European Elections 2019 - Greens, Liberals and Nationalists stay afloat in churning electoral waters

After the last five years, it's not surprising that the old centrist parties of left and right faced a slip in support - to the extent that the big two of the EPP and S&D can no longer command a majority on their own - but their votes held up a bit more than might be expected.  The nationalists and far right had a very mixed night, advancing in Italy and Germany while falling back in Denmark and the Netherlands.  The big winners were the Greens and the liberals, winning an extra 57 seats between them and giving them a strong position in the upcoming coalition horsetrading.

The Results

The results are still to be fully confirmed, and some of the national parties may still switch between the European blocs (Orban's Fidesz party is currently suspended by the EPP and may decide to switch to the ECR), but at the time of writing the results are:

European People's Party 178 seats (-35)
Socialists & Democrats 153 (-34)
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats - 105 (+30)
Greens / EFA - 69 (+17)
European Conservatives and Reformists - 63 (-13)
Europe of Nations and Freedom - 58 (+22)
Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy - 54 (+13)
European United Left / Nordic Green Left - 38 (-14)
Non-Attached Members - 8
New Members (yet to join one of the blocs) - 25

Turnout across the EU was up for the first time after years of continuous decline from 43% to 51%, giving a huge boost to the legitimacy of the Parliament, but the Spitzenkandidat process seems to have made less of an impact than in its first outing in 2014 - except perhaps in the Netherlands, where Timmermans led a revival in S&D fortunes.

What's the Story?

The election brought such differing results that no Europe-wide narrative could really be drawn from them.  The Greens, Liberals and nationalists had good nights in certain areas, though the nationalist right will be disappointed that it hasn't done as well as expected.  The Greens made great progress in Germany, France, Finland and Ireland, while the far right scored successes in Italy and Britain (making modest gains in Germany and Spain, where they underperformed their previous national support, and standing still in France).  The Liberals did well in France, Britain, Czech Republic, Romania and the Nordic countries.  Meanwhile, the centre-left managed to hold on or revive itself in Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal.

Proportional representation means that there is always going to be a certain kaleidoscopic quality to the results, but the electoral churn this year is particularly perplexing.  It seems that the liberal/far right populist divide has polarised pro- and anti-European feeling, leading to mirroring support for those movements in certain countries, and that the Greens are stepping in as an alternative to the old centre-left in countries where the established left is struggling to revive itself.  Both developments will have a big impact on politics at a European level, as MEPs more self-consciously pitch themselves to these audiences, and nationally, as Green issues are taken ever more seriously and certain countries are absorbed in culture wars (particularly France, Italy and the UK).

Tilting left: where now for the Parliament?

Overall the Parliament has started to tilt ever-so-slightly leftwards.  Now the big two have lost their majority, the Liberals and the Greens are increasingly important in forming a stable coalition.  Coalitions aren't as important as at the national level as they can be formed more easily on issue-to-issue votes, but there needs to be a sufficient level of stability and cohesion to elect a college of commissioners and help pick the top EU jobs.

The Parliament website has a useful tool for calculating potential majorities.  The main ones are:

EPP + S&D + ALDE - 436 seats

EPP + S&D + Greens - 400 seats

EPP + S&D + ALDE + Greens - 505 seats

EPP + ALDE + ECR + ENF - 404 seats

The last of these potential coalitions, EPP + ALDE + ECR + ENF, is highly unlikely as ENF houses France's National Rally party and would be considered unacceptable as a coalition partner.  However, it illustrates how difficult it is constructing a coalition on the right as the ENF and EFDD are not only difficult partners politically, but they have very low levels of voting cohesion (this also applies to the far-left EUL/NGL bloc).

The weakness of both the EPP and S&D, coupled with the shift towards the Liberals and Greens, means that the political balance has started to shift leftwards, which may impact on the shape of future Eurozone and other economic legislation.  It would also add weight to arguments on civil liberties.  The four-bloc pro-EU coalition has a very large majority, showing that on issue-to-issue votes, ad hoc coalitions necessary to get amendments and legislation through can afford to err more on the left of an argument. The ability of the EPP to maintain its own cohesion on votes and the economic positioning of the Liberals will be key in determining how far the leftward shift can actually go.  The left is, after all, very divided and will need to have a clearer idea of where it wants to go to make an impact.

European Parliament wants to question Snowden

The European Parliament's LIBE Committee's Inquiry into the Electronic Mass Surveillance of European Citizens is not due to be published in March, and the Committee has voted to question the whistle-blower Edward Snowden via video-link. However The Guardian has ran a story on the draft of the report in which the Inquiry says the actions of the NSA and the UK's GCHQ "appear illegal".

The draft report states (PDF; main findings start at p.16):

"[The Inquiry] Condemns in the strongest possible terms the vast, systemic, blanket collection of the  personal data of innocent people, often comprising intimate personal information; emphasises that the systems of mass, indiscriminate surveillance by intelligence services constitute a serious interference with the fundamental rights of citizens; stresses that privacy is not a luxury right, but that it is the foundation stone of a free and democratic society; points out, furthermore, that mass surveillance has potentially severe effects on the freedom of the press, thought and speech, as well as a significant potential for abuse of the information gathered against political adversaries; emphasises that these mass surveillance activities appear also to entail illegal actions by intelligence services and raise questions regarding the extra-territoriality of national laws

[...]

[The Inquiry] Stresses that, despite the fact that oversight of intelligence services’ activities should be based on both democratic legitimacy (strong legal framework, ex ante authorisation and ex post verification) and an adequate technical capability and expertise, the majority of current EU and US oversight bodies dramatically lack both, in particular the technical capabilities."

(Points 9,and 60 of the main findings).

Along with calling for the US and EU Member States to prohibit blanket mass surveillance activities and demanding that the UK, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Germany revise their national intelligence laws in line with the European Convention on Human Rights, the rapporteur, S&D MEP Claude Moraes (UK),  called for the SWIFT Agreement with the US to be put on ice.

The SWIFT Agreement allows for the transfer of financial transaction data to the US, and has come in for a lot of criticism. The first attempt at agreement failed, but the European Parliament voted through a second renegotiated SWIFT deal earlier during this parliament.

