Pan-EU lists: avenues for action / Listes pan-EU: pistes d’action

F

Slubice/Amsterdam – Tandis que des protagonistes européens appellent les chefs de gouvernement à trouver une solution européenne pour la crise Euro, le nombre de propositions pour augmenter le soutien populaire augmente également. Une d’elles, des listes paneuropéennes d’élection, doit être voté au Parlement Européen cet automne. Bien que d’un point de vue démocratique un tel changement est nécessaire, a conclu un atelier des Sympathisants-PVE fin août, l’opposition est tellement forte qu’une campagne pourrait être nécessaire pour lui donner… plus de soutien populaire.
E

Whereas prominent Europeans are calling upon government leaders to find a European solution to the Euro crisis, the number of proposals to provide the EU with more popular support increases as well. One of them, pan-European election lists, is due to be voted by the European Parliament this autumn. Although crucial for democracy, concluded an EGP Supporters’ Network workshop in August, the proposal has so much trouble getting adopted that a campaign may be needed to provide it with… more popular support.

Report Workshop 2nd Green EU Summer University, Frankfurt/Slubice, September 10, 2011-10-07, by Lynn Tabak

The main advantage of pan-European lists is, that they force political parties to replace the national discussions that currently dominate EU policies, by a truly European debate. Which is badly needed, stressed Bas Eickhout, member of the European Parliament for the Dutch Green party GroenLinks, during the session that was intended to identify avenues for action. “The political debate on European issues is terribly poor. And it takes place once every five years, inside each member state, not across borders. No wonder the election rate decreases.”

Bas Eickhout

Over the years, the principle has seen many versions. The scenario the English liberal MEP Andrew Duff has proposed to the European Parliament consists of 25 extra seats, added to the existing 751. They are to be allocated by all European voters, from international lists of candidates proposed by European political families, through a second vote, which should, from 2014 onwards, be added to the existing vote for national party lists. Just 25 may not be enough, some MEPs feel. But Duff is convinced that it is enough to generate a new dynamism.

When the proposal was about to be put to the vote in June, however, it met so much opposition that the author had to withdraw it for revision. And even if, by miracle, he and his supporters manage to convince a majority of colleagues, the chances that European voters will get their double vote in 2014 are slim. Because the proposal also needs the approval of government leaders, none of which has probably so much as given it a thought. Because rules like how to prevent those lists from being dominated by big member states, candidates being allowed on both EU and national lists or not, still have to be designed.

Complications

But it is also because, from a democratic point of view, the principle is far from unproblematic. As Eickhout put it: “The EU is the only example of nation states we know of, that have given away sovereignty in a very free way. Because of its unique position, and because so many different players are involved, no-one knows where it will end.” This uncertainty shouldn’t prevent us from proposing changes, he said. The EU is needed in this globalised world, the status quo is far from satisfactory, and “without experiments things will never move”.

But to be prepared for the debate, advocates of the principle need to be aware of the complications. A first, stressed by Edouard Gaudot, a senior policy advisor of the Greens/EFA who previously worked as a policy advisor to the Polish liberal MEP Geremek: when designing a more democratic structure for Europe, the existing democratic models “cannot just be transposed on a larger scale. Democracy as we know it, goes hand in hand with the consolidation of the nation state. The highly centralised French model works for France, which has a highly centralised economy, but not for the UK, and vice versa. More than five decades after the beginning of the EU, we are left with a big question mark.”

Edouard Gaudot

From the beginning of the eighties, there have been talks about a federal, democratic Europe. But all attempts so far to build it, draw on the past, including trans-national lists. More than five decades after the beginning of the EU, we still are left with an unwritten chapter, a big question mark.”

A second complication: trans national lists won’t easily enchant the masses. Born within the European Parliament, they have a high degree of EU-speak. The dream of generations of EU federalists, up till now they have hardly been shared with the voters. What we need most, said Gaudot, “is a re-appropriation of the Union by its citizens. Each time a crisis occurs, government leaders turn to the national level for answers, because the EU lacks legitimacy. That legitimacy cannot come from constitutional reforms alone; we need to rebuild the EU. And we need to do that from the only source we know: the voice of the citizens.”

How true this is, shows a Belgian experience put forward by Benoît Lechat, a staff member of the Walloon Green research institute Etopia. “The main reason Flanders and Walloon are drifting apart, is the absence of federal parties and constituencies. Our politicians don’t have incentives to address the problems of the country as a whole.” A couple of years ago, a group of well-known intellectuals proposed to introduce such a federal district. Écolo and Groen! are in favour, but hardly any other party paid much attention because they simply didn’t see the electoral advantage. “I’m afraid we are losing the race, and Belgium rapidly is turning into two national states within one country, one of which, Flanders, wants to exist on its own.”

