Should MPs seek to engage with the EU institutions directly?

Who should represent the UK in the EU, MPs or the Government?

The Hansard Society's recent collection of essays included many good proposals on how to improve Westminster's scrutiny of EU business. We have already commented on who did not have anything to say on improving it  - here are some of the ideas of those who did:

Firstly, Gisela Stuart MP made a fundamental observation as to what scrutiny should seek to achieve. "If it’s about shaping decisions, then Parliament enters the stage far too late to make a difference" but "it’s not the role of national parliaments to second-guess their governments at EU level. I’d argue that Parliament’s role is to scrutinise its own government’s actions at EU level." In essence - who scrutinises the scrutinisers. While acknowledging that the UK Parliament can not change measures already agreed at an EU level she went on to suggest some innovations including a Europe Minister in the Cabinet, with his/her own question time to improve political accountability.

By contrast the Europe Minister David Lidington MP, although probably not opposed to being in the Cabinet, sees the role of MPs differently believing in "upstreaming the process, so that Parliament can influence Brussels at the very beginning of the decision-making process." This view of Parliament as an 'influencer' was shared by the chair of the EU Committee in the House of Lords Lord Boswell who explained that his "committee engages actively with bodies including the Commission, the European Parliament, national parliaments of other EU member states and the devolved assemblies of the United Kingdom" without addressing the concerns raised by Stuart.

This all raises interesting questions, picked up on by Open Europe's Christopher Howarth who argued "in cases where say a Lords’ committee gives its opinion to the Commission it is unclear whose opinion is being voiced – it is not Parliament’s as a whole, just a sub-section of parliamentary opinion". In essence if MPs seek to influence the EU directly, on whose behalf do they speak? How do they decide what to influence and to whom should they be accountable? Should the unelected Lords Committee be seeking to influence the EU perhaps to do things the UK Government does not approve of?
 
In other submissions, Chris Heaton-Harris MP and Robert Broadhurst's looked at the proposal for an EU red card to give national parliaments a veto over EU measures concluding that in practice it "would still leave Parliament unable to control the flow of EU legislation". Instead they proposed a new Act of Parliament that would require Ministers to receive a mandate before negotiating in the EU, giving Parliament the final say and a new UK EU relationship. They added a thoughtful look at how the current scrutiny committee mechanisms could be sharpened up.

Bill Cash MP, the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee explained how Parliament's scrutiny process grew up and  "commented on ideas for incremental reform" while believing that "it is important to consider more radical options".

Dr Ariella Huff and Dr Julie Smith looked at other systems around Europe including the Dutch Parliament's devolved scrutiny system and the Danish mandating system before suggesting that Ministers attend the UK's scrutiny committee before and after Council meetings.

Lastly Open Europe's Christopher Howarth suggested a number of other innovations including giving MPs the power to summon MEPs to Westminster and conduct confirmation hearings of the UK's EU officials before concluding “Scrutiny without power is not scrutiny, it is ritual... The only real solution is to return powers to Westminster”.

Senior Labour MPs back devolving structural funds back to the UK

This is an interesting development. Amid everything else that's happening on the Europe-front, a bunch of Labour MPs today come out in force, backing the idea of devolving EU structural funds back to the UK. In a letter to the Guardian, 17 Labour MPs, including former Cabinet Ministers Bob Ainsworth and Jack Straw, urge the Coalition to adopt the policy first floated by Gordon Brown, to focus the structural funds exclusively on the poorer member states.

The letter reads:

In the context of the growing euro crisis, it is interesting to note that Gordon Brown – while he was chancellor of the exchequer – argued strongly for the repatriation of EU structural funds. Writing in the Times in 2003, he said: "When the economic and social, as well as the democratic, arguments on structural funds now and for the future so clearly favour subsidiarity in action, there is no better place to start than by bringing regional policy back to Britain."

The article was written in support of a Treasury document called A Modern Regional Policy for the United Kingdom, published in March of that year. The paper argued that there was much time and money being wasted in processing contributions from countries such as Britain, only to send the contributions back in the form of structural funding.

Much easier and simpler, the then chancellor seemed to be saying, to let Britain keep the cash and get on with the job of using our own structural funds. The pressure group Open Europe has calculated that Britain would have been better off by something like £4.2bn if Brown's system had been adopted. What is more, some of the most deprived UK regions are currently short-changed by the structural funds, because EU allocations are based on inflexible, one-size-fits all criteria. For instance, the West Midlands has the lowest disposable income per capita in the UK, yet pays the EU £3.55 for every £1 it receives back in structural funding, according to Open Europe estimates. In contrast, if Labour's policy had been pursued, each region would have experienced a rise in the amount of subsidies they receive by around 45% compared with now. For example, Cornwall would have received an additional £207m over seven years.

