MEPs won't blink
Late last night a small group of MEPs led by the British Conservative Martin Callanan threw out a scheme to water down planned new laws to fine car companies for not meeting new green targets.
As I reported yesterday some were unhappy that it looked like they were being offered a precooked deal by their main negotiator. The French, who are currently in the chair of the European Union council, are desperate to do a quick deal and were dismayed by the MEPs tough stance.
The French deputy ambassador is trying to wrap up deals not only on this but the whole complex and awkward climate change package. He's tired and running out of diary time.
So no deal before next week at the earliest, although many MEPs will feel what they end up with is much weaker than they would like. Whatever the eventual details it's likely that at the end of the day ministers from car producing nations will breathe a sigh of relief and present the details as a triumph for the environment and the car industry.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~53~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Mark, it's all about not losing 'face'. Once all the parties are satisfied they can come out of the process with something 'positive' to say that'll be it. It's about being seen to be doing something.
Complain about this comment
Fair enough - that's what we have elected representatives for.
The sooner that MEPs gain the whip hand over intergovernmental backroom dealmakers, the sooner the EU will lose its reputation for being undemocratic.
Complain about this comment
Anthony Zacharzewski (2): MEPs are not elected representatives. They are appointees of political parties. In EU-elections voters cannot vote for individual candidates so how can an MEP be said to represent you? This can clearly be seen when an MEP resigns and the next candidate on the party list is automatically appointed to replace him. Compare that to Westminster where the resignation of an MP leads to a by-election to such that the voters can chose someone else to represent them.
Even if MEPs were elected representatives they would not have any democratic mandate. Democracy is more than elections. It requires that the people doing the voting consider themselves part of the same polity such that we will agree to be bound by the majority decisions of 'our' representatives. This is not the case beyond the level of the nation-state.
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn-John (3):
That is how you do it in the UK. In other countries we have other ways to elect our MEPs. In Finland we have one national district from which 13 MEPs will be elected in next election. People vote individual candidates and election results are calculated by using d'Hondt method, thus atleast in here our MEPs are our elected representatives in Europarliament. If you are not satisfied with your method on electing MEPs then the government of UK should do necessary changes to accommodate peoples will.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John will probably go apoplectic on reading this, but I agree with many of the points he makes. As he says, there is no European polity and therefore there is no basis for electing a real European parliament ie, one with powers to levy taxes and decide on spending.
However, a directly elected assembly can still perform a useful function in providing a forum for elected representatives to study, debate and even amend proposals for directives and regulations.
The real question is whether this simili-democracy should be, or indeed can be, permanent. Like Freeborn-John, I do not think it should.
All we differ about is what could and should take its place. Whatever does take its place should only do so with the support of Europeans, freely given.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila
Different countries Elect MEP's in different ways? Surely it should be done in a uniform way if were going to do it?
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @ #4
You make a fair point in repsonse to Freeborn-John's criticism of the travesty of the UK MEP Selection Process which denies the liberty of independents to stand for election to the European Parliament.
Your comment does make me ask a question though. Do you feel as an individual citizen in Finland that your are represented by a freely elected and democratically accountable MEP or group of MEPs for your region?
In the UK, because the stooge MEPs are party selected and there is no electoral choice other than along Party nominated lines, UK MEPs are Party hacks and not independent of mind enough to represent their UK Region as freely as might be the case if they were locally selected and directly responsible to their electorate.
Perhaps there is a case to be argued for the EU Member States to adopt a uniform European methodology for electing their European Parliamentary Representaives so that they are free from Party Political influences and more directly answerable to the Electrorates of the Regions for which they stand or fall at the hands of the people.
This would go a long way to providing the democracy that the EU-Sceptics will forever hold against the EU for having a deficiency.
Complain about this comment
To WhiteEnglishProud (6):
Of course not, different countries can elect their representatives they way they want to. Even if EU would be a federation this would be the case. My point is that if the system in UK doesn't work, if Freeborn-John thinks that British MEPs doesn't represent him, then maybe UK should think adapting another system that would make him think that MEPs do represent him.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @ #8
Unfortunately there is as much a liklihoopd of the three main Political Parties voluntarily agreeing to give up nominating and imposing their candidates upon the UK European Parliamentary Regions as pigs might fly.
That is why I wondered if an EU agrred rattionalised process for selecting MEP cndidates might be a way forward.
