Role of the National Parliament in the European Union - Essay Example

Role of the National Parliament in the European Union s Submitted by s: The decision making process in the European Union commission has seen an increased sense of consultations due to the growing number of inter-institutional arrangements. These became necessary as key decision particularly those to do with the Union’s budges are concerned as there is need for lengthy discussions and negotiations for a decision to arise. In the course of repeated treaty reforms, the policy process and issuing institutional dynamics have become ever more intricate and hence the need for such institutions to co-ordinate its actions with others on permanent basis. In the commission, each commissioner’s cabinet includes a member responsible for relations with the parliament, and the regular meetings of this group of advisers has become an important feature of policy co-ordination within the commission; in addition, one commissioner has designated responsibility for relations within the European Parliament1. While relations between the EU institutions have become increasingly interdependent, there has also been growing need for co-operation between the national and EU level for the purposes of development and significance in implementation of EU policies. Since, in the course of establishment of the single market, much of the European economy has been re-regulated at the European level, greater responsibility has fallen on the Member states’ administrations to implement European legislations. This has had a dynamic effect on both the national and the European level; within member states, national (and often regional and local) authorities have had to familiarize themselves with the European Union regulations that they have to implement. Hence each of the national parliaments has to be involved in the consultation aspects when it comes to the formulation and scrutiny of these regulations. On the European level, the decision making institutions, and the commission in particular had to design regulations for centralized application, anticipating and overcoming difficulties in ensuring uniform implementation and compliance. The result from these ripple effects of developments in the 1980s and 1990s has been the need for effective and continuous communication between the policy makers and the scientific experts from the member states, commission and council officials and members of the European and national parliaments. The absence of any institution or set of interests having hierarchical control over the decision making process is one of the reasons why committees have become such an institution or set of interests having hierarchical control over the decision making process is one of the reasons why committees have become such an important part of the EU’s institutional machinery. The greater need for inter-institutional and inter-level co-ordination up to the national parliamentary level requires for a in which policy ideas can be deliberated, policy proposals discussed and policy implementation monitored. The new rules concerning the principal of subsidiary in the treaty of Lisbon of 13th December 2007 provides some regulation which enlarges the guarantees of the subsidiary. The principle already exists in Article 5 of the EC Treaty, provides that in areas in which the EU has no exclusive competence, the EU shall act only in so far as the objectives of a proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by a member state, wither at the central level or at the regional or the local level. Yet the EC treaty does not have any control mechanism in place to ensure that national and sub-state competences are protected against a misappropriate action of the EU, which is breach of this principle of subsidiary. The principle of subsidiary will be controlled by National Parliament, according to the new article 3b, as modified by the treaty Lisbon. The protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiary and the proportionality seeks to provide legal assurance that political actions are to be taken as closely as possible to provide legal assurance that political actions are not to be taken as closely as possible to the citizens of the union. Therefore the commission shall consult widely before proposing legislative acts and the commission, the European parliament and some extent to the council shall send their draft legislative act and later amendments to the national parliaments for consultations Declaration 51, which is annexed to the treaty of Lisbon concerning the Belgian national parliaments states that it wishes to make clear that in accordance with its constitutional law, not only the chamber of representatives and the senate of the federal parliament but also the parliamentarians assemblies of the communities and the regional act, in terms of the competencies exercised by the union, as components of the national parliamentary system or chambers of the national parliament. This statement implies that parliaments of the different countries, communities and regions can act as components of the national Belgian parliament2. The impact of this declaration does not imply that the European commission, parliament and sometimes the council shall forward their legislative drafts and their amendment drafts to the parliament of the communities and the regions. On the other hand, article 4 limits the obligation to forward such a draft and amended drafts to the national parliament. The declaration of Belgium that the parliaments of the communities and the regions acts as branches of the national parliament, in terms of the competences exercised by the EU, seems to be difficult to reconcile with article 6 of the protocol which provides that it will be for each national parliament or each chamber of national parliament to consult, where appropriate, regional parliaments with legislative power. It seems that declaration 51 concerns mainly article 6 of the protocol which grants any national parliament the possibility to send a reasons opinion stating why it considers that the drafts does not comply with the principles of subsidiary: the EU approach is consistent with the Belgian federal framework which tries to develop a legal parity between the federal state and its sub-state entities. However, when seen from an international public law angle and more specifically when seen with the European framework, the Belgian declaration is inconsistent with the fact that