The
various institutions of the EEC/EC/EU are shared out among the
member states. Originally the seat of the Parliament was offered to
Luxembourg but in the end France and Germany settled on Strasbourg
as being more or less between their two countries and therefore
symbolic of the aim to reconcile them after long years of fighting
war. Since that decision the Parliament started doing most of its
work in Committee and that was more convenient in Brussels where the
Commission is located. In the Maastricht Treaty France insisted that
it should be a requirement that the Parliament meet twelve times a
year in Strasbourg and we are stuck with that decision. The
overwhelming majority of MEPs would prefer we met in Brussels which
is much easier to reach, where both the Council and Commission are
located and would save up to £135mn.
The
problem with opening up the issue in a Treaty revision negotiation
would be the possibility that new member states might argue for it
to be located somewhere new, somewhere to the east nearer the
geographical centre of the EU as now constituted and that would be
like opening Pandora’s Box. Perhaps we must grin and bear it.
As
a preamble to answering this question I should make clear that
everything about the way the European Institutions operate is
different from the system of governance we are used to in the UK.
The
European Commission has two principal ideas, it has the sole right
of initiating legislative proposals based on the powers or
competences or responsibilities set out in the Treaties and as the
executive arm it oversees the implementation of EU laws. The
European Parliament is the directly elected co-legislator with the
European Council which is comprised of the governments of all 27 EU
Member states. The Parliament scrutinises both the proposals from
the Commission and how they are implemented. It can amend, adopt or
reject proposals.
The
Commission is accountable for its actions to the Parliament and the
Council. To that end the individual commissioners are subject to
confirmation hearings at the beginning of their five year term of
office (in 2004 the Parliament obliged the withdrawal of two
candidates and the transfer of one to a different portfolio) and
commissioners must make regular appearances before the relevant
Committee of the Parliament. In 1999 the Parliament forced the
resignation of the entire college of Commissioners following a vote
of no confidence.
Because there is no government or opposition at EU level the whole
legislative process is one where each proposal is treated on its
merits and different alliances are formed for and against each
measure. Sometimes the Parliament broadly agrees with the Commission
and sometimes it joins with the Council to take a different view.
Within the Parliament these are shifting alliances because no single
political group has enough MEPs to form a majority. On some issues
the divide is between national interests or between different
political positions. On a few issues all groups experience divided
opinions, such as on ethical questions concerning research.
In
some respects there is a similarity with the USA system where the
Executive (the President/European Commission) acts in a creative
tension with the legislature or Congress (House of
Representatives/European Parliament and Senate/European Council)
with the importance differences that the Congress can make
legislative proposals and the President can veto them, a reversal of
the EU situation.
All
of this makes the EU process confusing to outsiders but provides a
system of checks and balances. Increasingly the Parliament is
asserting itself with regard to the Commission when it can assemble
a majority.
The
Parliament has statistics showing how many amendments are
incorporated in the final adopted versions of directives and
regulations which makes the point that it does have significant
influence. Occasionally it actually rejects a proposal outright. I
was responsible for assembling an absolute majority (more than half
the membership plus one) to vote twice to reject a draft directive
in the last term (1999-2004). More often the Parliament shows its
power to influence and change legislation in the conciliation phase
of co-decision when detailed negotiations are conducted between the
Parliament and Council after a Second Reading in the hope of
reaching Third Reading agreement. Beyond that the Parliament can
send signals to the Commission that it thinks a proposal should be
made. It does this either by producing an Initiative Report or by
sending a Written Declaration which has been signed by an absolute
majority of members
We
MEPs handle a fair amount of individual casework in addition to the
time we spend on our legislative duties. People make all sorts of
requests for help and information and a large amount of the workload
of my staff is spent trying to find answers and solutions.
