Creation of EU Laws and Democratic Deficit - Essay Example

Creation of EU Laws and Democratic Deficit Introduction The European Union is an international body which is unique amongst its peers since it has a very complex and highly evolved system of creating and establishing its laws. Since the treaties of Paris and Rome, the body has been creating, expanding and explaining the laws which have come up since its inception. Even though the legal system envisioned by the stalwarts of the EU is given high marks by many critics, there are those who say that the laws created by the body are cumbersome, a hindrance to the economy, non-transparent and do not take into account the sprit of democracy. Democratic Problem The fundamental reason for the last accusation is the way in which the law creation process works. At the root of the matter, each country has one vote with which to agree with or disagree with a presented law and the votes are weighted equally regardless of the size of the population or the economic strength of the country. While this may seem like a democratic process, what it does in actuality is that it sometimes equates majorities with minorities. In worse case scenarios, it can even give the minority power over the majority. The root of democracy as it was envisioned by the original philosophers and thinkers who came up with the idea is one man one vote. The way it is applied in the EU is one country one vote and that leads to the democratic deficit since the wishes of the majority of countries are represented while the majority of individual Europeans living in those countries may actually be against the creation of that very same law (Wikipedia, 2006). In a way it represents the same issues which the American presidential election system faces where a majority of individual votes may be defeated by a majority in the Electoral College. The Three Tiers This process is not simplified in any way by the three tiers of Union law i.e.: 1. Primary Laws: The treaties and agreements between various countries. 2. Secondary Laws: the regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations etc. of the various bodies within the EU to come to terms with the primary laws. 3. Decisions and judgments given by the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance Undoubtedly, this creates a complex system where democracy is often a secondary concern over expediency and cooperation of the members. It must be noted that the European Union is not a federal body or an intergovernmental committee, in fact, it is a body created by the agreement of countries that are mutually bound to each other to follow its laws (FCO, 2006). The technical name for the entire collection of EU laws is acquis communautaire which is divided into more than thirty chapters for reference and discussion (Wikipedia, 2006). Formation of Law Overtime the formation of the law has come to a point where the European Union can be considered more than a union of countries and it is reaching closer to the ideal of a unified Europe. The formation of the constitution represents the last step of the current chapter in EU history and the opening of a new era in cooperation and stability. At the same time, law making in Europe carries the same burden of negotiations between countries just as it was after the end of World War II. The draft constitution, when it was presented, was given very different views from the member countries. The British opinion was to look at it as a mere formality since many years of law creation would now be combined into a single document. However, the German delegate saw it and was extraordinarily disappointed while the chairperson of the European Commission could not find any vision or ambition in the document (Hain, 2003). This is just one example of how monumental a task is faced by those who seek to create laws within the EU. The Democratic Deficit While these differences could be overcome with time, they represent the individualist prejudices which countries still have against each other. Hain (2003) has commented that the complexity of the constitution is not helped by the fact that it is extremely longwinded. Additionally, it seeks to govern diverse topics such as human rights, the political institutions of the Union and social policies without clarifying the nature of the union itself. Democracy is a system based on the wishes of the people and these can adjust overtime. While at one point in history, it was perfectly acceptable to keep whites separated from blacks in America, now it is a legal requirement that it must not be done. Similarly, it can be said that the wishes of the people were largely ignored when the treaties were first formed between the countries in the EU and now when those treaties are turning into law, democracy is being hurt. For example, Article 10 of the EU constitution gives EU law precedence over the laws of individual states, while this has been on the minds of the members since the Treaty of Rome, accepting this is an issue for some countries when it comes to issues on which they are quite sensitive (Hain, 2003). In Britain for example, the situation is almost reaching panic levels since only 10% of the population is ready to accept EU law over British law (Hain, 2003). The man in 10 Downing Street certainly knows that it is going to be a bit of an uphill battle to get the remaining 90% to accept that laws from Brussels would soon have more authority than laws made by the English for the English (History Learning Site, 2006). Clearly, the British population is mindful of the democratic deficit in the law creation process at EU and are afraid the laws may not be right for them. Even the EU itself realises that the balance of power between countries as it had been maintained by the treaties needs to reflect in the constitution. The current distribution gives too much power to smaller members and it has been pointed out that when the EU increases its number to 25 members, the group of seven smallest countries would represent only 1.25% of the total EU GDP while they will have more voting rights than the six largest member countries that contribute more than 80% of the total GDP (Hain, 2003). Such inequalities will certainly create and promote democratic issues and may be a threat to the stability of the union as a whole. Lobbyists Defeat Democracy Officially, there are around five thousand lobbyists working around the European Parliament but experts suggest that the actual number may be as high as thirty thousand. In fact, there could be as many lobbyists working in Brussels as there are bureaucrats and the vast majority (70%) of the lobbyists are working for corporations and business enterprises. Less than 10% of these are working for individual countries and the rest represent trade unions, health and environmental groups etc. (Gunnell, 2005). Gunnell (2005) is of the strong opinion that the lobbyists have an undue influence on the creation of laws for the European Union and gives examples of American companies working in Brussels with media and PR firms which suggest the creation and adjustment of laws to help their interests. American chemical manufacturers and at least four federal U.S. agencies were deeply involved in the lobbying process when the EU decided to create its own chemical transport related laws. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of State and Commerce all lobbied fervently for softer and easier chemical related laws in the EU to help American businesses in Europe (Loewenberg, 2006). The same lobbying efforts were seen in 2005 when the EU adopted a single position on the patenting of computer related inventions. American software manufacturers and technology companies were deeply involved in the process while the common people were more or less sidelined (Bodoni, 2005). Over the coming years, computer technology and its off-shoots will have thousands of applications for humanity and using the advice of those who stand to make money from these inventions can not be a good idea. In conclusion, I find myself in agreement with Gunnell (2005) who suggests that there is not a democratic deficit in the European Union but rather a political deficit which allows corporations and businesses to win with their technocratic skills. While Europe plans to become the American for the 21st century, I hope that the democratic process is not defeated simply because those who are able to play with the system have better access to decision makers than those who depend on the system. Works Cited Bodoni, S. 2005. ‘EU software patent law in the balance.’ Managing Intellectual Property, vol. 148 no. 1 pp15-17. FCO. 2006. ‘How EU policy is made.’ Foreign and Commonwealth Office U.K., [Online] Available at: http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029392232 Gunnell, B. 2005. ‘In Brussels, the lobbyocracy rules.’ New Statesman, vol. 135, no. 4726, pp27-28. Hain, P. 2003. ‘Tidying up or tyranny?’ Economist, vol. 367 no. 8326, pp51-52. History Learning Site 2006. ‘How Laws are made in the U.K.’ HistoryLearningSite.co.uk, [Online] Available at: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/how_laws_are_made_in_great_brita.htm Loewenberg, S. 2006. ‘US chemical companies leave their mark on EU law.’ Lancet, vol. 367 no. 9510, pp556-557. Wikipedia. 2006. ‘European Union law’ Wikipedia.org [Online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Law Read More