the EU is composed of member states. The mushrooming number of committees that have been set up for these purposes is explained by the increasingly technical and specialized nature of EU policy making as during the 1980s and 1990s, EU regulations have moved into even wider areas of economic and social life, a greater number of specialists from both national administrations and EU institutions has had to become involved in policy making. Within member states, EU policies have made greater demands on a wider range of political actors: more economic sectors, social groups and territorial levels have become affected by EU policies and have subsequently been included in the implementation of the EU policies. On the European level, the gradual extension of competences of the EU has not been matched by a comparative expansion of the EU’s civil service and as a result Commission and Parliament have come to rely more on advice from national policy makers and independent scientific experts; one key meeting place for this greatly expanded community of policy makers have been committees. As the deepening process gathers pace, the UK and other member countries have started to question what exactly is being gained from membership of the European Union using the various avenues they have such as the national parliaments involved in the committee matters. Monetary union and enlargement will have substantial consequences, particularly on state expenditure and on autonomy of economic policy making, in addition, recent controversies such as the beef crisis have made the case for Europe and further integration seems less certain3. 4The main benefits stem from the increased access to markets as a result of the removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers. The single European market provides access to a market of over 370 million people as large consumer benefits will also be achieved as the increased competition forces down prices. This will in turn lead to increases in European standards of living by way of increases in GDP growth. Indeed, trade with Europe has grown rapidly and now accounts for almost 60 per cent of our exports. One might argue that the implications of a single European market and the removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers for just the member countries of the Union may lead to an increase in the amount of trade within the Union, but also a loss in the amount of trade taking place between Europe and the countries outside the Union. However, since joining the EU, exports to the rest of the world have still increased by 200 per cent, along with a phenomenal increase in trade with Europe of around 750 per cent. In the formation of the tariffs that govern this trade, there has to be extensive consultations that will involve the national parliaments, the EU council as well as other interested parties in coming up with an agreeable strategy on tariffs regulations. Further benefits have been achieved for member states such as Britain, as a result of being part of the European Union single market. Global players, including Japanese and US multinationals, have invested heavily in Europe by means of foreign direct investment as a result of the creation of the European single market. Between 1985 and 1990, 59,000 jobs were created in Europe as a result of foreign direct investment in manufacturing and the UK managed to attract the most investment of all the European Union member states5. The involvement of the immigration of nationals in search for these jobs in the member states has to be agreed upon and the guidelines addressed followed. As well the investors have to be given the necessary support from the EU and member states for the successful implementation of the desired projects6. Future, more advanced forms of European integration will include a single currency; substantial gains for British business can be achieved in the following ways7. The most obvious benefit will include the removal of currency exchange fees as a single currency could lead to a reduction in the price of trade goods by 7 per cent and in addition the holiday-maker will save 8 per cent on average by not having to switch currencies8. The holiday-maker will avoid the complication of fluctuating exchange rates since, with a single currency, the exact price of European goods would be revealed instantly; business would also save on employing financial consultants to observe screen prices.9 There have been other significant aspects that the national parliaments of the EU member states have been instrumental in spearheading and these include: Political aspects as there are other ways in which being part of Europe can provide substantial benefits for the national parliaments involved as well as other member states, as acting on a united front with other European nations can help enhance peace and democracy. One could say that the desire to be part of a democratic European Union has achieved the following results by several member states. The removal of a former dictatorship in Spain and in part of Greece, France and Germany has also strengthened their ties despite a history of great wars. More importantly, though, for European Union member states in general, there have been no wars 40 years on since the integration process began and this can be attribute to the coordination that involves the various national parliaments that dialogue. Indeed, being part of Europe may help pave the way to uniting Eastern Europe and there is also the possibility of Europe having a greater prestige and significance in world affairs by means of acting on a united front10. On the cultural and social aspects there can be other cultural and social benefits to be achieved from further European integration as far as the UK and other national parliaments are concerned11. Cultural benefits would include the benefits derived from cross-cultural integration; these could include the learning of the best skills for doing a particular job. Such schemes help improve networking and research, as well as increasing general knowledge. 