A
cross-section of the sort of thing we tackle would include problems
with the taxation of property in Spain; complications with pensions
earned in one country and payable in another; victims of timeshare
scams; requests for information about payment of benefits in another
EU member state or the taxation of benefits in another EU member
state or the taxation of cars in Greece; helping small businesses
with information about legislation and regulations or getting their
bills paid for goods and services supplied in another member state;
requests for information about the law in other member states
covering anything from child custody to defective products and civil
disputes.
In fact people approach me with a wide range
of issues with the common characteristic that they involve something
abroad. In particular they link MEPs with European human rights
issues and raise all sorts of complaints in the belief that we are
the gateway to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) at
Strasbourg. In fact the ECHR is an entirely separate institution
from the EU, we MEPs have no more standing with it than any other
individual and nowadays people can raise human rights cases in UK
courts under the Human Rights Act 1998. But we have an information
pack to send to people or they can access it on our website.
http://www.gileschichestermep.org.uk/EuropeanCourtofHumanRights(3).pdf
Notwithstanding that I am regularly asked to raise specific human
rights cases, concerning people all over the world, with the
European Commission. There is a well-developed sense of concern
among people in the South-West about the condition of individuals
who have read or heard something about forthcoming legislation which
will affect them and want me to try to change it, clarify matters or
give them more information. It is, of course, not easy to change
things single-handed but I try where I am persuaded of the case (ie.
not always).
It
must be said that the overwhelming majority of legislation that we
have to scrutinise and adopt at European level applies throughout
the 27 Member States and is not regionally or locally specific. One
obvious exception is the Structure Plans for targeting spending from
the Regional budget line to specific regions within Member States.
By lobbying and voting for the Cornwall Objective One Programme I
was specifically acting to make a difference to an important part of
the South-West.
Another important part of the European Budget covers research, one
of my main committee responsibilities, and funding from the
Framework Programmes supports a wide range of projects in the
South-West, particularly in our universities but also in other
research bodies and in businesses. One practical instance where I
personally made a difference was when I was able to re-insert some
crucial wording to the 7th Framework Programme Directive to enable
spending on a tilt rotor aircraft technology at Westland in Yeovil
to continue. I was able to use my position as then Committee
Chairman in the inter-institutional negotiations to do this.
In
two other areas I have played a key role in bringing about
legislation of particular benefit to the South-West although of
universal application. First is the Regulation capping mobile
roaming charges which I believe will benefit all holiday makers and
business travellers from the South-West by cutting the average cost
of making or receiving roaming calls by nearly 60% and so
dramatically reducing the chance of a nasty surprise in their mobile
phone bills a month or two after returning from being abroad. The
other is the 1999 Directive on units of measurement, for which I was
the Parliament Rapporteur, maintaining the derogation or exemption
permitting dual marking in imperial and metric units until end 2009.
I have now obtained a commitment from the Commission to extend this
provision indefinitely. I regard this as a success for common sense
and something to give comfort to those like myself who prefer to go
on using inches and ounces.
To
some people, no doubt, any expense allowance for MEPs and MPs would
be too much. However, if MEPs are to attend to perform their
committee and parliamentary work in Brussels, Strasbourg and, as
necessary sometimes, elsewhere, the travel costs involved are bound
to be heavy, especially when combined with a daily allowance for
accommodation and subsistence while away from home. In order to
organise our work and respond to the demands of constituents we need
secretarial and research assistance and we incur office costs
including postage and telecom. In my case I effectively run three
offices in Devon, London and Brussels and have eight people working
full or part time in support of my work. The allowances available to
MEPs for all this are fixed amounts which we must work within and
subject to a range of bureaucratic rules to ensure they are spent
appropriately. I suspect most people who criticise the expenses are
really using them as a proxy for attacking the fact of our
membership of the EU but that is their prerogative. It is not widely
known that there is a cap on administration expenses under the EU
budget of 5% which covers all institutions.
