Last week the European Council agreed a new European budget that will, for the first time, see a cut in the amount of money that the EU spends.
Liberal Democrats at Westminster and in the European Parliament have made clear that the EU needs to live within its means. We are in favour of a sensible and realistic deal that reflects the tough economic times that ordinary people are facing. Some MEPs see things differently and oppose the idea of a degree of fiscal restraint in Europe.
People who oppose the cuts in the EU budget that have been put forward are perfectly entitled to their views. To be clear, there are legitimate debates to be had over the terms of the deal that was announced last week. We need, for example, to ensure that the money we are spending is delivering for the UK, helping us to create the stronger economy and fairer society that we all want to see. We also need to look at how we can give the European Parliament the flexibility to manage a smaller budget more effectively.
What is wholly illegitimate is the idea that these debates – and subsequent votes in the European Parliament – should be conducted in secret. Voting on the next EU budget is one of the most important decisions MEPs will take in this mandate. Scrutinising the terms of the deal that has been put forward is a key part of our work. It is vital that we are open and transparent in our decision making.
Politics is all about debate. The European Parliament accommodates MEPs who hold a diverse range of opinions on a wide range of issues. What is critical is that MEPs have the courage of their convictions. As elected representatives we have to take responsibility and account for the decisions we are taking and the votes we are casting.
It has been reported that that MEPs of the European Peoples Party, which is one of the largest centre-right groupings in Brussels, could seek to force a secret ballot using procedural rules. This is an idea that Martin Schulz, the socialist President of the EU Parliament, has also backed.
As the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons on Monday, the idea of a secret ballot is an extraordinary concept. Transparency is something that is absolutely central to our democracy. It is absolutely wrong that MEPs who are elected to represent the views of their constituents should seek to hide their votes in the manner that is being advocated by some in Brussels.
Since this first came to light, Liberal Democrat MEPs have made our views clear. We do not support a secret vote and will be working hard to persuade others that this approach is fundamentally wrong headed. For a secret vote to go ahead, 151 MEPs would need to sign up. No Liberal Democrat MEPs will be in that number and we will resist this anti-democratic measure.
* George Lyon is Liberal Democrat MEP for Scotland and Vice President of the European Budget Committee.
13 Comments
Excellent. Can you tell us the position of ALDE ?
“… and we will resist this anti-democratic measure.”
A first and very welcome admission from a Lib Dem, that the EU is inherently anti-democratic at its core.
John Dunn, I don’t see how you can infer what you claim from the statement. But then given what you’re choosing to infer, I’m not entirely surprised you’re doing so with such little basis.
John,
Re-interpreting the text to represent something other than what it actually says? Shame on you, sir! Conflating a single measure with an entire organisation? If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a million times, stop exaggerating!
@Dave Page
Why would a supposed democratic institution, have in its structure, the ability to even consider, hiding its vote from public gaze?
Answer : Because the EU wants the facility to hide its accountability, and therefore its deficit of democracy. Not only are secret EU votes wrong, it’s abhorrent to even have it as an option. But then it is par for the course, given that the EU is an abhorrent structure.
It is there because the member states’ elected governments chose to put it in the Treaties.
The UK Parliament can go into private session. Most parliaments can. Courts of Law sometimes do. Local councils frequently do.
I don’t think the European Parliament ever should need to, but I don’t see the existence of the facility to do so is at all at odds with the norms of other democratic institutions.
@Anthony :
Why would an MP or MEP want to hide from their electorate, what they have vote for ?
And how is an average voter to decide if a refreshing a candidates mandate, (MP or MEP), is appropriate, if you don’t know how they have voted on a particular issue?
Antony – there is a difference between private session and private votes. I think that Council votes are a matter of public record (albeit not all recorded) even when they are discussing the matter in closed proceedings.
The only time I can recall a secret Parliamentary vote was the most recent speaker election.
Hywel,
You are a better expert than me on local councils. When a council debates in private if there is a vote, can the vote not be private too? In some cases surely if the vote is in public that would reveal the subject debated, which might be secret.
The US Senate can have secret votes. Senate Rule XXIX expressly provides that “votes” in Executive Sessions are secret unless the Senate votes to lift secrecy.
I can’t find an answer for whether Commons votes in a secret session are secret votes. But it seems to me a division is part of a session and would be as secret as the debate during the secret session.
Either way while we all agree that secret votes are bad policy, it would seem that the facility to have one is not inherently at odds with being a democracy.
“It has been reported that that MEPs of the European Peoples Party, which is one of the largest centre-right groupings in Brussels, could seek to force a secret ballot using procedural rules.”
perhaps we can understand why the tories felt they had no place in the EPP now.
John,
I don’t think they should have secret debates or votes. I think using the option would be wrong. But I don’t think that the UK, the US or the EU are “inherently undemocratic” as you say. I think that overstates it to a ridiculous extent.
John D – so how many votes, representing what proportion of the total, have been conducted secretly?
“John D – so how many votes, representing what proportion of the total, have been conducted secretly?”
if it is one that really matters then of what importance is there in talking about percentages?