Meeting the Challenge

8.00.00am GMT Thu 15th Dec 2005

Colin Ross at the European Parliament

The Liberal Democrats have been carrying out a policy review, part of which has been open to members and supporters to give their opinions. I have made a few submissions, mostly on Europe - below is the gist of what I said from something I published earlier in the year.

There has been much debate recently about the European Constitution and more lately the British rebate and the European Union (EU) Budget. All this debate has got me thinking about the whole 'European Project' and I thought I would offer my views on it to anyone that was interested!

At University I studied European Politics and European Law, through work (at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) have had experience of the EU and through my politics currently sit on the ELDR (European Liberal Democrats) Council as well as having spent time at conferences and training in a number of EU (and non-EU states). I have also read the draft Constitution, which either makes me very odd or very interested in European matters. I do not claim this makes me an expert on the EU but feel it makes me as qualified as many others who offer their thoughts.

I start from the firm belief that the EU is a good thing, whilst some would argue it was set up as a economic community I believe the founding fathers (and sadly they were all men) had a closer and deeply political union in their minds. The only question is how far do we want to go and how do we get there.

Since the EU expanded to consist of twenty-five nation-states an extreme amount of pressure has been placed on its workings, and if further expansion is to take place we do need to resolve some of the main questions that provide most of the tensions. I see these tensions as three-fold - The EU Budget, EU decision-making and the limits of the EU - Wider vs. Deeper (where does the EU end and what should be decided at EU level).

EU Budget

Unlike some I do not think the UK rebate is sacrosanct and I think now is an excellent opportunity to discuss the whole budget. I agree, and suspect I thought this before Blair and Brown thought it was the latest fad, that the Common Agricultural Policy needs abolishing (an overhaul will not be sufficient). I also think we should be looking at each nation's contribution be set at a fixed percentage at 1% of their GNP.

The Common Agricultural Policy is perhaps one of the biggest wastes of money in the EU, it mainly goes to subsidise produce no one needs or wants and at the same time prevents developing nations a fair trading opportunity with EU markets. It also disproportionately benefits the least efficient farming practices. In the year we, as developed nations, are trying to 'End Poverty' we could go a long way to helping developing nations by 'End the CAP'

Sadly, it would have been easier to 'End the CAP' if we the draft Constitution had came into being as it would have removed several important vetos.

EU decision-making

Potentially the biggest problem facing the EU is the public's view of the decision-making. It appears unconnected to the public, difficult to follow and anti-democratic, this is because it is! We need to grasp the opportunity of the two rejections of the EU Constitution to improve the decision-making.

The European Parliament needs to be the most important of the decision-making bodies and given more powers over legislation. It is the only elected part of the process, though more on this later, and therefore where legitimacy lies.

The Council is a useful body and allows Governments their say in the decision-making process. The six-monthly rotation of Chairing the Council was fine when there were six, twelve or even fifteen members but for an EU of twenty-five (and set to grow) it is impractical and needs looking at. We also need to look at ending the national veto in many, if not all, areas.

The Commission is the least useful of the bodies and the least democratic. It could easily be done away with and much of its responsibilities passed to the Parliament, or if not it should at least be elected by the Parliament, if not having a directly elected President of Europe.

The Commission and the Parliament suffer from one huge problem, that is that much of the Commission's membership and some of the Parliament's membership is made up of failed national politicians (and that is all parties). This can often result in the public have an even lower respect for a set of institutions that have little respect. The Parliament should also be elected in the same way across Europe, and certainly not using the system we use in the UK where the political parties have virtually all the power in the selection of MEPs.

The Constitution had much of the above in it, though not the abolition of the Commission, and much of it can be put into place with having to fully re-write the constitution but by enacting it.

The limits of the EU - Wider vs. Deeper

The question of should the EU concentrate on becoming wider (taking in more nation-states) or deeper (more political integration) has been around for a few years. I think the EU should be wider and deeper, however mass expansion over the last decade probably means the question has become much more important.

The main problem is a chicken and egg question, do you widen get the new members in so they can have a say over how deep it gets or deepen first to ensure all new members are aware of what they are joining.

In terms of widening negotiations have already begun with Romania and Bulgaria, Turkey has starting beginning negotiations and a number of other countries have expressed an interest in joining including Ukraine. All nation states in Europe should have the opportunity of joining the EU and indeed should be encouraged to. The questions remains of those nation states that are partly in Europe - like Turkey and Russia, both of which I think should be allowed to join and those just beyond - some of the north African nation states have expressed an interest in closer working with the EU, I would not have a problem with discussing membership with these states at some point in the future but certainly not before we consolidate where we are.

In terms of deepening I am a big supporter of subsidiarity, which means decisions should be taken at the lowest possible level (something the UK should learn in relation to local government). There are things the EU should deal with most notably environment policy, cross border transport policies but the EU should also be responsible in my opinion for macro-economic policies - all EU countries should be using the Euro, these decisions should include trade policies, the EU should be driving forward a common approach to equalities and diversity issues, international aid/development policies and asylum and immigration policies and in the longer term a common foreign, security and defence policy after the EU has developed further and ensuring the institutions and decision-making processes are democratic.

Hopefully we can get the EU back on the right road and the current problems resolved as soon as possible. Above are my thoughts, let me know what you think.

Related Link:

Visit the Meeting the Challenge website