I
believe proportional representation is a snare and a delusion
because, while being arithmetically more representative, the present
regional list system has largely destroyed the constituency link
between voters and the elected representatives both geographically
and demographically. In a single member constituency the link and
accountability are clear but in multi member regions there is
overlap, duplication, distance and remoteness. One could argue it
doesn’t matter at a European level where there is no government or
opposition as such but I believe both the MEP and the electorate are
losers under this regional list PR, based on my experience and
observation as an MEP under both systems. Only a national list
system could be worse by completely severing any local constituency
geographical link.
In
an ideal world defence, foreign, fiscal, monetary, exchange rate,
immigration, education, health, employment, criminal justice,
transport, fisheries and, possibly, agriculture policy. But we do
not live in an ideal world and have shared sovereignty in many of
these policy areas to a greater or lesser extent already. In today’s
real world, the boundary lines between absolute national
responsibility, partially shared powers and pooled sovereignty are
blurred and difficult to draw precisely. However I am opposed to
further transfers of sovereignty to the European Union. The gradual
process of handing over powers piecemeal, which I call treaty creep
or the ratchet effect, is a major factor in making people feel they
have no control or say in the matter and that leads to instinctive
opposition.
Not
in the foreseeable future. Retaining control over levers of economic
management such as interest rates, money supply and exchange rates
seem to me to be essential for optimum performance of UK plc.
It
is almost impossible to calculate the costs and benefits of UK
membership of the EU with any degree of scientific accuracy and
certainty. We know the amount we contribute to the EU budget, our
membership fee if you like, which was £9.1bn gross and £4.2bn in
2005 (net figure is after expenditure in the UK from the EU budget
on things like agriculture, regional spending in Cornwall and
research projects) but it does vary from year to year and will rise
in the future. When compared with total spending by the UK
government of £550bn in 2006-7 it is proportionally small, 0.76%.
However it is more difficult to calculate the indirect costs such as
the burden of regulation and legislation which we would not bear if
we were outside the EU because we cannot be sure UK government would
not impose them anyway. Equally it is difficult to calculate the
additional costs of being outside the EU such as import duties
imposed on our, now sizeable, exports to the EU. Even the so-called
“Norway” option of membership of the wider EEA (European Economic
Area) for trade only has costs as the Norwegians can attest to their
contribution to the EU budget.
On
the other side of the equation it is also difficult to calculate
with any certainty the economic benefits of EU membership because it
depends on assumptions about trade volumes and multiplier effects on
the domestic economy as well as assumptions about foreign direct
investment. We do know a significant shift in our trading
relationships has occurred over the last 50 years so that nearly 60%
of our trade in goods is with EU member states although our trade in
services and invisibles is still greater with the rest of the world.
European Court of Auditors Annual Reports:
http://www.gileschichestermep.org.uk/budget2005/budget2005.htm
Opt
outs have been agreed in the past such as for the UK to decide
whether to join the euro or adopt the social chapter. Denmark voted
in a referendum not to join the euro; Sweden likewise. Yes, I am in
favour of a more flexible Europe where the majority does not bully
individual countries into doing something they regard as against
their national interests. That means accepting a wider, more open 2
speed Europe.
Yes, if it can fully liberalise gas
and electricity markets, if it could manage to speak with one voice
to major external or third country energy exporters, if it could
establish agreed and effective policies on climate change effects
and causes, ie CO2 emissions, if it could establish workable burden
sharing in the event of major supply interruptions. ‘If’ being the
critical word.
http://www.gileschichestermep.org.uk/SustainableEnergy-web.pdf
If
it were not for the fact that the Labour Government has made a
monumental series of messes of agriculture policy (mishandling the
foot and mouth outbreak and the scandal of bungled single area
payments, for example) I would suggest breaking up the CAP,
returning it to member state responsibility and redirecting the
funds into more relevant areas for overall economic growth and our
future quality of life (ie research, development and innovation).
