When David Miliband gave the keynote speech to the Fabian Conference “The Global Change we Need” in London on 7 November 2009 he mentioned two things in the Q&A session. Firstly he said that the nation state remained the repository of democratic legitimacy. Secondly, he said that the EU institutions need to become more transparent in order for more people to connect with it better and easier.

While Miliband did not connect those two statements I asked myself whether their combination might not form the core of an interesting argument.

After all, the Council of the European Union, which is the place where government minister from all EU member states come together to (co-)determine EU policy, is the least transparent of the EU institutions. Their negotiations determine at least as much, if not more, of European policy and regulation than the work of the European Parliament or the Commission, which is where most of the public expect the power to lie.

Member state governments like to underplay their work in the forum of the Council of the EU in their national discourse at home. If something the public and media will see as positive arises from the Council’s work, most governments will sell this as their individual success at home. If something the public and media at home will be critical about comes out of the Council’s negotiation, most governments downplay their involvement in negotiations and blame an anonymous EU.

It is unrealistic to think any country can effectively retreat from global or trans-national governance structures, especially in the light of the increasing global nature of many of the challenges we face such as environmental, financial, economic and social issues.

Global or macro regional governance structures derive their democratic legitimacy via directly elected national parliaments and governments. These are again influenced by the media and civil society, which come together in a nation’s overall public discourse. Why it should not be possible to make better use of a pan-European public discourse, and engage the public more on a European level is beyond me. Especially now as the EU’s democratic legitimacy has been improved through the strengthening of the role of the directly elected European Parliament in the Treaty of Lisbon. However, there would be some mileage in improving the quality of the 27 national conversations about the EU by opening up Council deliberations and votes and with it member state governments as actors within to better scrutiny by their domestic media, civil society and electorates.

We will have to seriously think about how we can increase the democratic legitimacy of global policy making. To start with, we should look at how our own national governments’ work in the Council of the EU can become more transparent, so governments have to take more responsibility for their very direct input into the shaping of European policy and regulation. The EU is not as anonymous a body as the media, some politicians and europhobes want to make us think. The EU is shaped by member-state governments from within, which have to become transparent about their input, just as much as they have to take more responsibility for explaining compromise decisions within the Council to their national ‘home constituencies’, something they have been shying away from so far.

Maybe a citizens initiative for greater transparency of the Council would not be such a bad idea.

Below are the unofficial results from the European parliament elections in the Netherlands. Officially, member states are not supposed to release results until the last polling station closes on Sunday evening, but the Dutch government says transparency is equally important. The Netherlands narrowly escaped a lawsuit after releasing unofficial results during the 2004 EU elections. Read the full nrc.nl article by following this link.

http://www.nrc.nl/international/europe/article2262660.ece/EU_election_results_from_the_Netherlands

PvdA (Dutch PES member party) looses 4 seats down from 7 to 3.

Geert Wilders’  far-right Freedom Party gains 4 seats.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/05/european-elections-the-netherlands-far-right

It does not feel like it in the UK, but these European elections are actually about something. The European Parliament is the only directly elected institution of the EU. Whichever political group holds a relative majority within it matters in more then one way. Which potential cross party majorities are possible after the elections will have an impact on the next 5 years of policy making on the European level.

In the last 5 years the conservative EPP-ED was the largest group in the European Parliament. 21 out of 27 member-state governments are run/dominated by conservatives. A majority of Commissioners are Conservative as is the President of the European Commission.

Conservatives in Europe have been driving a neo-liberal agenda, liberalising markets and doing nothing to prevent the economic crisis or at least attempting to engineer a softer landing. The Party of European Socialists PES (of which the Labour Party is a member) has been calling for years for better regulation of financial markets, and decisive action against tax havens and tax fraud.

It is of particular irony – if latest opinion polls are to be trusted – that voters in the UK are flocking to the Tories who have been part of the European conservatives who have been responsible for those policies coming out of Brussels which voters do not like. 

UK voters are moving to the Conservatives and UKIP, if polls are right. Both parties are advocating less Social Europe – especially for workers in Britain- and some Tories are trying in Westminster to effectively do away with the minimum wage. UKIP and Tories alike have voted against the ending of the UK opt out on the Working Time Directive. They want a Europe of free trade only, with as little human rights, as little welfare state and as little protection of the environment as possible.

A land slide victory for the Tories/UKIP in these elections will do irreparable damage to Britain’s long term national interest and in particular the interest of a vast majority of her citizens. Low and middle income earners in the UK need more Social Europe not less, need more effective European and global regulation of financial markets.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage MEP holds the view that too much EU regulation is responsible for the economic crisis. I am sure Poul Nyrop Rasmussen MEP (PES president) did not know whether to laugh or cry standing next to Nigel on “Record Europe” (the BBC EU news show). Farage pointing to his expertise on the subject – “I have worked as an investment banker in the City of London” is therefore attempting too steal the mantle from the Tories for UKIP to be the new political wing of the banking sector.

Economic crisis, banker bonuses, tax havens, tax evasion and tax avoidance, that’s yesterday’s news.

The British electorate is going to make a momentous decision on the future of Britain and the future of Europe without realising it, being too distracted by MP expenses.

Keep fighting for Britain’s future! – Vote Labour on June 4!

This youtube video explains in simple terms how policy making on the EU level works.

Learn why the European Parliament and the upcoming elections matter in under 7 minutes.

click here or on any text in this post to view the video

Your help is needed!

We are running three phone banks ahead of the European elections on June 4.

We will be phoning EU expats who have registered to vote in the UK for the European elections. We will remind them that a higher EU expat turn-out might prevent the BNP from winning seats.

Sessions are scheduled from 6pm to 8.30pm at a location in Central London on the following days

Wednesday May 27, Monday June 1 and Tuesday June 2

to rsvp and for detailed joining instructions please write to lme.lse@hotmail.co.uk