The UK is hyper-responsive to EU Directives so a Directive on European Election Process might be the key to unlocking the UK Electorates cycnicism of European Parliamentary Elections by giving a real voice and democratic choice to the UK Electorate through such an EU Directive?
Just a thought raised by your original comment.
Complain about this comment
manofiona: the current European Parliament does all that you propose. The problem is that they have no executive powers. Whatever the result of their deliberations it is still up to the Council of Ministers (EU heads of state) to agree and decide (behind closed doors, naturellement!).
The EU Parliament has the virtue of being non-partisan. OK, as Mark notes, they often appoint intermediaries (eg negotiators): but, again as Mark notes, they don't have to listen to them. Also, whilst there are quite a few "special-interest" EMPs (and Parliament is open-house to pressure groups), there some sensible people there as well - really!
Wgat might bea called Real democracy (see FreebornJohn) will be blocked for so long as final decision-making on the issues that matter is confined (behind closed doors) to heads of state.
Complain about this comment
We used to elect our MEPs once upon a time, what happened? BTW over half of legislation created in the UK is by Quango or other derogated means, so even in the UK it doesn't conform to Freeborn - John's idealised view of democracy. Anyway, what became of UKIP who I seem to remember campaigned to get elected as MEPs and then do nothing (no change there then). At least this lot appear to be doing something.
Complain about this comment
Doctor gloom is spot on.
A bit more grandstanding and the Conservatives and Liberals will cave. The end result - car manufaturers will build the same fuel-wasting cars for the next 7 years! The rules would actually not require them to improve the fuel efficiency of cars effectively until 2015. So, the consumer continues to get inefficient cars, at a time when we need to be reducing economic waste and reducing our dependence on volatile oil imports. Oh and there is the small matter of climate change.
Complain about this comment
I have a novel selection process for MEPs:
Throw all candidates in a cold lake. Those that survive are obviously witches. The remainder can become MEPs.
Result: less damage and more happiness all round.
Complain about this comment
12, Richmof:
Oh and there is the small matter of climate change.
Oh no, don't worry. There isn't any problem, as 'britononthemitten' explained to me ('Earth watch' blog by Richard Black, 'Opening gambits', 21.11; post #8, 10, 13). Nothing's really happening, it's all just a 'big lie'.
So: don't you worry!
Seriously, now: I too think that car manufacturers will build fuel-wasting cars for a long time yet. I just hope oil prices will move up again soon, because that'd make people jump a bit.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus (7) and (9):
Its little bit difficult to answer the question you asked in your first message. I do think that I am represented by 14 democratically elected and accountable MEPs. I think that I held them accountable by both as a group and as individuals. All thought conservative members I held more responsible as I'm a conservative voter in general.
I think that it wouldn't work even in practice to have Union wide common rules on how to elect EU representatives. This is largely because in different countries and regions people have different views on what is the best form of Democratic elections. I love my mix of voting both individual candidates and parties, Swedish however like to vote party lists and you in the UK have this first-past-the-post affair.
Also there comes the question of interests: a small country of 5 million who share same economic interests are best served by country wide district where as large countries with competing regional interests are best served by regional districts.
In the end of course my federalist view or to be honest a ideology goes against having the EU saying how countries and people should elect their representatives. Federation still is just a union of individual states. If the federal government would start to regulate how states are structured then we would not have a federation but a country.
Of course this doesn't address the problem which is democratic representation in the EU level. Of course the Europarliament could in example start a think tank or research institution that would study and make suggestions on how democratic representation in the EU level should be handled. Unfortunately having the EU advising how individual countries should hold elections would probably arouse unbelievable amount of cry in the tabloid press.
Complain about this comment
To MaxSceptic (13):
Excuse me, but aren't you even a little bit of concerned that by following your method we could end up being ruled by bunch of undead? I'm just a little bit worried on that. You see undead are controlled by forces of darkness, you know Satan and his minions. And you know, I haven't lived that good life, so I at least would need some time to make atonements before the rapture comes. So are you sure that its a such good idea?
Complain about this comment
3 hour moderation delay - a new record for the Beeb!
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @9 and Jukka_Rohila @16
you know i'm a (bad) teacher of (bad) English,
so, Jukka, you can atone for your wrongdoings best by writing "for example" ;
and, Menedemus - "when pigs fly" - is a very archaic expression. in modern parlance it is "when Putin retires."
Thank you.
Complain about this comment
2. At 2:05pm on 25 Nov 2008, Anthony Zacharzewski wrote:
"Fair enough - that's what we have elected representatives for.