12Since 1990, over 60,000 UK students have taken part in European exchanges and collaboration projects, and when asked in a survey, most of them saw this experience as being the most important experience of their education. The search for new institutional forms to express conflict of interest has began and at the time, democratic decision making is moving towards a new form of more direct involvement in the political process with publics and political groups placing more emphasis on direct form of citizen participation through citizen initiatives and referenda as well as on improving the possibilities for citizen consultation and public hearing. There is a trend though towards centralization of policy making which has as some claim, short-circuited national parliaments ‘ability to shape public policies as on the other hand social cohesion, can be enhanced and many of the benefits of being at the heart of Europe include cultural, social and political attributes, as well as various economic benefits which can be achieved from increased trade13. Changes in constitution need to be made so as not to paralyze the capacity of the European Commission to make the necessary decisions. There will have to be some loss in the number of votes for each member country to accommodate new potential members. There has been shown to be a conflict here for the UK in that the UK is in favor of enlargement in general but at the same time wants more votes14 In the same way a single currency will involve some loss of autonomy in economic policy making for member countries. For example, in order to meet the Maastricht convergence criteria of low inflation and a limited budget deficit of no more than 3 per cent of GDP, there will be a loss of autonomy in both monetary and fiscal policy making. Governments may face limits on their ability to spend and also their ability to increase or decrease interest rates. However, this may not be seen as any great loss of autonomy to governments which are committed to the goals of the Maastricht treaty regarding permanently low inflation15. There is also a financial cost to being part of Europe in terms of contributions to programmes such as regional aid and agriculture16. Provisions in the Lisbon treaty are intended to incorporate the participation of the national parliaments in the formation of the relevant policies that govern the member states as well as increase their ability to express their views on draft legislative acts17. This as well as other matters which may be of particular interest to them, the treaty will make provisions for national parliaments to contribute to the good functioning of the union; being kept informed by the EU institutions and having draft legislative acts forwarded to them as well as seeing to it that the principle subsidiary is respected. They will also be taking part in evaluating the implementation of EU policy in the area of freedom, security and justice as well as being involved in the political monitoring of Europol and the evaluation of Eurojust activities and taking part in the procedures for any further provisions of the treaties; the national parliaments as well will be notifies of the applications for accession to the union and taking part in the inter-parliamentary cooperation between national parliaments and with the European parliaments18 The protocol to the treaty on European Union on the role of national parliaments in the European Union as amended by the Lisbon treaty requires the commission to send national parliaments its consultations documents such as green papers, white papers and communications. Its annual legislative programmed and other planning documents as well as its drafts for legislation will also be passed through the national parliaments The protocol also states that national parliaments should be sent proposals for legislation originating from the European parliament, a group of member states, the European court of justice, the European central bank or the European investment bank; also to be sent are the agendas for, and notice of the outcome of, council meetings and the annual report of the European court of auditors; in addition, the national parliaments should be given advance notice of any intention of the European council to amend the treaties; even a cursory glance at the European parliament’s role in EU decision making raises the question of how de-parliamentalization theses can be squared with the growing importance attributed to the European Parliament in legislative decision making over the past two decades. It can therefore be concluded that the European Parliament as a co-equal regulator and its increasingly prominent role in the investiture of the commission, as well as its role as twin-arm of the budgetary authority, it is hard controversial to claim that in terms of its powers and functions, the European parliament resembles national parliaments more than its international counterparts. Consequently, comparison between the European Assembly and National assembly assume an even more prominent place. Endowed with legislative, budgetary and executive control powers, comparisons between other parliamentary assemblies in international organizations which play a merely consultative role and the European Parliament are exercises of a distant past. References Biondi, A., & Eeckhout, P. (2012). EU Law after Lisbon. Oxford: OUP Oxford. Bremner, C. (1996). Treasury reaps benefits of EU budget freeze. The Times, 28 July 1996. Christiansen, T., & Kirchner, E. J. (2000). Committee governance in the European Union. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Chown, J. (1994). The road to monetary union revisited. Institute of Economic Affairs Controversies. 15(8), pp. 72-94 Cox, A. (1994). Derogation subsidiarity and the single market: the case of energy exploration and extraction under the EC utility procurement rules. Journal of Common Market Studies. 32(2), pp. 243-278. Curwen, P. (1995). Telecommunications policy in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies. 33(3), pp. 104-128 Cusick, J. (1993). Two towns slug it out on the jobs seesaw: Hoover affair. The Independent On Sunday, 7 February 1993. Floyd, D. (1995). Monetary union; is there any justification for the UK opt out? Economia, 6(11), pp. 44-95. Floyd, D. (1997). UK membership of the European Union: establishing a framework for analysis. European Business Review Volume. 97(2), pp. 63–67 Ham, P. (1996). Two sides of the Euro coin. Sunday Times, 4 February 1996, p. 3 Panara, C., & Becker, A. . (2011). The role of the regions in the EU governance. Berlin: Springer. Roarty, M., (1995). Trade policies in the EU: prospects for the millennium. European Review. 96(11), pp. 301-322 The Economist, (1996). Le crunch, beef has brought Tory divides about Europe to a head. The Economist, 18 May 1996 Wojtas, O. (1996). Fair Exchange. The Times Higher, 21 June 1996. Read More