Examination of Witnesses (Questions 78-79)
MARK LEONARD
AND TOM
ARBUTHNOTT
WEDNESDAY 12 DECEMBER 2001
Chairman
78. Can I welcome Mr Leonard and Mr Arbuthnott;
welcome to the European Scrutiny Committee. I am sorry we overran
a bit, but I am sure you will appreciate it is because of the
interest in the subject matter, and I cannot promise you that
you will not run over as well, but we will try to keep to our
timetable, as much as we can, but still be thorough in our questions
to you. If I can ask the first question. National parliaments
are only occasionally mentioned in your booklets; how important
a role do you think they can play in `reconnecting' electorates
to the European Union and enabling citizens to influence EU decisions?
(Mr Leonard) I think that they can play
a really important role, but one of the things that we have tried
to do in our research is to look at the legitimacy problems facing
the European Union within a much broader context of political
disconnection, and actually to see whether changing the way that
we think about democracy and accountability in Europe can actually
enhance the role of national parliaments. So that we can see it
as a two-way process, because often people start from quite a
static conception of a democratic deficit in Brussels, and look
at how one can plug that democratic deficit. We have some issues
with the idea of a democratic deficit as well. I do not think
that the problem is so much a democratic deficit as a deficit
of consent and legitimacy, but we can talk about that further.
But I think there are some very specific ways that national parliamentarians
can play more of a role on the scrutiny side, some of which you
talked about earlier, but also some ways of involving national
parliaments in addressing some of the specific legitimacy problems,
one of which is in the whole area of subsidiarity, which I think
is one of the perceptions of the European Union as a one-way project,
with policies all moving in one direction, with things not being
reversed, and with a desire to advance, which seems to be more
motivated by the ideology of ever closer union than by a desire
to deliver effective results for people. And I think that, if
we start rethinking subsidiarity, there is a very exciting, potential
role for national parliaments, partly because national parliaments
are one of the few institutions that do not have an intrinsic
interest in seeing competencies shifted from a national to a European
level. Secondly, because, if we start to think about subsidiarity
in a different way, which is about delivery rather than about
the perfect sort of organogram and looking at where things would
be based if one started from a federal theory, then one has to
think about ways of scrutinising the implementation of policies.
And national parliaments can play a really important role, both
in looking at the implementation of areas delivered under the
open co-ordination method, which I think could be really powerful,
because there is not enough pressure put on national governments
to deliver on the objectives which they signed up to at Lisbon
and in other areas. And one of the ideas we looked at is of national
commissioners, potentially, presenting reports on the performance
of national governments in different areas, where national parliaments
could play more of a role in scrutinising that. Secondly, I think
that there is an important role in terms of the areas which are
not scrutinised by the European Parliament, and there is a very
interesting French proposal which looks at the potential role
for a second chamber, looking at scrutiny of the areas which are
not covered by co-decision, rather than acting as a sort of second
chamber in the areas which the European Parliament is active in,
and I think that might be something which could have some potential
in it. And the third area which I think could be quite interesting
is this idea of creating more of a, following on from the ideas
about subsidiarity, the idea of national parliaments, of a second
chamber, either going through all of the legislation which is
adopted in a year and suggesting a potential bonfire of regulations
which go against principles of subsidiarity, or acting as a more
specific subsidiarity committee in the process. I do not know
if Tom wants to add anything to that.
(Mr Arbuthnott) Not at this stage.
Mr Cash
79. You say here, on page 52 of your paper "Network
Europe": "We will deliver legitimacy by reinventing
politics," which is a fairly sort of bold assertion, I would
suggest. But I have got a very simple question, and that is, where
do you think the power, by which I mean the full authority, backed
by a legal framework, proper, real power, lies in Europe today,
and where do you think it should lie?
(Mr Leonard) I think it lies in national parliaments
and national governments, who come together at a European level,
as the European Council, which is the key body which has got the
authority to set the agenda, I think that is appropriate. But
what we are talking about there is the fact that the way that
people have thought about politics, at an EU level, has often
not reflected that process, so politics is almost ghettoised in
the European Parliament, which is not a body which has the ability
to set the agenda and which has the authority and the democratic
legitimacy to have an agenda-setting role. And the Council and
the way that it works is often not strategic enough, so the arguments
within the Council are, quite rightly, often about different perceptions
of the national interest, or arguments about whether we should
have more or less integration, but they are very rarely seen as
part of the political system which allows one to have the sorts
of debate about issues which cut across those two axes.
(Mr Arbuthnott) And it is possible, as well, in addition,
looking at the Convention, which is likely to be set up on Friday,
at Laeken, that perhaps a similar thing is going to happen there,
it is clearly open to what happens there; but with national parliaments,
the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers, government
representatives and the Commission, all within their individual
blocks, all as delegations, then there is a danger that each of
those delegations will be taking their institution role rather
than their political role in those discussions, over the next
three years, on the future of Europe.
|
