The European Parliament and the European Community PDF
Preview The European Parliament and the European Community
THEEUROPEANPARUAMENTAND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY Also by Valentine Herman PARLIAMENTS OF THE WORLD: A Reference Compendium CABINET STUDIES (with James E. Aft) THE BACKBENCHER AND PARLIAMENT (with Dick Leonard) WORKBOOK FOR COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT (with Jean Blonde/) Also by Juliet Lodge THE EUROPEAN POLICY OF THE SPD SMALL STATE DIPLOMACY: New Zealand and the European Community (forthcoming) AMERICAN BEHAVIOUR DURING THE BERLIN CRISIS OF 1948--49 (with A vi Shlaim) (forthcoming) THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY Valentine Herman Erasmus University, Rotterdam Juliet Lodge University of Hull ©Valentine Herman and Juliet Lodge 1978 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1978 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without permission First published 1978 by THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTD London and Basingstoke Associated companies in Delhi Dublin Hong Kong Johannesburg Lagos Melbourne New York Singapore Tokyo British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Herman. Valentine The European parliament and the European community I. European Parliament I. Title II. Lodge. Juliet 328'.3'094 JN36 ISBN 978-0-333-23982-7 ISBN 978-1-349-15892-8 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-349-15892-8 The paperback edition of this book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent, in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser This book is sold subject to the standard conditions of the Net Book Agreement To SUSANNAH and to CHRIS, TERRY-ANITA AND NEIL Contents Preface ix Introduction PART ONE 2 The Functions, Powers and 'Decline' of Parliaments 13 3 The Legislative and Financial Powers of the European Parliament 24 4 The Control Powers of the European Parliament 44 5 The Powers and Functions of the European Parliament 64 PART TWO 6 Democratic Legitimacy and Direct Elections 73 7 Citizens and the Elections 94 8 The European Parliament and the Media 120 9 The Dual Mandate 141 I 0 The Case for a Bicameral Parliament 157 Bibliography 179 Index 191 vii Preface This book grew out of a conversation over wine in the cafe of the European Parliament in Luxembourg. It was written over a six-month period while Herman was at the Universities of Aarhus, Essex and Erasmus, and Lodge at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and the Universities of Auckland and Hull. During this time more wine was consumed: our contribution to alleviating Community wine lake problems. We have attempted to clarify aspects of the debate about the nature and extension of the European Parliament's powers, their relationship to direct elections, problems arising out of these, and the position ofthe Parliament in the Community's institutional balance. We wish to thank officials of the Directorate-Generals of Research and Documentation, and Information and Public Relations, in Luxembourg and London, for their assistance. The views in this book do not imply their endorsement but represent instead only those of the two authors who, while collectively accepting responsibility for errors of fact and interpretation, individually are quite prepared to attribute them to each other. Several people - whom it would be invidious to name - commented on various chapters of the book, and we are grateful to them for making our lives more difficult. We also owe an intellectual debt to a number of colleagues who, in their infinite wisdom, refused invitations to read parts of the draft manuscript. We should also like to thank Peter Lodge for his exacting reading of the manuscript, and Anne-Marie Christiansen and Joanne Brunt for typing it. Football provided by Darlington and Chelsea, and music by the Who, the Rolling Stones and Vivaldi, were also of considerable assistance. Our gratitude also goes to our families for their almost infinitesimal forbearance, interruptions, back rubs and provision of light relief. And finally, we should like to thank each other for making collaboration both great fun and absolute hell. V.H., J.L. London, October 1977 ix 1 Introduction A consequence of the Parliament's new authority will be an increase in its powers, which will take place gradually in the course of the progressive development of the European Union, notably through a growing exercise of the legislative function. It goes without saying that the Parliament should assume an important responsibility in the construction of the Union. Tindemans Report ( 1976) p. 29 Why have direct elections to the European Parliament? The answers to this question have raised anxiety among member governments of the European Community (EC) for it has been recognised that direct elections hold the key to the future of the EC. They have been seen as confirming and defining the existence, nature and political form of the Community - as resolving its ontological problems in favour of federalism. The elections would thus undermine any illusions that the Community was (and would remain) an apolitical, functionally specific international organisation, inspired by functionalist premises, and devoid of political import or implications for the exercise of power by the component member states' governments.1 As Emilio Colombo, President of the European Parliament, points out: By solemnly signing in Brussels on 20 September 1976 the Act on the Election in May-June 1978 of the European Parliament by Direct Universal Suffrage, the Nine responded to one of the most enduring and popular European aspirations. The most enduring because, since it was first put forward at the Hague Conference in I 948, the idea of a European Parliament elected by direct universal suffrage has never lost its attraction. Although it has frequently been disparaged and held up to derision, it could never be completely stifled. The most popular, because the present organisation of Europe - although a necessary stage in its development - has none the less failed to elicit the whole-hearted support of its peoples who saw it as something remote from their everyday life. The election of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage provides an opportunity of bringing the debate on Europe into the public forum and of enlisting the active support of the man in the street for the construction of 2 The Europt!lln Parliament and the Europt!lln Community Europe. Is the direct election of the European Parliament an end in itseln Obviously not; no more than the election of a national assembly, but certainly no less. The eternal question of the purposes of the Parliament is no more relevant to the European Parliament than to a national assembly.2 Apart from the political and constitutional questions raised by the holding of direct elections, logistical problems (campaigning regulations, synchronising the day(s) on which the election is held, determining electoral procedures, and so on) have often been regarded by the member governments as so extensive as to justify deferment of the elections pending the accretion of the Parliament's powers. It was argued that the very limited nature both of the European Parliament's powers and the part it played in EC decision-making, indicated that its role in the Community was not strictly analogous to that of national parliaments in the member states. Thus, notwithstanding Members of the European Parliament's (MEPs') aspirations, there would be little point in holding elections to the Parliament in the same manner as elections to national parliaments .• Since the elections would be neither concerned with the election of politicians to form a supranational government, nor with the election of politicians to exercise significant decision-making powers, they would be tantamount to an elaborate and costly way of filling seats in the European Parliament that could be adequately filled by other indirect methods. It was argued that MEPs could continue to be selected from among the members of national parliaments, or that this indirect method of selection was perfectly adequate. It was further implied that only if the European Parliament had more extensive powers could the election of its members by direct universal suffrage be justified. The opponents of this view argued that only a directly elected European Parliament would justify the extension of the chamber's powers. This argument derived. from the belief that only directly elected MEPs could legitimately seek an extension of the Parliament's powers - especially its legislative powers - so that, like national MPs, they could act on behalf of, and be directly accountable to, their electorate. The argument was predicated on four principles. Firstly, in the name of 'democracy', citizens should be given the right to elect their representatives by direct suffrage. Secondly, these representatives should be subjected to periodic elections and thereby held accountable for their actions. Thirdly, these representatives should protect and further the interests of those whom they represented. And fourthly, there should be respect for the principle of no taxation without representation. Of these, the second and third could not be realised without first extending the powers of the European Parliament. So long as the European Parliament was devoid of legislative power, MEPs could expect neither to protect nor advance, like their national
The list of books you might like