The sooner that MEPs gain the whip hand over intergovernmental backroom dealmakers, the sooner the EU will lose its reputation for being undemocratic."
The "EU" cannot lose its reputation for being undemocratic. Its existence is an insult to democracy.
We in Britain are being denied the referendum that could have made it legitimate.
The British people have been lied to again and again and again over the last 35+ years.
Complain about this comment
Is there any supporter of the "EU" who reads this who has protested about the disgraceful refusal to give us in the UK the referendum we were promised.
Is there even one?
Complain about this comment
Anthony Zacharzewski, do you want to know where the "h" in Anthony comes from? Or do you know already?
Complain about this comment
There's an "EU" recovery plan. So what? Why should I trust those people who have a miserable record of financial management?
I wouldn't trust them to run a sweet shop.
I want out!
Complain about this comment
16. At 9:52pm on 25 Nov 2008, Jukka_Rohila wrote:
"To MaxSceptic (13):
Excuse me, but aren't you even a little bit of concerned that by following your method we could end up being ruled by bunch of undead?"
Surely we are already!
Complain about this comment
There should be no British troops in Kosovo supporting the "EU"-dictatorship.
British forces are already overstretched.
Complain about this comment
On this site I read:
"A referendum shows 75% of people in Greenland favour back a new deal giving more autonomy from Denmark. "
I am very pleased that the Greenlanders got a referendum. I wish them well.
I DEMAND THAT WE IN THE UK GET THE REFERENDUM WE WERE PROMISED!!!
Complain about this comment
SuffolkBoy2
You give me a British press that reports European issues accurately and fairly (as Mark's blog does), and I'll support your referendum.
Deal?
Complain about this comment
Re post 26, Anthony, the Guardian, The Independent, BBC, ITV, Channel 4 - will that do :)
Complain about this comment
Well suffolkboy, then vote for a party that will give it to you and stop polluting every thread with your pointless trolling.
Complain about this comment
There are only three comments in this thread that are on topic. The moderation here is a disgrace. There are people who want to engage in discussions on the issues raised by these threads but every single one is hijacked by europhobic and eurofederalist trolls.
If you won't moderate the comments properly, then please don't allow any comments. It makes a mockery of blogging to permit such trolling.
Complain about this comment
@ #2 and #4
The EU parliament may be 'elected', but it is by no definition democratic. It can't do anything that the Politburo and Council don't also agree on. And also, it can hardly be called a parliament at all. More like a beefed up advisory council. The legislative powers should only be at the level of the national parliament. After all, we dutch elected our national parliament 100%.
It is an utter disgrace that the Fourth Reich is using the natural phenomenon of climate change to seize more control and power for itself. Climate change is a natural phenomenon and everyone except lying politicians who want new taxes knows this.
Complain about this comment
@Zacharzewski (26)
if the press honestly and truthfully reported on the EU, there would hardly be anyone left who supported it.
If people only knew just how parliamentary democracy has been undermined. Legislative powers have been moved from the directly elected national parliaments to a combination of unelected EU politburo kommissars and the EU council. Via the EU council, government ministers have legislative powers and can bypass the national parliaments on most subjects. No elected parliament can effect control on the EU legislation or do anything to change it. The national parliaments are powerless, and 27 countries populations have been betrayed by politicians whose only interest is making the Reich as big as possible.
The EU is only beneficial for one group: politicians. Once one has an EU job, one gets double pension and doesn't have to pay income tax at all. And the best part: you don't have to be elected either. So it is only natural that mainstream politicians support the EU, its their gravy train after all.
The EU, via CAP and CFP has utterly devastated tens of thousands of African farming and fisheries communities and is the #1 reason of the continueing poverty and misery of Africa. One could almost argue that the EU is racist. Not content with destroying many livelyhoods in Africa, the EU demanded that Indonesia increase production of biofuels (which can only be done at the expense of, you guessed it, food production).
Futhermore, the EU props up the failed and corrupt VAT system. VAT fraud is getting out of hand. VAT should be abolished and replaced with a sales tax to be levied only when selling to consumers. But the EU gets income from VAT so it is in its interest to prop up the VAT fraud.
There is not one single benefit the EU claims that couldn't also be had with intergovernmental cooperation. Not one.
