European Union

Of the four main European Institutions,[1] the European Parliament (EP) has most struggled to be heard on the recent crises affecting Europe (monetary, economic, social, environmental…).[2] At a time when the European project is at great risk, and when European leaders struggle to define a common European interest, it is perhaps time to turn to the EP, and to give more powers to the only directly elected institution at EU level. After all, the EP is conventionally presented[3] as less bound by national interests, and in certain policy areas such as environmental policy, social justice or civil liberties, as being more ambitious than the Council of Ministers. Hence empowering the European Parliament could be a way of determining a common European interest and alternative solutions to the European crises than those currently supported by the European Commission and the European Council.

But all of these speculations rest on one key assumption: that we know how a stronger European Parliament would behave. More precisely, that it would rise above national interests and deliver a greener EU that is more socially-inclusive and respectful of civil liberties. But would the European Parliament necessarily behave like that? In this blog post, I argue that before granting yet more power to the European Parliament, we need to analyse what impact new powers have had on the EP in the past.  I argue that we cannot always expect the European Parliament to be more liberal and greener than the rest of the institutions. But even though the EP is not green by default, including the EP in policy discussions yields interesting outcomes, opening the way for an alternative take on the different crises to be aired at EU level. I build this argument based on a paper I presented at the 16th UACES Student Forum conference held at Queen’s University Belfast last week, as well as on the other papers on our panel on the EP as an actor, by Martin Wirtz and Ching-Yi Chen.

There is a growing literature which investigates whether greater power means the EP’s more radical policy positions (greener, more attentive to civil liberties etc.) gain greater clout at EU level, or whether the EP changes positions once granted further powers, becoming a tame team player. Work by Burns & Carter on the environment or by Ripoll Servent on civil liberties and trade [4] tend to stress that the EP is losing its unique voice as it gets more powerful. To a certain extent, our discussions in Belfast confirmed this finding. Thus,  by looking at the recent 2013 CAP reform, Martin Wirtz showed in his paper that MEPs are not necessarily impervious to national interests — when distributed costs among member states are clear, national voting patterns can emerge. This raises doubts as to whether the EP could be better at coming up with a common solution than the European Council or the Council of Ministers, if it is also bound by national interests in situations with clearly distributed costs. Not only is it doubtful that the EP would propose a more “European” solution, it is also doubtful that it would propose a greener one. Hence in my paper on greening in the latest CAP reform I explain how the European Parliament, working together with the Council of Ministers, hollowed out the Commission’s flagship greening initiative, the Green Payment.

These two cases offer a clear warning to people keen to pin their hopes on the European Parliament. But we should not take these cases to mean that we can expect nothing new or different from the Parliament compared to what the other institutions would produce. For example, our discussions in Belfast shed light on two key characteristics of the EP’s actions: the EP can be unpredictable and it can be increasingly independent. First, Ching-Yi Chen’s paper on ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, is a perfect example of the EP’s unpredictability. As directly elected politicians, MEPs can be more easily swayed by citizens’ mobilisation than the rest of Brussels. In the case of ACTA, civil protest in Central and Eastern Member States served to shed light on the negative impacts ACTA would have on the rights of internet users. This helped foster opposition to ACTA among left wing parties in the EP, as well as to split the main right wing group, leading the EP to reject ACTA. The shadow of ACTA’s rejection still hangs over the current discussion within the EP about TTIP – the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, currently discussed with the US government – which contrary to ACTA could have strong environmental consequences – making other EU actors as well as the EP leadership very wary of how a vote on TTIP would go. Second, my paper on the CAP reform puts forward the argument that the EP did not simply weaken the Commission’s green agenda, it proposed and fostered an alternative path to greening the CAP – through stronger voluntary payments – a clear sign of the EP following its own independent path.

To conclude, looking back at the effects of recent changes to the EP power, it is far from certain that  further empowering the European Parliament would give way to a more “European” and greener response to the different crises shaking the EU. The EP is not always impervious to national interests, nor is it necessarily greener. But empowering the EP nevertheless shakes up discussions in Brussels, giving voice to an unpredictable and increasingly independent actor.

[1] The European Parliament, European Commission, Council of the European Union (ex. Council of Ministers) and the European Council.

[2] As illustrated by Angelos Loukakis’s paper on discussions on the Greek crisis and the EP’s failure to reply to the European Commission’s 2015 Work Programme, even though the programme contained some highly contested measures regarding environmental policy.

[3] Indeed a previous post on this blog presents a short overview of the academic debate on the question.

[4] See for example Neil Carter & Charlotte Burns’ project “Is the European Parliament an Environmental Champion?” and, on trade and civil liberties, the work of Ariadna Ripoll Servent.

