2015年-CEPS欧洲政策研究中心_EU_Democratic_Legitimacy_and_National_Parliaments_10页_233kb

EU Democratic Legitimacy and National Parliaments Summary

Core Content

This essay by Sonia Piedrafita explores the issue of EU democratic legitimacy and the role of national parliaments in ensuring it. It emphasizes the growing concern over the centralization of decision-making powers in supranational bodies like the European Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB), which has raised questions about political accountability and the democratic involvement of citizens. The author argues that while the European Parliament plays a central role in EU legislation, national parliaments must also be strengthened to contribute meaningfully to EU democratic processes.

Main Views

• EU Decision-Making and Democratic Deficit: The transfer of powers to the EU has increasingly taken the form of intergovernmentalism and centralization, which can lead to a democratic deficit as national parliaments are not always adequately involved in EU decision-making.

• Role of National Parliaments: National parliaments are crucial for scrutinizing their governments' actions in the EU and ensuring compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. They also have a role in policy evaluation and inter-parliamentary cooperation.

• Subsidiarity and the Early Warning Mechanism (EWM): The EWM, introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, allows national parliaments to challenge EU legislative proposals on subsidiarity grounds. However, its use is limited, often seen as a veto mechanism rather than a tool for constructive debate.

• Political Dialogue and Inter-Parliamentary Cooperation: These mechanisms offer more positive engagement opportunities between national parliaments and the EU institutions. However, they are underutilized, and their effectiveness is hampered by lack of follow-up and engagement from the Commission.

• Variability in National Practices: The extent and nature of parliamentary scrutiny vary significantly across member states. Some parliaments are more active in monitoring EU legislation, while others focus on government positions in the Council.

• Need for Institutional Reform: There is a call for harmonization of subsidiarity checks, improved follow-up from the Commission, and guidelines for common criteria to enhance the political dialogue and inter-parliamentary cooperation.

Key Information

1. The Trouble with EU Democratic Legitimacy

• The EU's political system differs from traditional liberal democracies, lacking a clear separation of powers.
• The European Parliament is not fully representative, with larger states underrepresented.
• The principle of subsidiarity is central to EU legitimacy, but its application is not uniform across member states.
• National parliaments are not just passive observers but should play a more active role in EU decision-making.

2. National Parliaments in the Treaties

• The Treaty of Maastricht (1992) first addressed the role of national parliaments, emphasizing their scrutiny functions.
• The Lisbon Treaty (2009) further institutionalized their role, including:
  • Ensuring compliance with the principle of subsidiarity (Art. 5).
  • Holding governments accountable in the Council (Art. 10).
  • Participating in policy evaluation and inter-parliamentary cooperation.
• Protocol No. 1 of the Lisbon Treaty outlines the eight-week period for national parliaments to receive legislative drafts, but timely reception remains the responsibility of national governments.

3. The Early Warning Mechanism

• The EWM allows national parliaments to submit reasoned opinions if they believe a draft legislative act violates subsidiarity.
• The yellow card procedure is triggered if at least 1/3 of the votes (or 1/4 for AFSJ matters) submit negative opinions.
• The orange card procedure is more stringent, requiring a simple majority of national parliaments.
• The Monti II proposal triggered the first yellow card procedure in 2012, leading to the withdrawal of the proposal.
• The EWM is often underutilized and perceived as a mere veto tool, not a platform for constructive debate.

4. Political Dialogue with the Commission and Inter-Parliamentary Cooperation

• The political dialogue with the Commission encourages opinions on EU legislation, but participation is uneven.
• In 2012, 663 opinions were submitted, with 83 being reasoned opinions.
• The political dialogue is often undervalued due to lack of follow-up and vague responses from the Commission.
• Inter-parliamentary cooperation includes:
  • Inter-Parliamentary Committee meetings.
  • Presidency meetings.
  • COSAC (Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs).
  • Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Common Foreign and Security Policy and Economic and Financial Governance.

5. Scrutiny of National Governments

• The parliamentary control of EU affairs can be of two types:
  • Government position scrutiny in the Council.
  • EU legislation scrutiny, involving collecting information and adopting resolutions.
• Winzen (2012) found that most EU-15 member states had weak parliamentary control, with Denmark, Finland, and Germany being exceptions.
• The scrutiny capacity depends on:
  • Access to EU-related information.
  • Involvement of EU affairs committees and standing committees.
  • The enforceability of parliamentary resolutions or mandates.

6. Conclusions

• Strengthening national parliaments is essential to improve EU democratic legitimacy.
• Existing mechanisms (EWM, political dialogue, inter-parliamentary cooperation) can be enhanced without risking EU decision-making.
• Harmonization of subsidiarity checks, better follow-up from the Commission, and more structured political dialogue are key to increasing parliamentary involvement and making EU policies more transparent and accountable.