Under existing conditions the most constructive suggestion I have
would be to make the agriculture budget line discretionary
expenditure, ie subject to detailed scrutiny and control by the
European Parliament in co-decision with the Council
In
an ideal world, yes I would prefer the UK to take control of the
fisheries around our shores out to the 200 mile or median line limit
but I believe the cost of what we might have to offer our partner
member states in the negotiation would be disproportionally high.
Better to work within the system for improvements.
I
believe the Emissions Trading System represents our best option for
a market based mechanism to force reductions in CO2 emissions over
an extended period. But the scope needs to be widened to include
transport and buildings; there must be common methodology on
calculating existing emission levels and rigorous enforcement.
In
my view the answer is ‘yes’, subject to certain conditions being
fulfilled. I see Turkey as a vital bulwark against the forces of
fundamentalist Islam in the Middle East as long as it continues to
be a secular state. It has been a key member of the NATO alliance,
firmly anchored to the West against the threat of Soviet aggression.
It must meet the conditions of membership such as democracy and
proper respect for human rights and taking on the acquis
communautaire (the body of EU law already adopted) may take some
time but many other would-be member states have had to undergo
period of transition before or after joining. For those who say it
is not a European country the pedantic geographer in me says part of
Turkey is on the European continent and we have already ceded the
point by admitting Cyprus. To those who fear the economic, social
and political impact of such a large population joining the EU I
suggest the result will be similar to the effect of the recent
enlargement, namely a dynamic shot in the arm from countries keen to
grow their economies, resume membership of the European family of
nations and strengthen their strategic security within the Western
alliance. Finally, I view this enlargement as a further means to
ensure widening rather than deepening the EU, ie a brake to the
ratchet, treaty creep process of ever closer integration.
I
think we should have better checks and controls on movements both in
and out of the country for securities, counter terrorism purposes as
well as exercising some limits on economic migrants. But we have a
treaty obligation to free movement of people, goods, services and
capital within the EU and I think it would be a mistake to try to
stop that movement. Partly because I suspect it would be difficult
to enforce but mainly because I believe we benefit.
For
those who believe that all the Poles, Czechs and others from new
member states shouldn’t be allowed in nor stay I say shame on you.
They come from countries only recently liberated from communist
economies, they take jobs by and large that our people don’t want or
can’t do and I am sure they will want to return home in due course.
And if they don’t all return then let’s remember the contribution
made to our country by all the Poles who came here during the last
war or the Hungarians who managed to escape to the West in 1956.
It
is important also to recognise the positive impact of membership of
the EU on the economies of these countries. They have a fair bit of
catching up to do after too many decades of communist centralised
command economic mismanagement. Money remitted by workers
temporarily employed in the UK helps the process of economic
regeneration and hastens the day when they can enjoy a similar
standard of living at home and will want to return.
On
the other hand I believe we have to get tough with the level of
economic migrants from other parts of the world because there is a
limit to the number of extra people our country can absorb, given
all the incomers from elsewhere in the rest of the EU. Of course we
must continue to respect our international obligations with regard
to asylum seekers.
The
short answer is no it doesn’t and MEP’s aren’t the people who take
decisions on specific funding requests.
However some general points are worth bearing in mind. Getting money
from the EU is definitely not like going to a hole in the wall
machine or ATM because public money has to be accountable. Making an
application involves a lot of work battling with bureaucratic
requirements. You have to be confident that your project fits the
objectives and criteria of any EU programme. The maximum
contribution is usually no more than 50% of overall cost. You have
to be able to afford to wait for the money long after you have spent
it, submitted a claim for re-imbursement, handled queries over your
paperwork and think you have done everything you are supposed to do
only to find a last minute problem.
If
this doesn’t give you pause for thought or stop you in your tracks
then you must embark on the great journey of discovery involved in
finding and accessing the programme budget line most suited to your
project. All I can do here is point you in the direction of the
sources of funding listed in my small businesses pamphlet “SESAME”
or to the European Commission website. The Commission London office
used to publish a useful pamphlet listing all the programmes and you
could try contacting them.
