Widening gulf between Parliaments

Written by Andrew Duff and published in ft.com on Fri 4th Mar 2005

British newspapers have long since stopped reporting what is said in the House of Commons. They have never reported debates in the European Parliament. So few people will be aware of the widening gulf between these two institutions in general and on the EU constitution in particular, or on the contrast between the British debate on the constitution and that taking place elsewhere in Europe.

One of the most notable features of the constitution is that it boosts the political, legislative and budgetary powers of the European Parliament both in real terms and also in relation to the other EU institutions. In January, MEPs voted overwhelmingly to support the widening and deepening of integration that the constitution implies and enables.

On 9 February, the House of Commons held a five-hour second reading debate on the EU Constitution Bill. Jack Straw, foreign secretary, asserted that the constitution 'puts Europe's members firmly in control'. The constitution is a 'framework for our kind of Europe, which gives us a strong role in a Union of free and sovereign nations'. The new full-time president of the European Council will 'ensure that is we, the nations, who set the EU's agenda and get it implemented'. The constitution limits the powers of the EU, he said, adding mysteriously that 'for the first time, there is a procedure to modify or reduce the exercise of those powers'. The Charter of Fundamental Rights, he boasted, 'cannot be used as a source of new human rights in this country'.

Straw's description of the main features of the constitution ended with no mention at all of the European Parliament. Nor did his deputy, Denis MacShane, recuperate the Parliament in his wind-up speech. (A Foreign Office pamphlet explaining the constitution, issued in December, was likewise wholly silent about the role of MEPs.)

Michael Ancram, for the Tories, had a good crack at the government's 'red lines' but struggled to justify his party's policy of voting No to the constitution while still adhering to continued British membership of the EU. 'Europe is facing relative decline' he said. 'The constitution embodies the ossified thinking that lies behind it, and it is time for a fresh start'. Again no mention of the European Parliament. Other Tories were less bashful. In Bernard Jenkin's view, the Parliament is an 'utterly obscure and irrelevant institution'. Angela Browning claimed that the constitution gives 'significant powers' to 'people who have not been elected by the people of this country, and who are not answerable to us'.

The impact of the constitution on post-national parliamentary democracy got next to no attention from other speakers. Even those who supported the extension of qualified majority voting (QMV) did so on the grounds of efficiency not of democracy. Nobody made the link between QMV in the Council and codecision with the European Parliament (the constitution's ordinary legislative procedure). Only one Labour MP, Michael Connarty, expressly supported the rise of the European Parliament.

Overall, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the House of Commons is largely ignorant about the work of the European Parliament, contemptuous of the legitimacy of MEPs and jealous of their powers. This does not bode well for the Yes side in the referendum campaign, where ministers and MPs are duty bound to take the lead.

How different in Spain, where the recent referendum campaign was won convincingly on the theme of efficiency, democracy and solidarity. Much emphasis was put on the democratic legitimacy of the Convention which drafted the constitution and on the importance of the Charter. Prime minister Zapatero insisted not only that Spain should be grateful for the benefits it had received from EU membership, but also that Spain in Europe makes Europe stronger.

Unless British ministers and MPs can bring themselves to copy the Spanish example there will be no chance of persuading British public opinion to support the constitution. As Kenneth Clarke pointed out in the Commons' debate, there is so far no agreement within either of the two camps, let alone between them, about what the constitution does. Continuing lack of cohesion around a positive message in the Yes camp will serve only to confuse the public and dissuade them from voting on the constitutional question at all. People might still vote, of course but on something else entirely.