The post Empowering the European Parliament: a greener, more European way out of the European crises? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Plenary sessions : Parliament condemned in the strongest possible terms the genocide in Srebrenica of 11 July 1995 and said that "such horrendous crimes must never happen again", in a vote on Thursday. MEPs regret that the UN Security Council failed to pass a resolution commemorating the genocide and call for acceleration of war crimes prosecution at international and domestic level.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Plenary sessions : Forthcoming proposals to reform EU copyright law for the digital era must ensure a fair balance between the rights and interests of both creators and consumers, said MEPs on Thursday. They called for ways to improve access to online content across borders, while recognizing the importance of territorial licences, particularly for TV and film productions.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Plenary sessions : The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) must return to its original aim of creating an area of prosperity, stability, security and good neighbourliness, Parliament said on Thursday. The EU must go “back to basics” and place these goals at the top of its agenda, say MEPs. They stress that the revised policy must be more political, differentiated and based on EU values and principles, democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Plenary sessions : The EU needs to use natural resources more efficiently - a 30% increase in resource productivity by 2030 could boost its GDP by nearly 1% and create an extra 2 million sustainable jobs, say MEPs in a resolution voted on Thursday. But to achieve this growth, it needs binding waste-reduction targets, revamped ecodesign laws and measures to uncouple growth from resource use, they add, calling on the European Commission to table legislation by the end of 2015.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Plenary sessions : The EU Capital Markets Union (CMU) should provide a new, more efficient way to channel savings into small business ventures and protect cross-border investors in the EU, says a non-binding resolution voted on Thursday. MEPs want CMU building blocks, such as a wider range of investment choices, risk mitigation tools and clear information on investment opportunities across the EU to be in place by 2018, so as to complement bank financing. The CMU project was launched earlier this year.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Germany v Commission
SANT
The Court, in line with the General Court, confirms the Commission’s ban against Germany retaining its limit values for arsenic, antimony and mercury in toys

Commission v Ireland
SOPO
The Commission has not succeeded in establishing that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Working Time Directive for Non-Consultant Hospital Doctors

InnoLux v Commission
Competition
The Court confirms the €288 million fine imposed on InnoLux for its participation in the cartel on the market for LCD panels

K and A
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
Member States may require third country nationals to pass a civic integration examination prior to family reunification

Commission v France
State aid
France has failed to fulfil its obligations by failing to recover aid amounting to €220 million granted to SNCM for certain ferry services between Marseille and Corsica

The services of the European Commission are currently reflecting on the follow-up to the Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015 (COM (2010) final). The EU's trade policy has not yet been fully integrated into this Strategy, providing an opportunity for the INTA committee to consider whether and how gender issues should be dealt with in the context of the EU's trade policies. Article 8 TFEU provides that “in all its activities, the Union shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality between men and women.” The trade policy issues that are discussed by the European Parliament's INTA committee can have differing gender impacts across the various sectors of the economy. Understanding the gender dimension of trade agreements better will therefore contribute to better policy making and to ensuring that both sexes can take advantage of the benefits of trade liberalisation and be protected from its negative effects.
Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Little over a month ago, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras was still claiming that his party’s electoral victory last January had put an end to bailout programmes. A few days ago, he told the Greek people that a ‘No’ vote in the Greek referendum would lead to a deal with Greece’s creditors within 48 hours. More than 48 hours after the ‘No’ vote, there is no deal and his government has formally requested a third bailout programme.

This request coupled with Mr. Tsipras’ decision to replace controversial Finance Minister Yannis Varoufakis might produce the impression that the Greek government’s position has shifted closer to that of its creditors and that an agreement has become more likely. Sadly, this is not the case. Since the Greek government decided to abandon negotiations with its creditors to hold a referendum, the distance between the Greek government’s position and that of its creditors has grown greater.

The Greek people rejected the last offer that Greece was made before their government abandoned negotiations with its creditors. Additionally, the Greek government’s request for a third bailout programme has raised the issue of debt relief yet again. Greece’s creditors, however, have indicated that a third bailout programme will require Greece to accept stricter conditions than those included in the offer that the Greek people rejected. As far as debt relief is concerned, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was perfectly clear: ‘There can be no question of a haircut’.

Given that the distance between the Greek government and its creditors has increased, an agreement seems unlikely. Even if the Greek government agrees to stricter conditions than those that the Greek people have rejected, ratification of such an agreement by the Greek parliament cannot be guaranteed. In fact, the large margin by which the Greek people rejected the last offer of Greece’s creditors and the fact that their offer was rejected in every single constituency suggest that the seats of those MPs who might vote against stricter conditions are safe.

An agreement without stricter conditions might be possible, if Greece’s EU partners decided that ensuring the irreversibility of Eurozone integration is more important than enforcing compliance with Eurozone rules. Ratification of such an agreement by national parliaments cannot be guaranteed either. Opposition to additional financial assistance to Greece runs at about 70% amongst the German public. The seats of those MPs who might approve such financial assistance would not be safe.

Several months ago, then SYRIZA MEP Manolis Glezos had the integrity to apologise to the Greek people for his role in creating the ‘illusion’ that SYRIZA’s electoral victory would put an end to bailout programmes. Mr. Tsipras should follow his example. Not only has his government requested yet another bailout programme for Greece, but it also seems to have placed itself in a position, from which an agreement on a third programme seems unlikely.

Kyriakos Moumoutzis is a Lecturer in European and International Politics at King’s College London.

 

The post Mr. Tsipras owes the Greek people an apology appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Barbara Lochbihler

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP