After months of parliamentary wrangling, the Lisbon Treaty was approved by the UK Parliament this week. This is despite Irish voters voting no by a margin of 53% to 47%. Ireland was the only country in Europe to have a referendum, despite a vigorous campaign here in Britain, which included a private referendum in ten Labour and Liberal Democrat-held constituencies – though not, suspiciously, in Ken Clarke’s constituency despite him voting for the Lisbon Treaty – and is still ongoing thanks to Stuart Wheeler. The fact that it was defeated by such a wide margin, and on such a high turnout (53%) has been a cause celebre for all the European nay-sayers, most significantly David Cameron. Yet, for pro-Europeans, it has left us down in the mouth.
However, this should not be our only reaction.
I believe the defeat of the Lisbon Treaty should be a time to start afresh, however painful it may be. Europe brings democracy to former Soviet-bloc countries, yet the EU institutions are undemocratic, and more importantly have a reputation for being so.
Don’t get me wrong, I am very in favour of EU membership. It is, in and of itself, a good thing. But it certainly could be more democratic. Firstly, we need a new treaty. This treaty could be the once-in-a-generation review of EU institutions that the Lisbon Treaty was supposed to be, and ground breaking where Lisbon wasn’t. We could have Commissioners who are drawn from the European Parliament. This would mean the largest group in the Parliament either leading a minority or coalition Commission, because proportional representation and the very wide electorate makes a single-grouping majority in the Parliament nigh on impossible. Having the Commission drawn from MEPs would give them a democratic legitimacy that Commissioners lack at the moment, and more importantly give their decisions a democratic mandate. Instead of having the President of the Council elected, why not have the President of the Commission elected for two terms of the European Parliament?
So where would the Commissioners who serve currently go? Mrs Thatcher once said that Jacques Delors wanted “the European Parliament to be the democratic decision making body, he wanted the Commission to be the executive and he wanted the Council of Ministers to be the Senate”. And that is, approximately, what I would like to see.
Let us think about it. Those who are currently employed as Commissioners understandably would be rather dismayed to see their jobs go. The expansion of the EU is meaning problems for the size of the Commission, and the current Council system is inefficient. Therefore, why not have a European Nation States Assembly, made up of appointees from nation states? It would be permanent and would retain a veto over certain controversial issues, such as defence, foreign policy, the economy and extension of powers, and votes in the Assembly would be based upon QMV). (I would also allow our Parliament to decide who our appointee was – I would have liked to see the late Robin Cook or Ming Campbell representing us in Europe, personally).
Finally, to reassure quite a few people, there should be a more effective check on the directives, regulations, etc. that originate from Europe. If a national Parliament challenges an EU decision, this must be subject to review, and discussions should be held to rectify the situation, rather than the optional review that was proposed in the Lisbon Treaty. I think the powers that the EU holds are about right, yet if it is the will of the Parliamentary majority, then it must be reviewed – not abandoned, mind you – but reviewed, so we can all come to a better conclusion.
I don’t claim to be an expert on European institutions, but I am passionately in favour of Europe, I think it is vital to our future success as a country and to global success in the next few decades, and I am not afraid to discuss, as we pro-Europeans often can be. And I believe greater democracy is a first step to persuading all European peoples that Europe is a good thing.
* Thomas Hemsley is a Liberal Democrat member.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Reg Calvert and his boarding school of rock
A shocking abuse of the legal system where the rich try to bully the weak and poor into submission
Are we doing enough to insure against climate change?
Paul Holmes
David McHardy
George Thomas
4 Comments
I would be very interested in Thomas Hemsley’s reaction to the European Constitution thread in the members forum. There is an idea there which would create a possibly useful home for surplus Commissioners and potential Commissioners
I think they should consider dropping all the defence-related ideas for the EU. Yes, this means having a wild collection of disparate armed forces and a weak global military reach. But my impression is that lack of easy accessible military strength actually improves the EU’s ability to project soft power.
I agree entirely with the analysis in the article but I am not 100% in agreement over the ideas for institutions. And therein lies the fundamental problem with Europe – we all have slightly varying views.
What we need therefore is an underlying set of pirnciples on which to build a new European edifice, which would be akin to the US constitution. It would need to be brief, flexible – within reason – and it would need to reflect the many variations on political systems which exist in Europe.
Philosophically, Europe emerged as a Napoleonic (Roman) French system of formal commissioners, ‘cabinets’, councils and such like whereas the new, enlarged Europe needs a more anglo-saxon model which allows for differences to co-exist within a system.
A radical suggestion therefore might be to get someone in from outside Europe to draft the new document, say, an American?!
The many discussions on this subject are fascinating as most seem to be coming down to the simple view that a radical reinvention of Europe is needed, one I wholeheartedly subscribe to.
I am afraid the article strikes like so much of what the EU supporters in our party say, overly optimistic and naïve. The EU is simply illiberal and undemocratic, largely populated by a mass of self serving bureaucrats and politicians. Why people think it can be reformed remains beyond comprehension. Endemic corruption, coupled with an absolute instinct to cover up when exposed (even by its own auditors), a total belief in its own infallibility, and a gravy train for failed national politicians and their wives and families. It may be all that’s there, but it is beyond redemption. How can it be when Nick on the one hand can say “this is no excuse for carrying on regardless”, but then our House of Lords team were part of the group which “approved the Lisbon Treaty”. Carry on regardless – don’t make me laugh!