A third difficulty: the European political families which should propose the candidates, together with a coherent European programme, are far from ready for the task. As Eickhout put it, “The European party kitchen is a hell of a kitchen. And compared to national parties, the performance of European political families is bleak. And the Greens are no exception, so we may very well hit walls on that level as well.” Some national parties don’t even have a European equivalent, several participants stressed. And even if they do, they have to consider the national political context they operate in. Which is why all groups in the European Parliament are divided on the issue of European lists. Even in the Green Group, most favourable by far, two members are against: the Finnish, whose party participates in a government that has to cope with very strong anti-European feelings. Support for the proposal, they reason, might do the European cause more harm than good.

Panu Laturi

Interesting detail: the party itself is in favour, be it with reservations. In England & Wales one MEP is in favor, the other is against and the party has mixed feelings about European integration.“Because of those differences in political culture”, Ute Michel, a German-born former councillor of the London borough of Lewisham said, “we first need a philosophical debate, a dialogue with every one of the parties, on how to deal with those lists. If not, we are going to shoot ourselves in the foot. And what will happen is what has happened to the common European manifestoes that were written over the years; either you get the lowest common denominator, or parties simply don’t use them because there is a lot in it with which they don’t agree.”

The last and probably most difficult brain-teaser: pan-European lists increase the distance between Europeans and their representatives in what Panu Laturi, secretary general of the Finnish Greens, called “a Union that is already perceived as very far away. Our party recognises the need for European debate. But it also thinks that those who decide should be close to the people. Having only European lists, we believe, won’t save Europe – and goes far beyond federalism anyway”.
Trans-national lists good, only such lists a recipe to hell

“Arguments like this should be taken very seriously” Sven Giegold, MEP for the German Greens and former leader of ATTAC Germany, agreed, “and not be treated as betrayal to the European cause. Therefore the final proposal cannot be to have only trans-national lists. But it is obvious that there is too little incentive for European debate. At this summer university, I see only friends of Europe, people from local parliaments don’t see the point.”
“And”, said Arno Uijlenhoet, a former Newropean who joined the Dutch Greens “is that MEPs now speak with two voices, sometimes a national and at other moments a European voice.” “But trans-national lists aren’t the only way to have a European debate”, said Laturi. “Germany doesn’t have national lists, yet there is a German national debate.”
Gaudot: “The answer is a double structure: pan-European lists to get a cross border debate, and lists based on territories to guarantee closeness. Trans-national lists is good, only trans-national lists are a recipe to hell.”
“Greek Parliament to invite Dutch MP”

Those lists, however, are only one of the tools needed to turn the tide. “For a European debate”, said Lechat, “you need a European space. To create that, we should also look at social movements, well-known people, NGO’s.” “To get across borders, we Greens might propose to invite politicians from other member states to national parliaments”, Eickhout suggested. “The Greek might invite a Dutch MP to explain why his government has problems paying for the Greek debt, a French MP might go to Portugal. And think of companies and banks, they have understood the challenge long ago – and so have many citizens. Recently, Guy Verhofstadt, (a former prime minister of Belgium and a dedicated European, ed.), was invited by a Dutch television programme. Some were so enthusiastic that they said: ‘Why can’t I vote for this guy?”

Avenues for Action

More suggestions were made, like putting a minimum number of candidates from other member states on your national party list, Europe-ising the debate within each party. They all can help to get out of the deadlock. But they cannot replace the need for a change of election rule, Gaudot warned. “This debate is also about democracy, about having a say. The example of Belgium as a mini-Europe is quite telling. The main problem of the country is, that people only can vote for politicians from their own region, not for the corrupt lot on the other side of the language border. Because you cannot vote those out of power, you are powerless. In much the same way, the Germans feel powerless because they cannot vote against a Greek government that encourages laziness.

Trans-national lists have the advantage that they will give the Europeans a beginning of power over the whole European constituency. And we should start campaigning for them now – because we are dealing with a big crisis and I am not so convinced that the feeling of urgency about it has reached the Greens.“

But before launching that campaign, he added, “two things should be well understood. The first: trans-national lists are a trans-party issue. You’ll find people in favour in nearly all groups, even the radical left. If the idea is presented as a Green project, it is doomed to fail. And the second: each of us should start in his own country. The European Parliament needs to be re-appropriated by the citizens, and rooted in every layer of European civil society. If not, it will remain a toy of Eurocrats.