Future of the EU: Parliament’s proposals to amend the Treaties
Future of the EU: Parliament’s proposals to amend the Treaties
Following the Conference on the Future of Europe and in the context of unprecedented challenges and multiple crises, MEPs put forward proposals to change the EU.
From that link:
- a more bicameral system and fewer deadlocks in the Council, through more decisions by qualified majority voting and the ordinary legislative procedure;
- a fully-fledged right of legislative initiative, and a co-legislator role for Parliament for the long-term budget;
- an overhaul of the rules for the Commission’s composition (rebranded as the “European Executive”), including the election of its President (with the nomination to be done by Parliament and the approval by the European Council - a reversal of the current process), limiting the number of Commissioners to 15 (rotating between the member states), enabling the Commission President to choose their College based on political preferences with geographic and demographic balance in mind, and a mechanism to censure individual Commissioners;
- significantly greater transparency in the Council by publishing EU member state positions on legislative issues;
- more say for citizens through an obligation for the EU to create appropriate participatory mechanisms and by giving European political parties a stronger role.
Some changes missing from that link that I found interesting:
- Switch from «High Representative» to «Union Secretary» and «President of the European Council» to «President of the European Union».
I very much prefer the old names, and I don't like the downgrade from High Representative to Secretary.
- Parliament now chooses by itself how to divide its seats between member states.
Not really in favor of this, this should be the European Council's job.
- More power to the CJEU for resolving inter-institutional disputes, and involving it in the process for suspension of EU membership.
- Gives more agency to the European Defence Agency and gives the CSDP its own budget. It also copies NATO's article 5 wording for mutual defense.
- Amending the treaties needs the approval of 4/5 of member states.
That would currently mean 22 out of 27, so no more French-Dutch veto.
- Adding the risk to cross planetary boundaries when considering environmental policy (?)
- Adds a more concrete language, from «may» and «suggest» to «shall» and «enforce».
I'm mostly OK with the changes. Moving on the veto, for the most part, is probably the biggest. The rise of rogue fascists governments in EU countries blocking everything made decision making almost impossible, so it makes sense.
Anything on banning lobbyists from the EU Parliament? Because that’s urgently needed…
Would such a thing be possible? Maybe I'm cynical, but wouldn't any process of getting input to the politician be vulnerable to professionalised influence, and any insular politician isolated from their constituents?
That's correct. And that's the reason you don't ban lobbyism. You make it transparent instead, so you can clearly see which interests a person is presenting.
I’ve no idea. But in practice, corporations with big pockets have more possibilities to influence than regular people, or even NGOs. But lobbying is a part of politics that, in my opinion, is truly detrimental. If politicians want to be in contact with their base, they should reach for local associations (and be more proactive in being in contact with their constituents). By design the EU Parliament isolates representatives from their voters. It’s in this microcosm that lobbyists flourish.
In EU? EU can do it.
The solution is not to ban lobbyist (a big part of the EU legislative process is listening to outside organizations), but to put them on equal footing to normal people.
How exactly do you propose to do that? This sort of thing is always suggested, it sounds great, but in practice it is really, really hard. Ordinary people just do not have the time to scrutinize every decision in every committee meeting and be on their representatives' backs night and day. Time is money, and big business can pay for expert lobbyists to do the legwork. Which is why NGOs have to exist, to fight back by doing the same thing. As you imply, you can't really ban people from exercising influence, that quickly ends up being undemocratic. But big business will always have more money, therefore time, than everyone else. There's no easy fix to the problem unfortunately.
Can we please not destroy the Cmmission?
The European Commission stands or falls by is ability to act independently. Having it's leadership (and lower layers) messed with from without, it may be significantly more prone to corruption and undermines it's effectiveness to help the average citizen like it has done impressively for the last decades until now.
Landmark legislations such as the Digital Markets Act, the Digital Services Act, and the GDPR, among many others, would perhaps not have been feasible to realize like they have been, if the European Commission couldn't have the best commissioners for the jobs.
While I do agree with many points made in this proposed legislation, I can only hope the damage done to the European Commission stays as small as anyhow possible.
The only big change I can see will be Parliament proposing the Commission President, instead of the European Council. Apart from that, experience shows that motions of no confidence are rare, so I don't think this will make the Commission less independent.
would perhaps not have been feasible to realize like they have been, if the European Commission couldn’t have the best commissioners for the jobs.
Those acts are approved by Parliament, which is where the Commission will be responsible to.
I still dont think that we should limit the commissioners to 15. The censuring mechanism would be a good addition though.
Clearly the thing that needs change the most is the relationship between Council and Parliament.
including the election of its President
Sounds like bad idea for union.
more say for citizens through an obligation for the EU to create appropriate participatory mechanisms
Good EU.
and by giving European political parties a stronger role.
Not so good EU. I hope it's not something like article 6 of USSR constitution. On the other side last part of article is interesting.
Why? It would give citizens a more direct way to choose the Commission.
(with the nomination to be done by Parliament and the approval by the European Council - a reversal of the current process)
Doesn't look like more direct. Last time a union had president, it was quickly dissolved before first term ended. I don't think having one person on position like this is good for union. But whatever.
«President of the European Council» to «President of the European Union»
ugh, not too fond of this, by name alone it gives the impression of the highest office and yet it's not a position that voters can vote on (at best highly indirectly through national elections)
I wish they would address the democratic deficit, von der Leyen is proof enough that voters still can't even pick the president of the Commission, how do you expect them to have a high turnout in elections?
Switch from «High Representative» to «Union Secretary» and «President of the European Council» to «President of the European Union».
Gensecs! They are everywhere. USSR 2.0.
President of the European Union
Oh, cool, this looks like a change from the first thing I saw, where the name was supposed to become "President of the Union". I thought that "President of the European Union" would be more clear.