10 EU elections
| Committee's assessment
| (a) Politically important; (b) Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested; drawn to the attention of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
|
| Document details | (a) Commission Communication reporting on the EU elections of 22-25 May 2014; (b) European Council Decision proposing to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the European Commission
|
| Legal base | (a) —; (b) Article 17(7) TEU;—; QMV
|
Departments
Document numbers
| (a) Cabinet Office (b) Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(a) (36803), 8876/15, COM(15) 206 (b) (36170), —
|
Summary and Committee's conclusions
10.1 This report reviews the conduct of the 2014 European Parliament
(EP) elections. These were the first to take place since the ratification
of the Lisbon Treaty. They also established for the first time
a direct link between the outcome of the elections and the appointment
of the European Commission President. As part of that process,
the European political parties nominated Presidential candidates,
the European Council then nominated the candidate of the majority
party following the elections and that candidate was then elected
by the EP.
10.2 The report focuses on the measures taken to
enhance the transparency, democratic conduct and European dimension
of the elections. It assesses citizens' awareness of the elections
and their associated rights, the action taken by Member States
and EU institutions and actual turnout. The assessments are based
on a variety of sources, principally Eurobarometer surveys, Member
State responses to Commission questionnaires and a Commission-authorised
study which incorporated interviews with key stakeholders.[ 121]
10.3 One of the key findings of the report is that
overall turnout was
42.61% — a decrease of 0.36% compared with 2009 (42.97%).
There was significant difference in turnout across the EU with
a high of 89.64% in Belgium (where voting is mandatory) to a low
of 13.05% in Slovakia. 35.4% of the electorate voted in the UK,
up from 34.5% in 2009. There was limited adoption of the practice
of indicating affiliation to European parties on ballot papers;
such as there was mostly appeared in printed election material.
10.4 The Commission's conclusions are mainly positive.
It considers that the direct link between elections and the appointment
of the Commission President together with the greater provision
of information about the different candidates' programmes have
increased voter engagement. The use of interactive social media
also helped. Voters could better understand the impact of their
vote on the political direction of the EU for the next five years,
take into account European (and not exclusively national) political
issues and distinguish between alternative European political
choices. This in turn, the Commission believes, has "reinforced
the democratic legitimacy" of the Commission and strengthened
accountability. The participation of Presidential candidates in
EU-wide political debates and events "europeanised"
the elections. Finally, Directive 2013/EU ensured that mobile
EU citizens could exercise their franchise more effectively and
efficiently.
10.5 For the 2019 elections, the Commission identifies
ways of further enhancing the democratic legitimacy of the EU
decision-making process, its "European dimension" and
persistently low turnout in some Member States. These include
greater use of awareness-raising campaigns at national, regional
and local level, highlighting affiliations between national and
European political parties and encouraging EU citizens to participate
in dialogues.
10.6 In respect of document (a), we thank the
Minister for Constitutional Reform at the Cabinet Office (John
Penrose) for his Explanatory Memorandum. While we are familiar
with the views he expresses on the process for appointing the
Commission President and the common voting day (reflecting those
of the previous Government), we are grateful to him for drawing
to our attention the work of the Government, Electoral Commission
and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on voting
by EU mobile citizens.
10.7 Our main concern reflects that of our predecessors,
namely, whether there is a prospect that initiatives, either set
out in the Commission's Recommendation on enhancing the
democratic and efficient conduct of the elections to the European
Parliament[ 122]
or emerging in the follow-up to document (a), could become proposals
for binding EU legislation. We ask the Minister to keep us fully
informed of any relevant developments, particularly any arising
from the 12 June meeting of the EU Expert Group on Electoral
Matters.
10.8 In respect of document (b), we ask the Minister
for Europe (Mr David Lidington) to respond to our predecessor
Committee's questions set out in the conclusions to its Report
of 16 July 2014.[ 123]
These concern the way in which the Commission President, Mr Juncker,
was nominated and elected and the European Council's commitment
to reviewing that process.
10.9 In the meantime, we retain both documents
under scrutiny, and draw this report to the attention of the Public
Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee given the
interest of its predecessor noted in paragraph 10.6 above.
