On Wednesday two candidates will go head to head to discuss their vision for the European Parliament should they become its president. It’s a good idea. And there should be more such debates in Brussels.
But unfortunately the event is undermined by the workings of the institution itself. It is already almost certain who will be in charge of the parliament for the next five years.
Bar an upset, the centre-right EPP will make their usual power stitch-up with the Socialists and share the presidency between them. This means Poland’s Jerzy Buzek, already selected by his group for the job, will be president for the first half of the term and a Socialist – possibly Martin Schulz, currently heading the group – will take over in the second half.
In Wednesday’s debate Buzek will face Graham Watson – a British Liberal who until a few days ago headed the Liberal faction in the European Parliament. So far, these two are the only declared candidates.
So Watson, who set out his stall for the job several months ago, can talk up a storm. But it won’t make any difference. And whatever Watson’s qualification for the post ( it is noticeable that he recently abandoned all earlier talk of transparency in the hope that such a power stitch-up would land him the post), he should get credit for being open about running for the job and actually doing some – gasp! – broad cross-party canvassing to drum up support.
The post itself is not hugely important, but the deal behind it is a bad way of conducting business.
The institution and its MEPs never tire of pointing out that parliament is the only directly-elected EU institution and therefore the most democratic. I don’t see much in the presidency deal that is democratic nor does it say much for a mature institution in line for a substantial increase in powers under the Lisbon Treaty.
In addition, the parliament enjoys shouting at the European Council for secretly making deals on posts such as the European Commission president. A little bit of pot and kettle perhaps?
What the parliament needs is more politics, more transparency and a whole lot less complacency.
#1 by al on July 7, 2009 - 3:44 am
What is the EU’s current definition of “centre-right”? The EPP is currently dominated by the far right (Berlusconi’s bloc) and is presently nowhere near “centre-right” (the term in search of a definition).
Also, saying that a body is “most democratic” by comparing itself to non-democratic bodies is a non-sequitur. Seeking “transparency”, therefore, out of such a body, will be a fruitless endeavour. If there were any intent of transparency, we would have been seeing it in the 1980s. But what’s to be transparent about when the body in question is virtually (and literally) powerless?
Vaclav Klaus will be very vindicated at the tail end of history, especially his bold comparison of the European Parliament to a “one-party state” (as reported by this web site); so will Vladimir Bukovsky (and that’s in spite of his association with the UKIP).
#2 by lighthouse on July 8, 2009 - 3:53 pm
The Parliament and indeed the EU could be reformed completely
http://ceolas.net/#eu1x
A Smaller and More Effective Parliament
The End of the European Commission
The New Axis, European Parliament-Council of Ministers | European Senate
The Head of the European Government
European Budget Efficiency and Local Democracy
and..to finish off… since I am in Ireland:
An Irish Bedtime Story for all Nice Children and not so Maastricht Adults…
#3 by Marcel on July 9, 2009 - 2:33 pm
If we abolish the EU and instead do economic cooperation only, democracy will be restored.
Now who could be against that except politicians and arrogant progressive university educated elitists?
#4 by Aidan OSullivan on July 11, 2009 - 1:27 pm
Good post Honor. We need to politicize Europe.
#5 by Josh on August 18, 2009 - 10:58 am
Yes, we have to politicize Europe. I think it’s good way