Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
You have an understandable concern about a dominant eurosceptic narrative in the Anglo-American press, which seeks to further a negative perception of the EU (secretive, incomprehensible, undemocratic). It's important to maintain a sense of proportion and see the issues with regard to transparancy of the EU realistically, e.g. they are not worse than the problems of most countries, certainly not worse than the problems of the USA or the UK, or the UN for that matter.

The problem with the Council, specifically, is that it is made up out of members of the executive nationally, but performs a legislative function on the European level. This was pointed out by Colman and others in the thread. We are used to most discussions in legislative organs to be public, but in the Council, until recently, nothing was public. Now that some steps in the legislative procedure have become public, we get longer pre-meeting lunches, dinners, etcetera. Anything to get the horse trading out of the open.

a swedish kind of death and migeru argue that the Council also provides a way for the national executive to increase its power and circumvent national democratic control, in making unpopular decisions, and then afterwards blaming the EU when it has to implement them back home. This is also known as policy laundering. I have argued the same here before. This is a real problem for democracy in the EU and for democracy at the national level. The same problem also arises with regard to all other international institutions. So solving the problem is crucial if we want more and better global governance.

One solution to this problem would be to have a European Freedom of Information act, which would allow news organisations and the European Parliament to open up any procedure in the Council. This would not necessarily solve the horse trading at the highest level, but it would be effective in bringing issues out in the open earlier. The majority of the decisions in the Council are already taken at the level of the committee of permanent representatives or lower levels, and the concrete effects are often determined only after legislation has been decided, through comitology. Opening these up to scrutiny, and giving the European Parliament some kind of means for intervening in the comitology procedure if it thinks politically controversial decisions are being taken, would solve most of the existing problems.

We also need more alert parliamentarians and a better press corps. And we could do some of the early warning ourselves. But without increased transparancy, this can only go so far.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Oct 10th, 2007 at 07:24:14 AM EST
All I want it TV footage of national ministers either voting for or nodding through legislation. If they go home then and say it was forced on them they'll have to explain why they didn't call for a vote.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 10th, 2007 at 07:26:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Where is the 10 option?

The key to culture is religion. Daniel Dennett @ TED (Feb 2006)
by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Wed Oct 10th, 2007 at 07:33:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I fully support you idea of implementing more transparency of the decision-making process and more scrutiny of the decisions. And you rightly point the fact that scrutinising the Council decisions is not enough, because the Devils (the good one as well as the bad one) are in the details, hence in the Comitology. That means one thing: if, as citizens, we want our point of view to be taken into account, we must have information on the projects long before a regulation or a directive is submitted to the vote and follow it through the whole process. It is already possible, but doesn't happen for the reasons I develop I my comment above and because, as Linca says, the media do not play their role.    

However, when you say:

Now that some steps in the legislative procedure have become public, we get longer pre-meeting lunches, dinners, etcetera. Anything to get the horse trading out of the open.

You must remember that democracy is, as Colman reminds us, about building compromises. And you don't build compromises in a glass-house, i.e. without discussions "out of the open". No negotiation ever succeeds without pre-meeting sub-meetings and post-meeting meetings. The important thing is, again as Colman puts it, to know who as voted for what and with which arguments.

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
by Melanchthon on Wed Oct 10th, 2007 at 09:08:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

A Nomad's Life (A Farewell)

by Nomad - May 10
14 comments

Simple Solar Principles

by gmoke - May 17
1 comment

Pentecost steam

by DoDo - May 20
2 comments

Rail News Blogging #24

by DoDo - May 12
10 comments

Ferguson hates on Keynes

by Migeru - May 6
100 comments

Occasional Series