Complain about this comment
Jukka (8) and pandatank (11) : The UK did use its own system to return MEPs but other countries did not like it. The Amsterdam treaty therefore introduced a requirement that “The elections must be based on proportional representation and use either the list system or the single transferable vote (Council Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom)”. This is why we now so many MEPs of all parties able to represent their own interest safe in the knowledge that they really cannot be removed from office so long as they do what their party hierarchies want.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/facts/1_3_4_en.htm
Jukka: When Alexander Stubb resigned as MEP to become foreign minister of Finland was there an election to decide his replacement?
Manofiona (5): There are one or two journalists (e.g. Peter Sain Ley Berry, writing in EU Observer) that support the EU project but not at the price of forcing it through without democratic consent. I can respect such people even when disagreeing with them about the desirability of political union. Unfortunately the ranks of EU supporters seem unusually, even exceptionally, deficient of democrats.
Complain about this comment
@31
Calling the EU the Reich achieves nothing, other than to demonstrate the triumph of blind hatred over reason.
I completely agree that every single European harmonisation and free trade directive, indeed the Euro itself *could* have been done by agreement between governments.
But, back in reality, it *wouldn't* have been done, because there would have been no mechanism for agreement or enforcement.
Does Europe need 27 different plug systems and 27 trade negotiating positions? Or is there a need for at least some EU-level bureaucracy?
Complain about this comment
Mark
"threw out a scheme to water down planned new laws to fine car companies for not meeting new green targets."
That must be one of the more complex phrases ever! I'm still not sure what it means.
Complain about this comment
Anthony Zacharzewski (33): You do not need the EU to standardise plugs. I don’t believe it does this anyway, but the days of European-wide industry standards should be behind us. Each industry is perfectly capable of deciding such things for itself and on a globa scale.
One EU position in international trade negotiations is only useful to the extent that the EU position corresponds with our national position. A UK negotiator would try to try to get other countries to reduce tariffs on those things we make and export from this country (e.g. services) and be prepared to lower tariffs on things we do not (like agricultural products). The EU position in the WTO has been precisely the opposite, i.e. to bock agreement in order to keep us paying artificially high prices for food. Therefore a single EU negotiating position in the WTO is actually detrimental to our interest.
The answer to your question about EU bureaucracy is that there is less and less need for as a global low-tariff economy emerges.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @16,
The 'undead'? C'mon, soon you'll be telling me you believe in Santa Claus. But, then again, as you do believe in the EU.... ;-)
Complain about this comment
"One EU position in international trade negotiations is only useful to the extent that the EU position corresponds with our national position."
Not necessarily. The UK might be close enough to the EU general negotiating position that the compromises it has to make to get to that position are less important than the benefit it gets from negotiating alongside 26 others.
The same is true in general foreign policy. Is it better to have a influential position that's 90% of what you want, or a non-influential position that's 100% of what you want?
Pragmatically, it's got to be the 90% one, surely.
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn-John (32):
When Alexander Stubb resigned and became our foreign minister, his place in the EP was taken by Sirpa Pietikainen. Sirpa got the place because after the four elected conservative MEPs she had gotten most votes in the party. Inheriting of the MEP position is decided solely by votes.
It is the same process in our national parliament, its a natural compromise on voting for a party and voting for a individual candidate. The idea is that your vote still counts even if your candidate doesn't get elected.
Complain about this comment
Re post 37, Anthony the problem is that there is not 90% agreement. To give a praactical example look at the foreign conflictss the U.K. has been involved in during the last 30 years.
Falkland Islands
Bosnia
Ist Iraq war
Afghanistan
2nd Iraq war.
To get 90% agreement the rest of the E.U. would have to agree with 4.5 of those conflicts. I doubt that would have happened (as regards to the 2nd Iraq war I would agree with them)
But can you honestly see France and others supporting the U.K. in all of the others. May be we would get agreement in 3, suddenly were down to 60% agreement. I appreciate Foreign policy does include other things besides war, but this is a fairly easy yard stick to test your theory that the E.U would support 90% of the U.K.'s foreign policy.
Complain about this comment
Anthony Zacharzewski (37): You are talking about theoretical scenarios, where as I have provided the real world example to show that you are wrong in practice.
Complain about this comment
To jordanbasset (39):
Well...
1. French helped more Brits in the Falkland Islands war than the Americans. How would 25 other members reacted, never know, but aggression and acts of war, as in Argentinians actions, don't usually get sympathy. In Falklands Britain was defending itself.