Full
details of the documents:
(a) Commission Communication: Report on the European elections
of 22-25 May 2014: (36803), 8876/15, COM(15) 206; (b) European
Council Decision proposing to the European Parliament a candidate
for President of the European Commission: (36170), —.
Background
DOCUMENT (A)
10.10 This is a new document. However, in the last
Parliament our predecessors scrutinised other documents on the
conduct of the 2014 EU elections: a Commission Communication on
preparing for the 2014 European elections[ 124]
and a Commission Recommendation on enhancing the democratic and
efficient conduct of the elections to the European Parliament
(EP).[ 125]
10.11 Those documents included proposals for national
political parties and Member States to promote parties' affiliation
with European political parties in the lead-up to the elections;
for Member States to agree on a common day for the elections of
the EP, with polling stations closing at the same time; for European
political parties to promote their candidate for the President
of the European Commission and for national political parties
to inform voters about their candidate for Commission President
and their programme. The Government at that time was opposed to
those non-binding recommendations for the reasons set out in the
previous Committee's Report.[ 126]
10.12 These recommendations were also relevant to
the proposal for a Regulation on the statute and funding of European
political parties and foundations.[ 127]
This was drafted to require European political parties to take
all appropriate measures to inform voters of the affiliations
between themselves, national political parties and candidates.
Our predecessors recommended this document, and a proposed amending
Regulation on the financing of EU political parties[ 128]
for debate in European Committee. This took place on 6 February
2013.[ 129] The Regulations
were adopted by the EU on 29 September 2014.
10.13 When our predecessors recommended that the
Communication and Recommendation should be debated on the floor
of the House, they recognised that although the proposals were
not legally-binding they increased "the possibility of subsequent
Commission-led legally binding measures". They considered
that the measures, particularly on a common voting day, addressed
to national political parties and elections, represented:
"a clear intention to interfere with Member
States' electoral arrangements and traditions and to restrict
national parties' freedom to act, without power being conferred
on the EU to do so."
10.14 They also agreed with the Government that in
those documents "the Commission places an emphasis on the
role of the European Parliament and elections in the nomination
of the next President of the Commission which is not warranted
by Article 17(7) TEU". The relevance of this Article is explained
in the context of document (b) in paragraph 0.17 below.
10.15 Our predecessors asked the Government to provide,
in advance of the debate, a detailed analysis of its views on
the competence of the Commission to propose each of the measures
in the Recommendation, and with its views on how the Commission
was likely to follow up these two documents. The documents were
debated on the floor of the House of Commons on 18 June 2013.[ 130]
DOCUMENT (B)
10.16 This is a document which our predecessors retained
under scrutiny in their Report of July 2014.[ 131]
It proposed Jean-Claude Juncker as the European Council's candidate
for Commission President. It was adopted at the European Council
on 27 June 2014 by a qualified majority of EU Heads of State and
Government. Only UK and Hungary voted against Mr Juncker's nomination.
He was subsequently elected by the EP on 15 July 2014.
10.17 The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
explained to our predecessors that the UK's opposition to document
(b), legally-speaking, was based on the interpretation of Article
17(7) TEU. This states:
"taking into account the elections to the
European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations,
the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall propose
to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission.
This candidate shall be elected by the European Parliament by
a majority of its component members."
10.18 It was the view of the previous UK government
that:
"it should not be for the European Parliament
to dictate the choice of candidate for the role of President of
the European Commission. The Treaties clearly set out the role
of the European Parliament and the European Council play respectively
in the process of selecting the new Commission President."[ 132]
10.19 As a concession to UK opposition to Mr Juncker's
nomination[ 133], the
European Council gave the following commitment in corresponding
Council Conclusions:
"Once the new European Commission is effectively
in place, the European Council will consider the process for the
appointment of the President of the European Commission for the
future, respecting the European Treaties."
10.20 Our predecessors asked the Minister for Europe
to respond to various questions in the conclusions to their Report
which examined the robustness of that commitment.
The Government's view on document (a)
10.21 In an Explanatory Memorandum of 30 June 2015,
the Minister for Constitutional Reform at the Cabinet Office (John
Penrose) first addresses the question of the link between the
EU citizen vote and the election of the Commission President,
first set out in the Commission's Recommendation.[ 134]
He notes that the Commission refers in document (a) to this aspect
of the 2014 process as "a new constitutional order".