Tagesschau reports that the inquiry may show that French and German intelligence agencies have also been carrying out similar surveillance programmes. This is probably widely suspected anyway, but for a parliamentary inquiry to finger France and Germany after the outrage expressed by those two countries would be very embarrassing. It would be particularly uncomfortable for Merkel, who is seen to have reacted to the NSA Affair slowly, and due to the controversial nature of the EU's own data retention laws in the country.

The European Parliament report won't have any binding effect, but the Inquiry is a strong political statement. As well as being a fundamental issue that needs investigation, this is a ticket to the central political stage. Questioning Snowden would be a major coup and turn the Inquiry into an international event. Though the Inquiry overwhelmingly wants to question Snowden (only 2 UK Conservatives on the Committee voted against the proposal), it is depending on Snowden wanting to use the platform - something that the US Congress fears and has warned against. It's hard to see why Snowden wouldn't take this opportunity to state his case personally and publicly.


EDIT: Ralf Grahn drew my attention to the draft report online, so I've changed the blog to include links and some extracts to it.

EU Budget: a victory for the Council

The passing of the EU budget last week by the European Parliament was definitely a win for the Council and the fiscal hawks amongst the Member States. For the first time the EU budget will be cut, and cut by €35 billion (3.5%) over the next 7 year period (this "Multi-annual Financial Framework" allocates the budgets for 2014-2020).

While the European Parliament was able to wring a few concessions from the Council, given that it supported an increase, it's hardly a sign of parliamentary muscle. The centrist alliance of the European People's Party, the Liberals and the Socialists and Democrats bloc were key to passing the budget (537 to 126 votes), with the Greens, United Left and the Eurosceptic Europe of Freedom and Democracy group being the main opponents. The centrist alliance made a few demands that were mostly reflected in the concessions.

In return for its support, the Parliament got:

- Protection of EU funds for research, humanitarian aid and border controls from cuts;
- Retention of unspent funds by the EU, so that these can be used elsewhere (instead of returning to Member States);
- Agreement to ensure the payment of existing commitments under the 2013 budget;*
- Review of the EU's own resources (money directly received by the EU rather than given by the Member States).

The cut in the budget was also reduced from the level demanded by countries such as the UK.

The rationale behind the cuts is that the EU budget needs to reflect the austerity of the Member States - a bizarre idea if the austerity currently practised is supposed to be a policy of necessity rather than ideology, since the EU as an organisation has no debt or deficit. This is because the EU cannot borrow money. The "need" for the EU to reduce spending for the same reason as the Member States is therefore an ideological position rather than an actual attempt to balance a budget or EU public finances. The end result is a reduction in the already low fiscal transfers from the EU in investing in the poorer regions of the EU - taking away an important, if small, support at a time when money is being sucked out of vulnerable economies. So much for solidarity.

It is even more perplexing when a supposedly centre-left party takes this approach.


* The EU budget in 2013 seems to be in a similar position as in 2012, with Member States ironically happy to sign up to spending commitments and then not budget properly for it...

Merkel, Automaticity and Commission Independence

"I don't see any automaticity between top candidates and the filling of posts," says Merkel, pouring cold water over the idea that the winning Europarty's candidate will become Commission president. Apparently the Merkel who argued for a directly elected Commission president just a few years ago was merely exhibiting the naivety of youth (merely CDU policy?). The European People's Party may be suffering from Merkel's new-found reluctance to engage in candidate-selection or manifesto-building.

Article 14(1) of the Treaty on European Union (PDF) states that the European Parliament "shall elect the President of the Commission". Digging deeper into the Treaty, the actual mechanism is that the European Council, acting by qualified majority and taking into account the results of the European elections, nominates a candidate, who the European Parliament can elect or reject (Article 17(7)). So Merkel's correct that the European Council isn't required by treaty law to nominate the winning party candidate, but that's not to say that a political convention of nominating the winning candidate cannot - or shouldn't - evolve. Just as it's now accepted in the British system that the Queen appoints the winning party leader Prime Minister (although it may get more complicated if coalitions start becoming a regular feature), it should become accepted practice for the European Council.

I can see why Angela Merkel has difficulties with this. The PES candidate is from across the political isle and would cost her the ability to nominate a friendly CDU/CSU candidate as a Commissioner, losing her power within the Commission and patronage within her own party. Other Member States may start to have difficulties with it as well, either simply because they don't like the winner or because they realise that their own power to nominate Commissioners could be undermined if a coalition is needed to elect the Commission and its president - a coalition that may include Commission portfolios as part of the deal...

It could be argued that this democratisation of the Commission leaves it too dependent and close to the European Parliament. Article 17(3) TEU states:

"In carrying out its responsibilities, the Commission shall be completely independent. Without prejudice to Article 18(2), the members of the Commission shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government or other institution, body, office or entity. They shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties or the performance of their tasks."

The nomination of Commissioners (that can be rejected by the Commission President) is the only exception to this independence rule. So the argument is that giving the Parliament such a big role would damage the Commission's independence.

But the Commission is already, by treaty, responsible to the European Parliament and can be voted out of office by it (Article 17(8) TEU). Despite the complicated nomination-and-election procedure, there is clearly a tendency towards political accountability to the Parliament and the electorate. The means are there to make the Commission more democratic, and the opportunity should be seized. The concerns over the "independence" of the Commission are therefore more a defense of the status quo than anything.

The principle that the Commission consists of representative of all (or a representative rotation) of the Union's nationalities is a kind of consociationalism - a way of making sure that all groups feel that they are represented. But why should the nominees to this office be so naturally assumed to have the political colour of the nominating Member State? Surely this ends up replicating the political balance of the Council, rather than the Parliament? It seems odd to stress the dangers to independence of the Commission from a Parliament that can hire and fire it, but not the political influence that comes from basically replicating a snapshot of the political balance of the Council in the Commission.

The Commission will always be sensitive to the political make up of the Council and Parliament, since it has to get their consent to pass legislation. Independence therefore should be seen more strictly, as concerning direct instructions from governments and outside bodies and propriety in office, rather than independence from the Parliament and the electorate. Political accountability matters, and we need more of it in the EU - so come the election the new Parliament should make a stand on the issue of who the European Council nominates. It should be the winning candidate.