3. This was a clear case, the economic interests of all European countries were at stake in here. The real surprise was that the Soviet Union supported also these actions.
2. Bosnia. There was common political will to end the civil war, the only question was on who drastic actions should be taken.
4. There are troops from most of the EU countries in Afghanistan. But then again, why was it in the interests of Britain to invade and occupy it?
5. If you would have just joined Euro, you would not be in there.
Duh! 100% common policy with small conditions.
Complain about this comment
Re post 41,, Jukka, do you read what you write. Because it is clear that from your own writing there would not be '100% agreement with small conditions'. Unless joining the euro and therefore not going to war in Iraq (strange logic there!) is a small condition!
Complain about this comment
#35
OK. Let's take an example, and let's take an example that corresponds roughly to the theme of this thread. In the future we will have more and more plug –in rechargeable electric cars (even if you don't believe in man made climate change, even you have to believe than fossil fuels will eventually run out). The industry may agree it wants a certain type of plug, or it may not. Maybe some manufacturers will go four a two-pin plug and others will go for a three-pin plug. These may or may not be compatible with the electricity supplies of 27 Member States (and various other countries outside the EU) so the manufacturer may have to supply adapters with the car. In your world, individual countries will be free to decide what sort of recharging system they provide at garages, car parks or in the home. So let's assume I have my British –spec electric car and I want to take it across Europe (not something anybody would sensibly consider in 2008). I need to recharge it in France, but the French recharging station is only compatible with French specification cars, so maybe I should have brought my UK/France adaptor with me. And then on to Luxembourg (luckily I remembered to pack my UK/Luxembourg adaptor). Next stop Belgium, where they use a different kind of adaptor (maybe one for the French speaking communities and one for the Flemish speaking communities). You get the picture. I guess you could argue that market forces would eventually sort things out and that the market will choose a 'winning' system in the same way that the VHS video system won over the Betamax system in the 1980's leaving many people with near-useless video recorders. But wouldn't it be much better if car companies and EU Member States could get together at an early stage to agree mandatory standards before electric cars are widely used, to ensure that a universal system can be agreed?
Complain about this comment
I don't usually comment on Mark's blog because unfortunately there's a tendency for the comments section to degenerate, which is sad because the blog itself is very interesting and informative.
But there's been quite a good quality of debate on an MEP's role especially toward the beginning of this thread so I thought I'd contribute for once.
I agree that the system we have for electing MEPs in this country is upside down. We used to have single-member constituencies before 1999 - 'Buckinghamshire' for instance, which were elected on first past the post. After 1999 they were modelled on the regions which the Major govt designed in 1994, and which have almost no public recognition. No-one, frankly, thinks of themselves as coming from 'East of England', which is the constituency I live in here in Watford. I'd be much more likely to know who represented me if there were a single MEP for Hertfordshire, for instance. (I'm not a fan of fptp voting though so I won't shed many tears for that being gone.) There are varying numbers of MEPs for each constituency as well - 3 for North East England but 9 for London.
How is anyone meant to know how who represents them when they can't be reasonably expected to know which constituency they live in, and how many people represent them?
Even as a very politically-engaged sort of person I can only remember 2 of my MEPs - Andrew Duff and Geoffrey Van Orden because they both replied to emails I've sent to the group using the writetothem site.
As someone who's very pleased to be a European, I really wish the system was easier for people to understand. We're not properly represented if we don't know who our representatives are.
There are sites like www.writetothem.com which will tell you who all your representatives are at every level if you type in your postcode. But that's not the point. The information shouldn't be, to quote Douglas Adams, on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.
That griping aside, I have some positive things to say about the European Parliament. I think the quality of work that goes on there is many grades higher than what happens on the green benches of the House of Commons. Whenever I watch the House of Commons it seems barely advanced from a boarding school dormitory's wet towel fight.
I have a sneaking suspicion this may actually be because there's more media attention on the Westminster Parliament than on the Brussels one. Maybe if people frequently tuned into Strasbourg plenary debates we'd have slanging matches between Daul, Schultz, Watson and Farage. But somehow I don't think so. The European Parliament, for better or for worse, is a consensus-seeking model since no single party is ever able to form a majority. I guess there are advantages and disadvantages to this. The big disadvantage is the lack of European polity; the big advantage is that MEPs are used to working across political lines to get stuff done.
But it can always be made better. I'd be interested to know how people think Parliament could do better. Assuming you think it has a right to exist, which granted lots of people don't.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS