the member states.”

The above thoughts are the personal thoughts of the Foreign Ministers comprising the Future of Europe Group. Not all participating Ministers agree with the proposals that have been put forward in the course of the discussions and the Member States’ individual treaty obligations and rights into the various policy areas have to be taken into account.

Nevertheless the proposals being put forward are precious because they contribute substantially to the debate that should take place in advance of the European elections. It should be pointed out that the report goes back to one year ago and the future of Europe is a work in progress. Also some thoughts laid down are being implemented and points to the direction of the thinking. Now we are awaiting for the ideas of the European Commission and the European Council on how to best consolidate and deepen the community method and community approach in the longer term and for the principles and orientations that are necessary for a true political union.