EU reaction to the NSA Affair

The fallout from the NSA Affair and Snowden's leaks continue, with revelations that Angela Merkel's mobile phone was hacked causing worldwide headlines (though there's been some criticism of Merkel for taking so long over these allegations, and indications that the NSA has been spying on German citizens, seriously, as Der Standard pointedly notes with the headline "Und ploetzlich ist es ein Problem" ["And suddenly it is a problem"]). The Guardian is reporting that the number of tapped heads of government is probably much higher, and the European Council has finally been roused too - it turns out that prime ministers don't like to be spied on. Now everything from the halting of data-sharing agreements to cancelling the free trade talks is on the table (after all, it's much harder to negotiate if you're being spied on).

The European Parliament has also signalled its displeasure, voting for a motion calling for the end of the SWIFT agreement. It's not binding, and the Commission has responded by stating that there is no indication of wrong-doing under the SWIFT Agreement (or "Terrorist Financial Tracking Programme" - PDF). Parliament's issues with SWIFT aren't new to the NSA revelations, however. After a troubled birth (the Parliament voted down the first agreement before passing the second after lobbying from Vice-President Joe Biden), last year the report before Parliament on the implementation of the safeguards in the agreement caused disquiet - it turned out that the full report wasn't even made available to MEPs to review. (Notably, the European Data Protection Supervisor had criticised some of the key provisions of the draft SWIFT Agreement).

The Commission has said that the agreement has effective safeguards, and that it's waiting on the response to a request for reassurances from the US. It's not planning to suspend the agreement.

Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament has also said that the free trade talks with the US should be suspended in the light of the spying affair.

The most notable moves, though, probably come over the draft Data Protection Regulation. The European Parliament has adopted its position on the law this week, which has hardened. The subject of intense lobbying, the biggest impact of the Snowden-leak was to reverse the watering down of the proposed law, with the security of citizens' data in the hands of US companies a key concern. The bill still has a long way to go, and it has to be agreed with the Council before it can be signed into law.

But what does this all add up to? At the end of this week the EU still transfers the same kind of data to the US as at the start, and there is little coherence in the EU's position. Most demands amount to the suspension of agreements or negotiations, and it will take a while to see what actually comes out of this. If we are ever going to see better data protection standards and a more regulated approach to intelligence and police work, we have to have clear standards and guidelines on how we shape these laws. When it comes to the EU, a proper regard for the necessity and proportionality of proposed security laws within the EU and agreements with third countries has to be stressed. And the Commission must drop its deference of the security services if it is to enforce and monitor agreements - or even draw up laws.

European Parliament passes resolution on Hungary's Constitution

The European Parliament passed a resolution yesterday calling on Hungary to reform its constitution to bring it into line with EU values and norms. The resolution was passed by an EPP-S&D-Greens-United Left coalition, so it notably gained support from the European People's Party, which the ruling Fidesz party in Hungary is a part of.

The resolution is very detailed, outlining the background of the recent changes and the Parliament's objections to them in the areas of judicial independence, the media, the extensive use of cardinal laws (laws that need a 2/3s majority in the Hungarian parliament to pass, and therefore would be highly entrenched), changes to the data protection authority, the change in the electoral law, and the treatment of minorities.

The Parliament also called for a rethink of the EU's Fundamental Right Agency's role, suggesting that is could be used to monitor Member States' compliance with Article 2 TEU (which sets out the values of the EU), and that there could be a "Copenhagen Commission" to monitor compliance with these values and the Copenhagen Criteria before and after accession to the EU. (I've posted some similar thoughts previously). The resolution leaves open the possibility that it might try to trigger an Article 7 sanction against Hungary, tasking the Parliament's Conference of Presidents (the EP President and the leaders of the political groups) with considering the move.

Mostly the resolution echos the Council of Europe's Venice Commission's opinion on Hungary's constitution (PDF). This Commission provides legal advice to the Council of Europe's Member States on how their constitutions and constitutional reforms can comply with European human rights standards. I recommend reading the opinion, which is more detailed but also clearer then the resolution in its analysis of the Hungarian constitution.

The Parliament's resolution isn't binding on Hungary, but it does show that the Parliament is moving (slowly) towards using Article 7 TEU to suspend Hungary's voting rights in the EU. That the Commission is introducing a score-card and the Parliament is calling for a better institutional mechanism for monitoring and enforcing fundamental rights within the EU shows that patience is running out. Taking an Article 7 action would break the taboo over using the "nuclear option" - while the situation in Hungary has been a concern for a while, it has highlighted the need for the proper mechanisms and the political will to properly defend the Union's values.


Here are a few extracts from the resolution:

"8. Considers that while the use of two-third majority laws is common in other Member States and has been a feature of the Hungarian constitutional and legal order since 1989, the extensive use of cardinal laws to set forth very specific and detailed rules undermines the principles of democracy and the rule of law, as it has enabled the current government, which enjoys the support of a qualified majority, to set in stone political choices with the consequence of making it more difficult for any new future government having only a simple majority in the parliament to respond to social changes, and thus of potentially diminishing the importance of new elections; considers that such use should be re-evaluated, in order to ensure that future governments and parliamentary majorities are allowed to legislate in a meaningful and comprehensive manner.

[...]

19. [The Parliament i]s also extremely concerned about those provisions of the Fourth Amendment which repeal 20 years of constitutional jurisprudence, containing an entire system of founding principles and constitutional requirements, including any potential case law affecting the application of EU law and of European human rights law; notes that the Court already used its previous decisions as a source of interpretation; is concerned, however, at the fact that other courts may not be able to base their decisions upon the previous case law of the Constitutional Court.

[...]

30. Considers that the premature termination of the term of office of the Supreme Court’s President violates the guarantee of security of tenure, which is a key element of the independence of the judiciary.

[...]

38. Recalls that the redrawing of electoral districts, the adoption of the Act on the election of members of parliament of Hungary and the electoral procedural law considerably change the legal and institutional framework for the next elections due in 2014, and therefore regrets that these laws were adopted unilaterally by the ruling parties, with no broad consultation of the opposition.

[...]