Alan Johnson, also argued in 2003, that regional policy ought to be "resourced domestically in richer member states, like the UK, with the institutions and the financial strength to do it. This would end the unnecessary and inefficient recycling of funds between richer member states, like the UK, via Brussels ..."The Cameron government seems to have abandoned any attempt to change EU structural funding to concentrate on trying to freeze the EU budget – a strategy which has already failed. Perhaps this government could take a look at what was being argued for a few years ago – it could benefit us all.

John Cryer MP, Jack Straw MP, Katy Clark MP, Thomas Docherty MP, Dennis Skinner MP, Gisela Stuart MP, Andrew Smith MP, Mike Wood MP Robert Ainsworth MP, John McDonnell MP, Kelvin Hopkins MP, Jeremy Corbyn MP, Grahame Morris MP, Ian Lavery MP, Ian Davidson MP, Frank Field MP, Graham Stringer MP

One for the Coalition to ponder...

Saying it like it is

Yesterday saw the last debate on European Affairs in the House of Commons before the next General Election, and by the look of it it was, as usual, very poorly attended and only by the usual suspects - many of whom happen to be extremely well-informed, we might add.

Labour MP Gisela Stuart gave a particularly good speech which touched on many important things, including David Cameron's proposed 'Sovereignty Bill' and the so-called 'referendum lock', which she points out is pretty meaningless given that there will in future be no treaties to have referendums on.

The whole debate is worth a read but here are some of the more thought-provoking extracts of Gisela's speech:

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby talked about what has happened to the word "subsidiarity". My argument is that rather than argue about reclaiming powers, we should have a different presumption.

Subsidiarity has disappeared from the scene because it does not work. In the past 10 years, the Commission has only ever had one proposal rejected because it was deemed to breach subsidiarity-the zoo directive, which we tried to bring in during our presidency. That is hardly a great record. Every EU directive that comes forward ought to contain in the preamble proof that the measure cannot be implemented in nation states, and therefore has to be handled at EU level. That would change the whole argument and would mean that rather than people always having to defend what is done at EU level, the EU would make the case that the nation state cannot do certain things.

That point brings me to an issue that we never mention here. The debate is about European affairs, and we ought at some stage to talk about the nature of the nation state. I want to do that briefly today. What is our relationship? We say that Europe is great because we are all in favour of co-operation, but co-operation and political integration are two very different things. We saw this earlier when we talked about fiscal stimulus. That was not about political integration: it was about co-operation, and member states doing something at the same time.

The reason why I am so angry about the referendum is that with the passing of the Lisbon treaty, we have created a supranational institution. There is all the talk about rowing back, but it has gone. Forget it, folks; it has been sold. There is now a supranational institution that has never had the endorsement or consent of the 350 million people across the European Union, because referendums were either ignored or were rubbished on the basis that the issue was too complicated and people were too stupid to take part. That is an argument worth talking about. Governments should show leadership and take people to places that they do not yet know are good for them-but although political leaders have to adopt that leadership role on occasion, there is always the reality test of a general election, when a Prime Minister who takes the country in a direction that it disagrees with gets kicked out.

There is no mechanism in the EU that allows the people to be asked whether this new supranational institution is what they want. My suspicion is that they probably do not, but that is neither here nor there. I have become agnostic on this matter. I grew up in a federal state so I have no problem with federalism, but I also remember the Austro-Hungarian empire- [ Interruption. ] Not personally, of course, but I grew up with its heritage. That extremely authoritarian institution finally collapsed because it tried to replace national identity with ethnicity. It is always very bad when identity is represented through ethnicity rather than through institutions in the nation state, and we need to be extremely careful in that regard.

She continued:

I want to make two other points, and the first is about this place. We are kidding ourselves if we think that by voting on Select Committee Chairmen, setting up better visitor centres or going online and so on, we will achieve a deepening of parliamentary democracy. We are losing power every step of the way: we have not even begun to come to terms with how we deal with legislation coming out of Brussels, because merely being told more about it is very different from actually having power and influence over it.

We have devolved power to Wales and Scotland, but we did not think about what would happen to England as a result of that process. We sit in Westminster, but we have lost power on both sides and we have lost our purpose. I suggest that that is why the expenses scandal has been so damaging. We have failed to defend ourselves, individually and collectively, because we have lost our sense of purpose as an institution. The real challenge for the next Parliament, when it comes in after the election, is to remind itself that its function is not just to talk about things but to hold the Executive to account. We have singularly, totally and completely failed to do that in respect of Europe.

We couldn't agree more.