Thursday

11th Aug 2022

Opinion

The struggle for democratic oversight in the EU

  • Rome is hosting the third meeting of the 'Article 13 Conference' of MPs and MEPs (Photo: Giampaolo Macorig)

Hundreds of parliamentarians from across Europe, both from national parliaments and the European Parliament (EP), are gathering in Rome on Monday (29 September) in a bid to improve parliamentary oversight of EU policy making.

The occasion will be the third meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Economic and Financial Governance of the European Union (IPC-EFG) – nicknamed the “Article 13 Conference” – to be hosted by the Italian parliament’s Camera dei Deputati.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

The IPC-EFG, which meets twice a year, was created in 2013 to enable parliamentarians to discuss and oversee the new system of governance that was created to respond to the EU’s ongoing economic and financial crisis.

The impetus for the IPC-EFG came from Article 13 of the Fiscal Compact treaty of 2012. This foresaw that “the European Parliament and the national Parliaments… will together determine the organisation and promotion of a conference… in order to discuss budgetary policies and other issues covered by this Treaty.”

The main point of the Fiscal Compact was to entrench a system of fiscal rules and to delegate the European Commission, an unelected body, as their principal enforcer. Article 13 gave this system a token of parliamentary oversight.

If ever there was a system crying out for greater parliamentary oversight it is this one – because by any objective measure, the EU’s economic governance regime is failing. Six years after the economic crisis began, the eurozone economy is still stagnant, and may even be heading for yet another downturn, which would be a “triple-dip” recession.

Even the basic goal of price stability has not been achieved, as the eurozone is now in peril of slipping into outright deflation.

Improved parliamentary oversight could at least provide parliaments with an opportunity to “watch the watchers.”

After all, the new EU economic governance has involved the creation of a system of “fiscal surveillance” designed to compel member states to balance their budgets.

This system places severe constraints on how national parliaments exercise their fiscal powers, often pushing them to carry out ruinous austerity policies. The IPC-EFG could turn the tables by enabling national parliaments (along with the EP) to scrutinize this new system of surveillance and to challenge its attendant policy dictates.

Unfortunately, the early meetings of the IPC-EFG were instead dominated by acrimonious internal disagreements – in particular between national MPs and MEPs – over how the conference should be organized.

Most national MPs wanted to create a robust forum for wide-ranging policy debate, with at least a minimal ability to take collective decisions. On the other hand, the MEPs, with support from the members of a few national parliaments (including, crucially, the German Bundestag), preferred a marginal conference of limited substantive scope that takes no decisions.

Disagreements

These disagreements were evident at the first IPC-EFG meeting in Vilnius, in October 2013.

The host parliament, the Lithuanian Seimas, had drafted an ambitious agenda for the meeting. Whereas the EP would have preferred that the conference focus solely on issues related narrowly to the Fiscal Compact (i.e. the scrutiny of national budgets), the Seimas proposed the discussion of a wider array of economic and financial issues, including some not mentioned in the treaty – e.g. banking union.

Moreover, the Seimas proposed that the first IPC-EFG should debate and formally adopt two documents, an internal Rules of Procedure and a set of political Conclusions; these were effectively vetoed by the EP.

Why? The EP as a body has always been strenuously opposed to the creation of any new assembly that could rival its position as the pre-eminent parliamentary forum in the EU. In a 2012 report, it categorically rejected the idea of a “mixed parliamentary body,” combining both MEPs and national MPs, as ineffective and undemocratic.

The EP is in favour of strong parliamentary oversight at the EU level but only if it is centralised in the EP, rather than exercised jointly with national parliaments.

The meeting in Italy – one of the member states hardest hit by the crisis – offers a fresh start to resolve some of these outstanding questions and get on with the business of overseeing the economic governance of the EU.

With the new Commission yet to take office, this is an opportune moment to resolve internal organizational issues – such as the draft Rules of Procedure, which will finally be debated in Rome. Perhaps MEPs from the newly elected parliament may prove more amenable than their predecessors to compromise with their national counterparts. The need is urgent: the crisis is not over.

The writer is a Research Associate at the Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge. This article is based on a longer working paper, which is available here:

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

The search to fix the EU's democratic deficit

The EU has woken up to its democratic deficit but it is still failing to take into account how an average European perceives the EU. It lacks emotional intelligence, according to a new report.

Russia puts EU in nuclear-energy paradox

There's unprecedented international anxiety about the safety of Ukraine's nuclear reactors, but many European countries are also turning to nuclear power to secure energy supplies.

How Ukraine made the case anew for an EU army

The Kremlin attacked Ukraine because it believed it could afford to. It perceived nuclear deterrence between Russia and the West as reciprocal, and therefore almost a non-issue. It also saw, in military terms, Europe is disappearing from the world map.

Let Taiwan's democracy shine brighter

Dr Ming-Yen Tsai, head of the Taipei Representative Office in the EU and Belgium, responds to EUobserver op-ed on Taiwan by the Chinese ambassador to Belgium. "Taiwan is an 'island of resilience'. That will continue to be the case."

Column

Global hunger crisis requires more than just the Odessa deal

International donors are playing hide and seek. Instead of stepping up their assistance programmes, richer nations are cutting overseas aid, or reallocating funds from other parts of the world towards the Ukraine crisis.

Exploiting the Ukraine crisis for Big Business

From food policy to climate change, corporate lobbyists are exploiting the Ukraine crisis to try to slash legislation that gets in the way of profit. But this is only making things worse.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. EFBWW – EFBH – FETBBConstruction workers can check wages and working conditions in 36 countries
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic and Canadian ministers join forces to combat harmful content online
  3. European Centre for Press and Media FreedomEuropean Anti-SLAPP Conference 2022
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic ministers write to EU about new food labelling
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersEmerging journalists from the Nordics and Canada report the facts of the climate crisis
  6. Council of the EUEU: new rules on corporate sustainability reporting

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us