46. Deplores the fact that the creation of the state-owned Hungarian News Agency (MTI) as the single news provider for public service broadcasters, while all major private broadcasters are expected to have their own news service, has meant it has a virtual monopoly on the market, as most of its news items are freely available; recalls the recommendation of the Council of Europe to eliminate the obligation on public broadcasters to use the national news agency, as it constitutes an unreasonable and unfair restriction on the plurality of news provision.

[...]

53. Notes with concern repeated changes to the legal order restricting the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, for instance by seeking to exclude same-sex couples and their children, as well as other varied family structures, from the definition of 'family' in the Fundamental Law; stresses that this runs counter to recent European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence and fuels a climate of intolerance vis-à-vis LGBT people."

EU Budget Deal: Progress, from a Psychological point of View?

The EU institutions (Commission, Council and Parliament) reached a deal on the Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF) that plans EU budget spending for 2014-2020. The MFF is not absolutely final since it has to pass a Parliamentary vote in September, but the deal does mark the end of the parliamentary revolt against the deal cut by national leaders. Politically, it's been a very charged budget, with arguments for cuts in a time of austerity, the European Parliament flexing its muscles over the budget, and the resignation of the parliamentary rapporteur on the MFF after the Irish Presidency mistakenly announced a deal last week.


So what's in the deal?

The cuts agreed by the Council remain: for the first time, the EU Budget will face a real terms cut of €85 billion, reducing the budget over the next 7 years to €960 billion. The focus on cuts meant that the parts of the budget prized by national governments were protected at the expense of more discretionary spending. The deal softens this by:

- Permitting the front loading of up to €2,543 million in 2014-15 for youth employment, research and Erasmus and apprenticeships and pro-SME policies, to be split as:
            - €2,143 million for youth unemployment;
            - €200 million for Horizon 2020, the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation;
            - €150 million for Erasmus; and
            - €50 million for COSME, a programme for the competitiveness of SMEs;
- Allowing for voluntary contributions by Member States by up to €1 billion to the €2.5 billion pot for aid for the most deprived;
- Unspent money will in an annual budget will be retained by the EU for spending on other projects, rather than being returned to the Member States;

- There is a concession to the idea of the MFF being subject to review and revision, but it seems very vague.

Is this, in the words of EP President Martin Schulz, progress "from a psychological point of view"?

The deal has shown that the EP has made some progress in shifting the MFF back towards some spending that is not the preserve of a national carve-up. There are national vetoes behind agricultural spending, cohesion spending and rebates, but no single Member State has a defining interest in EU projects that tackle unemployment, research or competitiveness. Can you imagine a British Prime Minister saying that they've cut some of the rebate in order to protect spending on unemployment programmes? The EP has demonstrated some value in trying to balance the budget more in the direction of spending for programmes that all of Europe benefits from, but that don't deliver specific national receipts of money.

That said, the concessions aren't a major victory for the Parliament - particularly on the aid for the most deprived and on MFF review, where the concessions appear so vague and woolly as to be practically meaningless. However, it is notable that a right-leaning European Parliament has not held out for reducing or eliminating the cuts to the EU budget. Despite the unprecedented level of power over the budget, the Parliament hasn't been as pushy as it might have been. From my point of view on the left, the deal is a defeat: it doesn't really deliver that much in terms of research and employment projects, and it buys into the idea of austerity despite the EU Budget not being in deficit. Cutting from common programmes to symbolically satisfy austerity is daft, and it undercuts further the ability of common European spending to offset, at least to some extent, the economic damage caused by national austerity.

Still, the fact that a right-wing EP largely endorsed the budget direction set by the European People's Party-dominated Council is not surprising, though it's another sign that the Parliament does act along ideological and party lines, which is important for the upcoming elections next year. Party and policy do matter in the EP.


Party Positions

The EP still has to vote in the MFF in September if the Framework is to be passed, so the positions of the European political groups matter. What are they?

Supporters:

The European People's Party (EPP; centre-right) probably support the deal, though they do not have a specific press release at the time of writing. Since they are the largest group in the Parliament and dominate the Council and national governments, they will probably support the deal. EPP parliamentary leader Joseph Daul supports current Eurozone/EU economic policy, but also insists on flexibility and a review clause in the MFF. I think EPP support can be assumed.

The European Conservatives and Reformists group (ECR; centre-right, but further right than the EPP), have welcomed the deal, and have complained that the European Parliament tried to obstruct it. Since they have got the cut in the budget they wanted, and the cut is a big win for David Cameron, they're not likely to vote against.

Qualified Supporters:

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (ALDE; centrist, and economically centre-right) have welcomed the deal, but want to secure some of the details before giving support, such as on the legal basis of the MFF (to secure the Parliament's power), on money for the Digital Agenda and on the review clause.

The Socialists and Democrats group (S&D; centre-left) have welcomed the deal as an improvement for youth unemployment schemes and Erasmus, but will discuss their position next week.

Though only qualified support has been given, I imagine that now that the EP has finished its negotiations as a whole and that there have been some concessions, these groups will largely support the MFF.

Opposition:

The European Greens (Green) have condemned the deal as only consisting of cosmetic changes when the overall budget is still being cut.

United Left (GUE-NGL; left-wing) also condemned the cuts to the budget, and hit out against EP President Schulz for only seeking agreement with the two biggest political groups in the Parliament (EPP and S&D), keeping the rest of the groups in the dark.


While these aren't firm voting stances by the political groups, it looks like there will probably be a majority for the MFF, failing any last minute revivals of Parliament-wide opposition.

Of Red Cards, Democracy and Subsidiarity

When UK Foreign Minister William Hague made his Koenigswinter speech in Germany last week, his Red Card idea caught the media's attention. Currently if enough national parliaments get together, they can give a draft EU bill a "Yellow Card", which sends it back to the Commission to reconsider it on the grounds of subsidiarity (on whether or not the substance of the draft law is appropriate to be decided on the EU level or not). The Red Card idea is essentially an extention of this, with national parliaments being able to block draft legislation for proportionality and subsidiarity reasons.

So is it a good or bad idea? If it means each individual national parliament being able to block EU legislation, then obviously it's ridiculous. You cannot have national vetos for everything - the Single Market Act introduced qualified majority voting to make the project realistic in the first place. Indeed, the poor quality of the legislation from that period, with Member States adding on caveats, exceptions and exemptions to nearly everything means that it's practically much better that the EU operates in a more open and parliamentary manner than before.

Going back to national vetos will increase the emphasis on backroom deals and lead to poor legislation drafted more by diplomats than democrats. But I don't think that's what Hague was going for (after all, all his talk of furthering the single market would flounder in the face of 28 national vetos); it's more likely that he meant that it would take a number of national parliaments to block draft legislation. I both agree and disagree with Hague on the Red Card idea.

Here's a bit of what he said in his speech:

"The European Parliament plays an important role in holding European institutions to account. It can play a very positive role, as it has along with Commissioner Damanaki in the current reforms to the Common Fisheries Policy. But if the European Parliament were the answer to the question of democratic legitimacy we wouldn’t still be asking it

I think instead that the solution lies in promoting the role of national institutions in European decision-making – because ultimately it is national governments and national parliaments that are accountable to our electorates. They are the democratic levers voters know how to pull. I want to offer some thoughts on how we might do that in a moment

This idea of the right balance between national and European decision-making, and respect for the concepts of proportionality and subsidiarity, brings me to my third key challenge. How can we build a European Union that acknowledges and respects the diversity of its Member States? One that recognises that our national approaches to and ambitions for the European Union may sometimes differ?

[...]

We should explore whether the yellow card provision could be strengthened or extended to give our parliaments the right to ask the Commission to start again where legislation is too intrusive, and fails the proportionality test. And we should think about going further still and consider a red card to give national parliaments the right to block legislation that need not be agreed at the European level."

First of all, I disagree with him that strengthening national parliaments is the only way that democratic legitimacy can be increased (bear with me, I will get to the "agree" point eventually). The Eurozone crisis is a key example of this, with political battles going on within national parliaments, but little pan-European structures in which to express these political differences, debate them, and come to a majority approach while honing the policy to take account of criticism, you end up with an incoherent approach.

For the Cypriot bail-out, it was a clash of national parliaments and national leaders. Much of the resentment can be found in the ad hoc nature of the bail-outs, and how the battles are fought along national battle-lines, with little opportunity to be heard on an equal stage, and with no equal and systemic policy that applies fairly to all. This feeling of political inequality, the lack of political leadership at a European level, and the inability to properly debate and influence the central policy is the fundamental basis of disillusionment with the EU (at least in the Eurozone).

You cannot fix the democratic issues with the EU by adding more institutional complexity and blocking mechanisms. To have political accountability, you need a political space that you can influence to create policy that is accountable to voters. The European Parliament and the Commission, if tied closely to the Parliament, would be the best place to start, because it would give a focal point for debating and making policy that can be influenced via direct elections (even with the Council and national parliaments having checks on them).

Because greater instituional complexity and more blocking mechanisms in the system really leads to greater inefficiency and an inability to reach decisions. If the EU cannot make decisions, then that would lead to even greater disillusionment. (And the next European elections can be a good starting point for debating and influencing the big issues with the EU today - see this article by Simon Hix and Christophe Crombez).


That said, increasing the power of the national parliaments can increase democratic legitimacy in the EU when it comes to "...build[ing] a European Union that acknowledges and respects the diversity of its Member States...". At the moment subsidiarity is hard to define - not the idea that power should be exercised as closely to people as possible, but the day-to-day practice of it. The Yellow Card system was a great idea, but it needs reform (a longer time period for national parliaments to object, and national parliaments need to organise greater communication between them to make better use of the procedure).

A "Red Card" system - with, say, a majority or qualified majority of national parliaments being able to block draft legislation - could be a good way of developing a culture of subsidiarity. When the Commission analyses draft laws for subsidiarity and proportionality, it considers the arguments, but there isn't a clear and objective answer to the question, and nor can subsidiarity be effectively defined in a day-to-day way by the courts. There needs to be a political culture of subsidiarity, based on an understanding between national parliaments (and citizens) and the Commission (and the rest of the Union legislature) about what should be done at the EU level and what should be done at a national or more local level. This can really only be done through political debate and contest, and a Red Card system could give national parliaments the tools to start marking that space.

Of course there will be clashes and debates between the EU institutions and the Member States/national parliaments over this - that's the point! But it's a more effective way of building an accepted idea of subsidiarity and decentralisation in the EU over time than relegating the question to impact assessments and wonkish policy documents.


(As a side-note, here's a graphic explaining how EU laws are made [via Kosmopolit]).

IMCO Committee to hold hearing for new Croatian Commissioner today

A new Member State, a new Commissioner. With the EU expanding to 28 Member States on 1st July, the Commission will also be adding a new member to its College. This is in line with the compromise struck with Ireland over the Lisbon Treaty, ensuring that each Member State will have one Commissioner.

The nominated Commissioner for Croatia is Neven Mimica, a member of the ruling Social Democrat Party in Zagreb and former minister for European Integration. Barroso plans to allocate the Consumer Protection portfolio to Mimica, so his European Parliamentary hearing will be before the Internal Market and Consumer Protection committee ("IMCO").

The hearing will take place in 1 hour (9:30-12:30 CET) and can be live streamed on the Parliament's website.

The European Parliament has put together a nice flowchart showing how Commissioners are appointed (outside of when the Commission as a whole is elected) here.

Draft EU PNR Directive voted down at Committee Stage

The LIBE Committee of the European Parliament has shot down the draft Passenger Name Record Directive by a vote of 30-25, with the Liberal, Green and left wing groups voting against and the conservative groups for the draft law. The Directive concerned the collection of the information passengers give to airlines when booking a flight by law enforcement authorities (in the form of national "Passenger Information Units (PIUs)" that would analyse the data and pass on information to other law enforcement authorities). The data would be collected to fight terrorism and serious crime, and is a key plank of the Commission's counter-terrorism strategy.

I wrote about the PNR Directive at length last year. The information gathered covers everything from the flight to the food you order, so the authorities would be casting a wide net. There would be some rights for people to have their data corrected or deleted, but:

"However the purposes for gathering and processing the data is so wide that it’s debatable how much substance there is to these rights. For example, PIUs can use the data for general analysis work and to update and create criteria for “objective assessment criteria” to identify unknown criminals – a very wide purpose to use and process data, so PIUs could probably refuse under the Directive to erase a person’s data even if they aren’t suspected of a crime. Also, this use of objective assessment criteria means that the PNR regime is open to the profiling of individuals by law enforcement authorities, where they might be put under closer scrutiny simply because they happened to match a certain pattern of behaviour. There are no safeguards for independent external review of these objective factors (the National Supervisory Authorities don’t seem to have the power to do so), and nor has there been an assessment of the effectiveness of this method in identifying unknown criminals versus the false identification of innocent people.

[...]

 There’s also little satisfactory evidence that PNR is necessary or effective for fighting terrorism and serious transnational crime. We already have the Schengen Information System, the Visa Information System and the Carrier’s Directive (Link) permitted the use of a less invasive Advance Passenger Information system in 2004, where airlines would transfer passport information of passengers and flight arrival/destination details (rather than the whole gamut of PNR information) – but there’s been no assessment of the effectiveness of API, or whether changes in it or the other systems could provide a cheaper and less invasive alternative. The main advantage offered by PNR is presumably the detection of unknown criminals. The Commission has used crime statistics to highlight the levels of serious crime and terrorism to establish the need for further security measures to be introduced and it has also used statistics on the of PNR data in drug seizures (see its impact assessment here: PDF) Interestingly, some of these impressive PNR statistics derive from some Member States which do not currently have a national PNR regime! (Like Belgium - PDF)."

While the draft parliamentary report (by LIBE rapporteur Timothy Kirkhope [ECR Group]) clarified some issues with the original text, it did little to address the scope of both the data gathered and the purposes that it could be used for (without further restricting and defining these, it would be very difficult for the system to be held to account in that most uses for the data would be lawful and citizens would have little substance to their data rights).

The draft Directive could still go to the EP plenary, where the full European Parliament could still pass the law.

Dalligate scandal deepens in Brussels

EUObserver is reporting that a confidential and highly damaging report on OLAF’s conduct of the investigation into allegations of corruption against Health Commissioner Dalli - by OLAF's own supervisors - has been sent to the European Parliament.

The "Dalligate" scandal has been rumbling on for a few months now in Brussels. Allegations of dodgy dealings on the part of Commissioner Dalli over his upcoming tobacco legislation and the snus (oral tobacco that is legal in Sweden but banned in the rest of the EU) industry led to his resignation in October last year. Dalli denies the allegations that he asked for bribes in return for legislative changes and hitout against Commission President Barroso, who effectively forced him in to resigning. Dalli is currently facing legal action in Malta.

In 2013 the scandal took an unexpected turn, however, when it was alleged that OLAF, the anti-fraud agency that launched the investigation against Dalli and published the report that led to his resignation, broke the law by acquiring communication information illegally (such as telephone information). It also came to light that the source of information for the meeting where Dalli supposedly asked for the bribe contacted OLAF to tell them that the meeting had never taken place, but OLAF allegedly told her to not tell the public. However Green MEP José Bové was told that Gayle Kimberley, the source, had not been to the meeting, driving OLAF back into the spotlight.

Despite the uproar over the handling of the case by OLAF and its head, Giovanni Kessler, with a proposal by the European Greens that the Parliament launch its own investigation (by setting up a committee of inquiry) into how the case was conducted. However the European Parliament dropped the idea on 11th April, with the EPP, S&D and ADLE groups against an inquiry – a blow for MEPs who had been calling for Kessler to resign.

But now the confidential report by the OLAF supervisors has breathed new life into the story. As EUObserver reports:

"[The report] accuses [Kessler's] office of conducting unlawful interrogations in Malta, of intercepting a private telephone conversation, of involving the help of Maltese authorities without a proper legal basis and of overlooking or rushing checks on the legality of its actions in order to speed up the outcome.

[...]

Given the complexity of the case, his [Kessler's] hastiness calls into question whether Olaf could have fulfilled all the necessary checks on the legality of its decision and on the credibility of the accusations, the report notes.

The supervisors add that commission President Jose Manuel Barroso wanted the investigation to get top priority.

In a violation of Olaf's duty to remain independent of Barroso's people, Kessler formally designated the commission as the source of the information on the basis of which he launched proceedings.

In a further violation of Olaf procedure, he made the designation despite the fact the information actually came from Swedish Match.

The supervisors also accuse Olaf of instructing the key Dalligate witness - a Maltese-based lobbyist called Gayle Kimberley - to lie."

With such a high-profile case (and a high-profile scalp in the form of a Commissioner), the serious questions over the handling of this case is deeply damaging to OLAF. While it's important to make sure that the court proceedings in Malta aren't interfered with, it's vital that there's a proper investigation into the conduct of this case. OLAF, as the anti-fraud office, is supposed to be irreproachable, and there has to be public confidence that it is able to carry out its functions independently, and in line with the rule of law. The European Parliament has to return to the issue of setting up a committee for inquiry.

Irish President Michael D Higgin's address to the European Parliament

Today President Higgins of Ireland addressed the European Parliament on the Union and citizenship. (The President of Ireland is a ceremonial head of state that is directly elected, and, sadly, it is difficult to imagine a head of government in Europe giving such a speech today).

I recommend the speech, but to quote a few extracts:

"[T]he inspiration and the achievements of the founders of the European Union we inherit as legacy cannot be taken for granted. Today, citizens in Europe are threatened with an unconscious drift to disharmony, a loss of social cohesion, a recurrence of racism and an increasing deficit of democratic accountability in some decision making of an economic and fiscal kind. These threatening clouds hang over a Europe that in more hopeful times, chose to base its anthem, rather than on anything contemporary, on Friedrich Schiller’s poem ‘Ode to Joy’ and its musical setting by Ludwig Van Beethoven in his Ninth Symphony.

Parliaments do matter and must continue to matter. Centuries of effort have been invested by European citizens in securing the vote. It is to parliament citizens look for accountability, for strategic alternatives. If national parliaments, if the European Parliament, were to lose the capacity to deliver accountability where else might it be found? Is there an alternative that can meet the requirements of a deliberative democracy? I believe not and parliaments must draw on the resources of experience, of inherited intellectual capacity, in all its diversity and above all, from the best of contemporary intellectual work in a pluralist way.

