There is a widespread perception among EU citizens, not least among the Maltese public, that the Brussels institutions and bureaucracy have taken control of practically every aspect of their daily lives.
Disgruntled EU citizens believe that they have lost control over their destiny because it is difficult for national parliaments to have an impact on policy activities taking place at the European level.
It is argued that this is a consequence of deepening European integration, which is leading to more and more transfer of competences and policymaking from the member states to European institutions, thus reducing the legislative remit of national parliaments. In the areas of exclusive EU competence the role of national parliaments seems to consist merely in the transposition of European legislation.
This perception of the erosion of national parliamentary control over the European executive is closely linked to the debate on the EU’s democratic deficit and legitimacy, and is being given increasing political attention. To correct this perception it is time for member states and the EU institutions to launch jointly a reassertion of national parliamentary influence on the European policy process. This is necessary particularly to combat rising euro scepticism.
The first step in this direction was Declaration 13 annexed to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. It contains a non-binding commitment on the governments of member states to ensure that their national parliaments receive Commission proposals for legislation in good time for information and possible examination.
This declaration was strengthened in 1999 by a protocol on the role of national parliaments annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam, which introduced a binding arrangement for the transmission by governments to their national parliaments of the Commission’s consultation documents and legislative proposals at least six weeks before the proposed legislative Act is placed on the council’s agenda.
The Treaty of Amsterdam also gave recognition to the role of the Conference of the European Committees of the national parliaments, known as COSAC, which had been established in 1989. COSAC can address to the EU institutions contributions to legislative proposals.
The Baroso initiative in September 2006 was another important development. The Baroso Commission, even though it was not legally bound to do so, decided to transmit all the new proposals and consultation papers directly to the national parliaments, and invited them to react and to engage in a dialogue with the Commission on its proposals.
Eventually, the Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force in 2009, recognised the active contribution of national parliaments to the good functioning of the Union, and gave national parliaments a direct role under the form of an early warning system to ensure compliance with the subsidiarity principle.
Within eight weeks any national parliament may submit a reasoned opinion, stating why it considers that a draft legislative act does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. A ‘yellow card’ or an ‘orange card’ procedure is then triggered, depending on the number of national parliaments that oppose the legislative proposal.
The Lisbon Treaty also strengthened the information rights of national parliaments by making the direct transmission of all documents by the Commission obligatory, and by introducing a security period of eight weeks between the transmission of the Commission proposal and the Council meeting to discuss that proposal. National parliaments are to be kept informed on the activities of all EU institutions and be notified of applications for accession to the EU.
National parliaments are mostly concerned by the issue of the transfer of sovereignty, and this becomes crucial whenever the EU treaty comes up for revision, or whenever there are attempts for further erosion of the unanimity requirement for adopting legislative acts.
In these areas national parliaments gained significant relevance in the Lisbon Treaty. The treaty provides for the representation of national parliaments in conventions whose purpose is to formulate recommendations for future treaty revisions.
There are rumoured attempts by the EU Commission and some member states to circumvent unanimity on taxation issues which can severely affect Malta’s economic development
Moreover, national parliaments are given veto power when it comes to the use of the so-called ‘bridge’ clause that is, moving decision-making from unanimity or special legislative procedures to qualified majority voting or to ordinary legislative procedure.
The European Council is obliged to inform national parliaments six months in advance of the intention to use this clause. If within these six months one national parliament opposes the proposed use of this clause, the proposal cannot be carried out.
National parliaments are justifiably much concerned in matters that relate to citizens’ rights. Also in this area they gained ground in the Lisbon Treaty, which provides for the involvement of national parliaments in the evaluation of EU policies in the area of freedom, security and justice, in the evaluation of Eurojust’s activities and in the scrutiny of Europol’s activities.
However, the most important role of national parliaments is that of guardians of their nation’s sovereignty where issues of vital national interest are concerned. For this purpose national parliaments have two crucial prerogatives: they can refuse to ratify treaty changes, and they have veto power on the use of the passarelle (bridge) clause.
This second prerogative of national parliaments becomes particularly relevant these days in view of rumoured attempts by the EU Commission and some member states to circumvent unanimity on taxation issues which can severely affect Malta’s economic development.
National parliamentary influence on the European policy process in general very much depends on effective tools for exchanging information and networking. Over the years various structures have been created and refined to enable national parliaments to cooperate and communicate by means of inter parliamentary meetings and electronic exchanges.
The Conference of the European Committees of national parliaments, COSAC, is the overarching structure for promoting and ensuring cooperation and exchange of information among national parliaments. It is supported by various inter-parliamentary dialogue structures such as that on stability, economic coordination and governance, and that on foreign and security policy.
As chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign and European Affairs of the Maltese Parliament, I had the honour to participate in COSAC’s plenary meeting held in Tallinn on November 26-28, as part of the parliamentary dimension of the Estonian presidency.
The work programme included extensive discussions on subjects that are currently at the top of the European agenda and which are of major concern to the average European citizen. We focused our deliberations on the future of the European Union and concentrated on actions for bringing the Union closer to its citizens.
Three items stood out on our agenda: the digital single market, security in Europe, and the external dimension of migration.
I was one of the key speakers during the session on migration. The ensuing discussion convinced me that meetings of representatives from national parliaments are not empty talking shops. On the contrary, the outcome of these meetings clearly shows that national parliaments are actively involved in bringing to the fore of the European agenda the concerns of their respective constituencies, and that they have an important role in the legislative and policy processes of the EU.
Edward Zammit Lewis is a Labour MP.