A view from inside the EU

Summary

• The lack of awareness of the EU is partly explained by the lack of openness and clarity in the process of decision-making between the different institutions of the EU.
• National MPs have an obvious duty to hold their governments more accountable for the decisions they approve when meeting their homologues at Brussels meetings of the Council of Ministers.
• The European Institutions also have a duty to reform the way they work to make it more comprehensible to the citizen.
• The Member States are currently deliberating on the fundamental question of how to increase the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the institutions as well as better define and delimit their competences which may lead to a modification of the existing treaties.
• The outcome should result in fewer Community legal instruments, more political accountability of the Commission, equal legislative powers to Parliament and Council and a greater involvement of national parliaments in preparing the legislative priorities.

Certainly one of the reasons for ignorance and indifference to the work of the European Union is the lack of openness and clarity of decision-making and the institutions involved. Most Britons are unaware of the distinction between the European Commission, Parliament and Council of Ministers, of the fact that decisions are not imposed on us by an unelected foreign bureaucracy but democratically decided and voted by directly elected MEPs and appointed ministers from each Member State. However the transparency of the relationship between these bodies and the public access to the results of decisions taken on their behalf is far from satisfactory. National parliaments have a specific responsibility to hold government ministers to account for positions they adopt with their European homologues and their ability to represent and defend justified national interests. The European Parliament is the most accessible and open of the EU institutions but its deliberations still fail to attract much interest or imagination from the European public it represents. This may, in part, be the duty of media and press organisations to responsible reporting but the Parliament itself must improve its act and make a serious effort to re-engage the citizen in the European debate.
Ignorance can lead to distrust and distrust to antipathy. If the issue is not tackled more seriously the whole legitimacy of the European project is in jeopardy. This reality belatedly dawned on the powers at be and resulted in the setting up of a Convention of national and European parliamentarians and ministers to rethink the institutional framework of Europe. They attempted to answer a series of fundamental questions posed at the Laeken European summit in December 2001. Fundamentally these include how to increase the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the present institutions, enhance the efficiency of decision-making in an enlarged Union and define and delimit the competences of each level of Government. The result was an ambitious (if excessively lengthy and inadequtely explained) constitutional treaty which was eventually ratified by 18 Member States, rejected by 2 and the remainder postponing their national debates. After a self-imposed 'period of reflection' (allowing time for tempers to cool) Member States agreed to look again at the document, update it to account for new priority concerns (principally climate change, energy and tackling terrorism) and remove the offending references to flags, anthems and symbols traditionally associated with a state. In addition, the British Government negotiated (insisted upon) a series of exemptions and opt-outs from the new policy areas, namely police and judicial cooperation, common external action and the application of the Charter of fundamental rights.  Ironically Britain  has been at the vanguard of developing these policy areas - proposing a number of anti-terror measures to apply across Europe and launching joint defence initiatives with the French. So opting out is odd to say the least but a political expedient to appease some eurosceptics back home.
A clear and understandable framework laying out the principles and objectives of the Union is essential to addressing the identity crisis that has led to the growing gap between EU and its citizens. As with all levels of government, failure to properly explain and justify actions leads to popular discontent and disaffection.
There should be fewer legal instruments, more political accountability and responsibility of the Commission, equal legislative powers to both the European Parliament and Council and greater involvement of national parliaments in vetting future policy proposals. The EU Treaties will need to be redrafted, consolidated and finally presented in an unambiguous and accessible text. This should include, inter alia, the deletion of the distinction between European Community and European Union, combining both in a single entity with legal personality, precision of the rights and freedoms of European citizens via the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights through a protocol and clear delineation of competences exclusive to the Union and those shared with member states.
What we have ended up with is the Treaty of Lisbon, a lengthy series of reforms and changes to the existing legal and institutional framework. It is a fairly unexciting document but does mark some important improvements on the current arrangements.