[...]

We cannot, however, ignore the fact that European citizens are suffering the consequences of actions and opinions of bodies such as rating agencies, which, unlike Parliaments, are unaccountable. Many of our citizens in Europe regard the response to the crisis in their lives as disparate, sometimes delayed, not equal to the urgency of the task and showing insufficient solidarity with them in their threatened or actual economic circumstances.

They feel that in general terms the economic narrative of recent years has been driven by dry technical concerns; for example, by calculations that are abstract and not drawn from real problems, geared primarily by a consideration of the impact of such measures on speculative markets, rather than driven by sufficient compassion and empathy with the predicament of European citizens who are members of a union, and for whom all of the resources of Europe’s capacity, political, social, economic and intellectual might have been drawn on, driven by the binding moral spirit of a union.

[...]

Instead of any discourse that might define the European Union as simply an economic space of contestation between the strong and the weak, our citizens yearn for the language of solidarity, the commitment to cohesion, for a generous inclusive rhetoric that is appropriate to an evolving political union that is anxious to reach a future of peace, prosperity, inclusion, and in a sustainable way.

This is a serious challenge, not least because if we were to fail we run the risk of an economic crisis leading to a crisis of legitimacy for the Union. A Union that in its founding treaties is fundamentally founded on values – respect for personal dignity; freedom; democracy; equality; the rule of law and respect for human rights."

European Elections in Croatia

Today Croatia goes to the polls to elect its 12 MEPs - the country will formally join the EU on 1st July this year. Those elected won't have too long to establish themselves with elections for the whole Parliament in 2014, and, on top of that, the number of Croatia's parliamentary seats will reduce by one due to the Lisbon Treaty limitation of the EP to 751 seats.

Though there are 336 candidates on 28 lists (the election is on the open list system), the campaign has been short and lacklustre, with the ruling S&D Group-aligned party predicted to win the poll on a 60% turnout.

If these predictions are borne out, it will provide a small boost to the centre-left S&D Group in the European Parliament, which is the second biggest group in the Parliament, but the centre-right EPP will comfortably remain the biggest party.

Best of luck to Croatia & vote if you can!

Childers resigns from the EP Irish Parliamentary Labour Party

The Irish Labour Party has had a rough few weeks. Currently in government with the centre-right Fine Gael, it had finally become the second biggest political party in Ireland after the last election (an achievement for the main centre-left party that had always been the 3rd party in Ireland). However in government the Labour party has gotten the flak for aligning itself too closely with Fine Gael's conservative policies. Labour had promised "balanced government" through moderating Fine Gael's influence, but it has little to show for its concessions in government.

The shockingly low result for Labour in the Meath East by-election at the end of March - where they only managed 4%! - is an indication of just how angry the party base is with the parliamentary party. Nationally, Labour's support is polled at between 7-13%, but a combination of low turnout and disaffected grassroots led to the collapse in the Labour vote. If it's going to mitigate the damage at the next elections, Labour in government will have to make a greater show of defending their centre-left values. Without this, it will be hard to motivate the party base or convince other voters of the value of giving their transfers to Labour candidates (votes transferred from candidates eliminated for not attracting enough votes is important in the Single Transferable Vote system). Then again, if a centre-left party doesn't fight for its centre-left values, it's hard to see the point of it in the first place...

Following this defeat, Nessa Childers, the Labour MEP resigned from the parliamentary party because of its support for the government. Childers has been at odds with the leadership of the party for some time, so the resignation is being dismissed as the loss of a semi-detached member, but her suggestion that Labour values may be more effectively expressed outside the Labour Party will probably have a ring of truth with some people.

In Brussels and Strasbourg this will not have much of an effect: Childers remains a Labour party member and will remain part of the Socialists and Democrats Group in the European Parliament. However, since she was the only Labour MEP to have been elected in the 2009 election (Labour's other two MEPs were substituted in after the resignations of the former seat-holders), it will be even more difficult for the party to retain these seats (electoral support in Ireland is more directly linked to the candidate than the party in comparison to other European electoral systems). Just a year before the 2014 European elections, it looks like the S&D Group will be lucky to retain even one seat in Ireland.

Economic Union and Cyprus

The crisis flared up in a shocking manner this week as Cyprus, long on the list of potential bail-out countries, found itself at the centre of the Eurocrisis after the controversial bail-out deal was rejected by the Cypriot parliament. The ECB has extended its emergency credit to the Central Bank of Cyprus until Monday, giving the country some more time to find a Plan B. Cyprus is increasingly looking to Russia for support (Russia has already loaned Cyprus some money), and there is a media battle over the rights and wrongs of the bail-out conditions. The decision to tax bank depositors as a one-off was always going to have a knock on confidence, and the confusion over who decided what is increasing with a PR war over the decision to extend the tax to depositors with accounts of under €100,000.




The head of the Euro Group, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, was in the European Parliament today to answer questions on the crisis, and European Council President Van Rompuy and Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič were grilled by the Parliament yesterday. The deposit tax was attacked from across the political spectrum:

"My question is: how come all of a sudden small savings and depositors are no longer protected? This is a dangerous precedent. It takes years to recover trust by depositors. Why hit the small savers? The crisis in Cyprus has sounded an alarm bell. We have to speed up the regulation of financial markets. Above all, we need a European solution to the Cyprus problem, not a Russian one." - Corien Wortmann-Kool, vice chairwoman of the centre-right European People's Party.



"The European law is very clear: all deposits below €100,000 must be guaranteed in case of bank failure. We urged the Cypriot government and the European authorities to come up with an alternative solution that protects the savings of ordinary citizens. The EU has made huge progress on strengthening the stability of the eurozone with the recent agreement to set up a single European supervisor to oversee the banks, and the new rules on capital requirements for banks (the so-called 'CRD IV' package). We need to do more by setting up a European resolution mechanism in case of bank failures." - Elisa Ferreira, S&D spokesperson for economic and monetary affairs.



