DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT?
Unlike our
House of Commons, the European Parliament and its members are elected for five
years with no possibility of an earlier end to their tenure of office. Quite
different from Westminster where the Prime Minister of the day has the power
to dissolve Parliament and call an election at the time of his or her
choosing.
So having been
re-elected in June 2004, I am now more than half way through my present term
of office and at this time in the life of MEPs, there is a major
reorganisation of their roles in the Parliament. For example, we have just
chosen a new president of the Parliament for the second half of the new
parliamentary term. I use the word ‘chosen’ rather than ‘elected’ because the
way this office is filled is a demonstration of all that is wrong with the way
that the Parliament sometimes conducts its business. In short, it’s not an
‘election’, it’s a stitch-up. Let me explain.
When I was
re-elected back in 2004, the two biggest groups in the Parliament, the
centre-right grouping EPP-ED, (of which we Conservatives are members), and the
centre-left socialist group (which includes the British Labour MEPs), did a
deal. The President of the Parliament for the first half of the term would
come from the socialist camp; the second half would be filled by an EPP-ED
MEP. Very cosy.
The socialist
group made a classic mistake with their choice. They could have picked an
excellent former regional colleague Terry Wynn – a man of vast experience of
the Parliament and someone of proven ability after many years service in
Europe. But instead they picked a Spanish MEP who was elected for the first
time to the European Parliament in 2004 and who was made its president within
a few weeks of walking through its doors. An extraordinary decision. Just
imagine if the House of Commons had picked the newest MP to be its speaker and
chair its proceedings.
But there was
nothing that ordinary MEPs could do about this situation because behind closed
doors the decision had already been made.
Needless to
say, the Spanish representative proved to be a hopeless president with no feel
for the Parliament or its workings. But his term has ended. Now comes the
payback. The EPP-ED man takes over. No one could say that the new president,
an amiable German called Hans Gert Pottering, is not experienced or
knowledgeable about the workings of the Parliament. He has been there for
years. But his ‘coronation’ was followed by a speech which outlined his
belief that all MEPs were in the Parliament to push for an ever-closer union
of Europe.
Well, promoting
a federal Europe is not why I am in the Parliament. I’m there to get the best
deal for Britain and the North West.
This whole
process once again highlighted the EU’s democratic deficit. Debate is
stifled, decisions, many of them bad ones, are made behind closed doors, and
so- called unhelpful minority opinions, which do not buy into the united
Europe concept, are ignored.
When I observe how the
Parliament chooses its most senior representative, I am sorely tempted to
borrow – just this once – the slogan of the anti-war in Iraq protestors -
‘Not in my name’.
A WORD IN YOUR
EAR
One of the
habits of politicians and civil servants is their love of incomprehensible
language to describe the institutions and procedures which are part of their
daily working lives.
It behoves all
politicians, including MEPs, to use language which people understand. That’s
why I recently put my name to a motion in the European Parliament to stop
using technical terminology and to make our work more easily understood by
those we represent. If you doubt the need for change in this area, the motion
sets out some of the terms regularly used in Brussels in the transport
sector. These include co-modality, intermodal platform, internalisation of
external costs, interoperability and intermodality.
And if I feel
hard done by, we should just spare a thought for the Parliament’s interpreters
who have to translate these terms into the 23 official languages in all
European institutions.