Are ‘eurosceptic’ MEPs a contradiction?

I was recently asked by a Romanian journalist: ‘Don't you think there is a contradiction in being a eurosceptic in the European Parliament? If not, why?’

This contradiction is in the minds of those who are unaware of what the EU is about. Otherwise, the word ‘parliament’ should be understood by all: members of parliament represent the voters that elect them. If enough ‘eurosceptics’ vote for a ‘eurosceptic’ MEP candidate then he or she would be their representative at the federal level. It follows that if there is a majority of ‘eurosceptic’ MEPs in the European Parliament, one would expect an alternative development of the EU’s political structure – perhaps less centralised and bureaucratic, more transparent and democratic.

But before I move on: What is a ‘eurosceptic’? This term is used to label so many political types it has become a disparagement. ‘Eurosceptic’ does not necessarily mean ‘anti-EU’, even if it looks like it with ‘withdrawalists’. The vast majority have a different agenda and are not against the ‘four freedoms of movement’. What they are against is unnecessary centralisation of power in Brussels. You find these MEPs in all political groups. Their criticism of the EU varies. That is why they can also be described as EU-reformist, EU-critical, EU-realist. Utlimately, the label counts for nothing. But it does count when journalists use it sweepingly.

So the only common ‘sceptism’ here is about the Europhile belief that more EU centralism is beneficial to all. No one wants the European Union’s political structure to end up like that of the former Soviet Union complete with bureaucratic ‘central planning’. And while not many people believe this is possible, others do not even want the EU to be any close to the US federal model.

The EU today is still not a federal state, but large parts of it are federated. So whereas the EU still does not have a permanent president and full control over all aspects of government and taxation (1), it does have a federal level. As the ‘father of the EU constitution’ Valery Giscard d’Estaing himself had pointed out, ‘Community’ and ‘federal’ mean the same thing. The European Community is the first pillar of legislative and policy areas, the other two being ‘Common Foreign and Security Policy’ (including defence) and aspects of criminal justice, where member states still have veto powers within the EU decision making mechanism. But in the Community pillar, the process is fully federalised. Most of our laws are now legislated at this federal level (2). This means that most decisions affecting our lives are taken in Brussels not in Valletta.

These decisions, along with others, are taken by five major federal institutions: the EU Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of the EU, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Central Bank (ECB). Of these, only the European Parliament directly represents the people, yet when voters elect representatives that propose less centralism, they are called “euroscpetics”.

_________________________________

1. We pay indirect taxes to the EU budget through EU import duties and levies, VAT-based contributions, Gross National Income-based contributions, fines, etc. These totalled 254 million euro for the period 2004-2008, of which 61 million were contributed in 2008 alone (according to government figures).

2. 84% in Germany’s case for the period 1999-2004, according to former German President Roman Herzog, et al, calculated on figures provided by the undersecretary to the German Parliament in reply to a parliamentary question; 29.04.2005.