"A banking union must protect the bank customers, especially the ordinary depositors rather than the bond holders and creditors. Nor does the decision do anything to break the link between banks and sovereigns. It is totally incomprehensible and undermines the credibility and legitimacy of the EU and its new financial structures to restore stability." – Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the Liberal ALDE group.



“While it is clear that a bailout is necessary to protect Cyprus from eventual bankruptcy, the tax on bank deposits will risk destabilising the complete structure of the Cypriot banking system, and is an aggressive gesture by the Eurogroup to the population of Cyprus.” - Monica Frassoni, European Green Party co-Chair.

The shambolic approach to bail-outs highlights again that the EU is operating in a piecemeal way to the crisis and has little coherence to its responses. The demand for a deposit tax doesn’t sit well with bank deposit guarantees, the aim of protecting depositors or breaking the link between sovereigns and the banking system as was agreed at the European Council summit in June.



Ironically yesterday the Commission unveiled further plans on economic and monetary union to increase co-ordination on important economic policies including the areas of “competitiveness, employment, market functioning, tax systems, financial stability and fiscal sustainability”, as well as further developing this contractual approach to financial assistance in the form of “Convergence and Competitiveness Instruments” (CCIs). These proposals aren’t yet legislative proposals, but they underline the technocratic approach:

“What would the ex-ante coordination process look like?

A Member State would provide information on a major economic reform plan in its National Reform Programme (on economic policies for the coming year) or at another time during the year. The Commission would assess the plan and deliver an opinion on it. The Commission's assessment would cover the extent to which the reform tackles the specific policy challenges and how it would improve competitiveness and adjustment capacity. The Commission's assessment would pay particular attention to the impact the reform would have on the functioning of the euro area and possible spillover effects on other Member States. These plans will then be discussed by the Council of Ministers and the Eurogroup. The Commission and the Council can suggest modifications to the national reform plan where they could be justified by the expected effects on other Member States and the functioning of the Economic and Monetary Union.”

Without oversight and accountable political decision-making at the European level to decide on what kind of Eurozone we want in the first place, the coordination and the negotiation of the CCIs will be based on a technocratic vision of the Eurozone. If the CCIs are to form a pillar of Eurozone economic and social policy, shouldn’t there be a Eurozone framework drawn up by the European Parliament that identifies economic and social priorities regularly to guide this, rather than technocratic priorities being enshrined? Currently bail-out deals seem to be ad hoc and unprincipled, with disastrous results for policy making.

Collective Management of Music Copyright Directive

While the internet and digital culture has changed the way we consume media, the internal market hasn't quite kept up. The Commission's approach to extending the internal market online is based on the Digital Agenda for Europe (PDF) and the Single Market Act (PDF), which show a greater emphasis on EU legislation to extend the internal market online. When it comes to online music services and the transparency of collecting societies, so far there has only been a non-binding recommendation (PDF) inviting the Member States to promote these goals, but now the Commission has introduced a draft Directive to tackle these issues (PDF).

On the transparency and accountability of collecting societies (that collect royalties and then distribute them to the artists after taking a cut), the directive would codify minimum requirements governing the membership and powers of the members, along with the societies' duties when performing their financial and negotiation roles (such as distributing income due to the artists without undue delay and requiring negotiations to be conducted in good faith) (Title II). The Directive is intended to shift the power balance in favour of the members by setting out reporting duties for the collecting societies - the idea being that a better informed membership will be equipped to demand better services and so improve the position of music artists.

The second pillar of the Directive introduces multi-territorial licences to break down barriers within the internal market (Title III). Currently music rights are granted on a territory-by-territory basis, which naturally gives raise to barriers in the market. The multi-territorial licences (MTLs) won't replace the current system, but they will be an extra option for collecting societies. Interestingly, the Directive provides for artists being able to by-pass their collecting society under certain circumstances (Article 30) if the collecting society does not grant MTLs in music rights. The rightholder will be then be able to grant licences for their own online rights either directly or through another intermediary. Clearly this is meant to free artists to exploit their work across the EU and boost the use of MTLs by ensuring that rights will not be bound up nationally because of the policy and power of collecting societies (or by their inability to process them or otherwise fulfil the MTL requirements).

One of the major concerns for the music industry is that this would promote the homogenisation of music across Europe. While it may intensify homogenisation, there is already a degree of globalisation and Europeanisation of music that it unlikely to diminish by maintaining some market barriers. Having MTLs could also open up more audiences for niche artists as well by making a wider variety of music available to consumers - after all, the internet can prove useful as a tool for band promotion.

Legislatively, the directive is still at the first reading stage in the European Parliament, with Marielle Gallo (EPP) working on as the rapporteur for the Legal Affairs committee. The EESC has delivered its (non-binding) opinion on the draft, which largely welcomes the draft in its current form.

The Irish Presidency Work Programme

Ireland took over the presidency of the Council of the European Union at the start of the year, and last Wednesday Taoiseach Enda Kenny, leader of the Fine Gael-Labour (EPP-PES) coalition government, outlined the priorities of the presidency to the European Parliament. Sustainability, jobs and growth are the central mantra of the presidency, though the familar buzzwords didn't stop Kenny from attempting rhetorical flight in the Strasbourg chamber, enthusing about the European family.

In his speech to the European Parliament, Kenny outlined a large work programme, from CAP and CFP reform to collective copyright management and data protection. The Data Protection package is one of the biggest legislative changes and a flagship policy of the Commission. There's been worries that the law won't be passed before the parliament ends, causing the draft to lapse and the work to go to waste, so there will have to be a big push from the presidency to make progress here.

Interestingly, while he stressed the need to pass the 2-Pack of legislation (which I’ve written about here) and the importance of the European Semester, Kenny also expressed a willingness to engage with the Parliament on the democratic deficit – let’s see if any constructive measures make it to the statute books.

A major topic was, of course, breaking the link between sovereigns and banking debt, with the banking union and progress on the implementation of the Single Supervisory Mechanism. On trade, Kenny looked forward to the authorisation and opening of negotiations with the US, along with negotiations with Japan, Canada and ASEAN.

Finally, Kenny couldn't help plugging Ireland's big tourism campaign - The Gathering!

 

You can see a list of the measures behind these priorities here.