The Minister considers that, in accordance with Article 17(7)
TEU, it is for the European Council, composed of EU Heads of State
and Government, to propose the Commission President. Referring
to the commitment secured in the European Council in June 2014,
he says that the Government will "engage with the review
to press its views".
10.22 Referring to proposals in the Commission's
Recommendation on making the link between national and European
political parties more visible, the Minister says:
"Participation in European elections is
governed by the laws of Member States. National political parties
participate in elections in the UK, not European political parties.
There is nothing within UK domestic law which would prevent a
national political party from making known its affiliation with
a European political party, during the course of its election
campaign. Conversely, there is nothing that can force a national
political party to make known its affiliation with a European
political party."
10.23 Turning to a common voting day, the Minister
reports that practice did not change in the 2014 process: 21 Member
States held elections on Sunday 25 May and seven between 22 and
24 May. Of these seven, the UK maintained its tradition of holding
Thursday elections by opting for 22 May. This reflects the Government's
view that "electoral diversity across the EU should be respected".
He reiterates views put to us by the previous Government that
having a common election day could actually undermine turnout
instead of increasing it and that it is impractical given time-zone
differences.
10.24 On the question of the ability of EU mobile
citizens to vote, the Minister refers to discussions between the
Commission and UK authorities concerning some issues reported
by EU citizens residing in the UK. The Minister notes that the
report mentions the relevant recommendations of the Political
and Constitutional Reform Committee on "Voter Engagement
in the UK"[ 135]
to simplify the registration system and to run a corresponding
publicity campaign. He informs us that the Cabinet Office plans
to discuss these issues further with the Electoral Commission
and other electoral stakeholders, in the context of both EP and
local elections.
10.25 The Minister concludes by explaining that document
(a) was discussed at the EU Expert Group on Electoral Matters
meeting on 12 June, with future steps for proposals to be determined.
Previous Committee Reports
(a) None, but see (34797-8), 7648/13 and 7650/13:
First Report HC 83-i (2013-14), chapter 3 (8 May 2013); see also
(34523), 17469/12: Twenty-seventh Report HC 86-xxvii (2012-13),
chapter 1 (16 January 2013); (34259), 13842/12: Nineteenth Report
HC 86-xix (2012-13) chapter 2 (7 November 2012); (b) (36170),
—: Eighth Report HC 219-viii (2014-15), chapter 7 (16 July
2014).
121 Including European political parties, national
authorities, media. Back
122 (34798), 7650/13: First Report HC 83-i (2013-14), chapter 3 (8
May 2013). Back
123 (36170), -: Eighth Report HC 219-viii (2014-15), chapter 7 (16
July 2014). Back
124 (34797), 7648/13: First Report HC 83-i (2013-14), chapter 3 (8
May 2013). Back
125 Recommendation 2013/142/EU. See (34798), 7650/13: First Report
HC 83-i (2013-14), chapter 3 (8 May 2013). Back
126 See footnote 2. Back
127 Regulation No 1141/2014 of 22 October 2014 on the statute and
funding of European political parties and European political foundations. Back
128 Regulation No. 1142/2014 of 22 October 2014 amending Regulation
No 966/2012 as regards the financing of European political parties. Back
129 Stg Co Deb, European Standing Committee B, 6 February 2013, cols.
3-18. Back
130 HC Deb, 18 June 2013, cols. 818-836. Back
131 (36170), -: Eighth Report HC 219-viii (2014-15), chapter 7 (16
July 2014). Back
132 Explanatory Memorandum of the Minister for Europe 11 July 2014. Back
133 This is how the Prime Minister portrayed the commitment: "I
believe that it was a bad day for Europe because the decision
of the Council risks undermining the position of national Governments,
and it risks undermining the power of national Parliaments by
handing further power to the European Parliament. Although the
nomination has been decided and must be accepted, it is important
that the Council at least agreed to review and reconsider how
to handle the next appointment of a Commission President. That
is set out in the Council conclusions". HC Deb, 30
June 2014, col. 600. Back
134 See note 5. Back
135 Fourth Report of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee,
Voter engagement in the UK, HC 232 (2014-15), (14 November
2014) Back
| 
