Battle honours

Winning the hearts and minds of EU citizens could be parliament's most important battle yet, writes Sir Julian Priestley

Before I stood down as secretary general last year, members and colleagues suggested I record some of the events I had been privileged to observe up close during my 30-plus years working for the European parliament. I believe in the duty of record, in ensuring that accounts of events are as accurate as possible, and I was concerned that some quite important milestones on parliament’s road to influence had not been recounted fully in the now abundant literature about Europe’s institutions.

Part of ‘communicating Europe’ means seizing every opportunity to explain how decision making works in its institutions – in practice, not just in theory. So when my editor raised the question of the target audience, we came up with the mythical Latvian politics student (alongside the Polish plumber), maybe wanting one day to come to Brussels to work, and whose interest in Europe might be stimulated by stories of how things happened – the personalities, the mishaps and the politics – rather than the academic description of the powers and the activities of the institutions.

I chose six ‘battles’. The choice is clearly subjective. Four concern the classic powers of a parliament: budgetary power, legislative decision-making and control of the executive. Parliament’s rejection of the 1980 budget, just six months after the first direct elections, affirmed its presence as a political factor in the then EEC. It was also the first step in reforming Europe’s finances, and the struggles initiated then – to contain excessive CAP spending and to devote extra resources for new policies while insisting on value for money – are just as pertinent today as the EU prepares itself for CAP stocktaking and the midterm financial review.

I chose a legislative battle in the takeover bids directive from 1999 to 2003,because this was parliament challenging the member states, albeit with a wafer-thin majority, on a piece of flagship legislation, essential to completing the internal market. Parliament was moving centre-stage on a most sensitive issue, and reflecting a deep split in public opinion.

Two chapters are devoted to parliament’s campaign to ensure greater accountability of the commission. To the alarm of many, parliament instituted public hearings for commissioners-designate in 1994, and subjected nominees to a degree of scrutiny far more elaborate than is the case in the member states.

The balance between the executive and the legislature has changed, as a result, in subtle but important ways. In 2004, when the hearings led to several nominees being judged unacceptable by a high proportion of MEPs, the commission president-designate drew the inevitable conclusions, if only at the eleventh hour. He knew that even if he had been able to squeak by in the investiture vote, his commission would have been hamstrung from day one because of the narrowness of his parliamentary support.

Inevitably, the fall of the Santer commission in 1999 is the longest chapter of the book. It is more a saga of misunderstandings than misdemeanours. The frauds and irregularities which came to light do not seem worse in scale or degree than in quite a few of our national capitals. But the commission forfeited parliament’s confidence through the political mishandling of the crisis.

One other chapter deals with what may seem a peripheral skirmish: the campaign by parliament to ‘get in the room’ of the European council. The symbolism is, however, important: through it, parliament gained several places at successive intergovernmental conferences and almost through reciprocity became a key forum for debates about the future of Europe, and an important platform for heads of state and government.

Then there is the reform of parliament itself. The book chronicles the 30-year battle to get a common statute for MEPs and to introduce greater transparency in its own financial arrangements. Any account of the last few years in parliament would be incomplete if it did not deal with these vexatious questions.

I finished writing the book earlier this year and, as luck would have it, certain things which appeared clear then seem less so now. For example, it had seemed to me that once the statute for MEPs had been agreed, all the polemics about possible misuse of their allowances would subside.

The recent media firestorm about the allowance for parliamentary assistants, which followed problems in a national parliament, has proved me wrong. So there is a seventh battle now underway to deal with the outstanding questions concerning MEPs’ finances, which need to be settled before the 2009 elections.

Secondly, the Lisbon treaty had just been signed when I completed the book, and there was a fair wind behind ratification. It seemed as if ratification in 2008 would complete parliament’s arsenal, and conclude the long march to establish its institutional position.

The Irish no vote calls that into question, and I make no predictions as to how the EU can overcome this obstacle. Even allowing for the vagaries of a referendum campaign, what the Irish result demonstrates is a chasm between public opinion and the EU institutions, which, if not addressed, will derail the whole project.

The proximity of the next European elections gives a chance for a more profound public debate about the future of Europe, provided, of course, that the elections are about European issues, and not, as has often been the case in the past, hijacked by national parties as dry-runs for national elections. These elections for the European parliament should be the first really ‘European’ elections, and parties should be asked what their vision and programmes are for the new Europe of 500 million citizens.

If these elections are merely seen as a kind of elaborate opinion poll on the standing of national parties, turnout will continue to decline and the legitimacy and significance of the elections will be compromised. This battle for public opinion – the eighth battle – is the most important for parliament’s long-term well-being.