EUROPEAN UNION WORLD

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT VIDEO

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

REPRESENTATION

European integration has proved to be a difficult issue for governments in many countries. Political leaders make deals, but in some member states the public seems markedly unenthusiastic. As Geddes1 explains, ‘the intensity of elite level debates about European integration within the political parties and in Parliament has not been matched by a similar fascination about European integration and its implications amongst the general public’. Many voters claim not to know about, not to understand and not to trust the EU and its workings. In Britain and some other countries, there is a high degree of skepticism about what is being done on their behalf.

Common policies have resulted in a situation in which important powers have been transferred from member states to Brussels. Individual citizens are therefore much influenced by the decisions made by EU machinery. But their opportunities to influence the making of those decisions are limited. Integration has developed more effectively than has the process of making the Union accountable to its citizens. The Commission is not accountable, the Council of Ministers meets behind closed doors and only Parliament is elected – it has traditionally lacked teeth.

In these texts we will explore the opportunities for groups and individuals to make known their views about the way in which the Union is evolving. How are they enabled to participate in its political life and have direct or indirect links with those who make decisions?

There are four main channels through which the peoples of Europe can influence the policies pursued by those who have the power to make decisions: via elections, referendums, political parties and pressure groups.

Elections to the European Parliament

European elections have been held every five years since 1979. They operate over a huge area of the continent. However, the campaigns for them are largely national ones, decided on national rather than European issues. The role of transnational political parties remains limited and media interest is low. The outcome provides inconclusive evidence of Europe-wide trends, for losses for one party in one country are often compensated for by gains for a similar party in another.

In these texts, we will examine the way in which elections are conducted in member states, with particular emphasis on the choice of electoral system. We note problems of turnout and the difficulty of engaging the electorates of many countries. Finally, we will examine the role of referendums within the Union.

The European Parliament is the only EU institution to be directly elected by the peoples of the twenty-eight member countries. The first elections were held in 1979, thereafter to occur every five years. They currently operate under Article 1 of the European Elections Act agreed by the Council of Ministers in 1976, although there have been some subsequent modifications.

Euro-elections are the world’s only international elections, involving an electorate of some 265m at the time of the Fourth Enlargement and just less than 350m when membership of the EU rose to twenty-five countries. They were designed to provide Parliament with a new legitimacy and to introduce an element of democracy into the Community. It was felt that a supranational elected assembly would act as a more effective brake on the intergovernmental Council of Ministers than an appointed one. In addition, the onset of elections might be expected to contribute to an emerging sense of European identity.

The introduction of direct elections was a step along the integrationist road, for inevitably the elected body – with some success – has consistently sought to acquire further powers since 1979, giving it a greater role in the procedures of the Union. Yet many commentators are skeptical about the extent to which elections have made Parliament a key player on the European scene. They tend to deride the elections as at best not very significant, at worst pointless, for they are of little concern or interest to the majority of inhabitants of the member states.

As yet, there is little sign of a distinct European identity and the elections themselves have so far been not one European contest but rather twenty-five different national contests reflecting the differing concerns and priorities of EU countries.

The way in which voters use euro-elections often has little to do with what they feel about matters European. Campaigning has not stimulated a major political debate about Union policies and the future direction that the organisation should take; the engagement of some national politicians is half-hearted; the levels of interest and understanding of voters in several countries are strictly limited; and the media do little to encourage any kind of election fever, preferring as they do the more familiar domestic stories of party schisms, personal lapses and governmental problems. Indeed, elections reveal what Curtice and Steed identify as the usual characteristics of second-order elections: ‘low turnout, an antigovernment swing and a relatively high level of support for small parties’.

Second-order elections do not change governments and so less is at stake for the voters, who can decide not to vote or to flirt with small or new parties that would be highly unlikely to win a general election. If it is easy to deride the lack of interest in euro-elections and their failure to engage the public in a genuine discussion of European affairs, they do not lack significance in the political life of the member states.

• • For the voters, they are a chance to register their protest over what they see as governmental failures or more broadly about the general direction in which the ruling party is travelling.
• • For the party in power, they are a useful means of discerning trends in public opinion. They provide a chance to measure ministerial popularity or unpopularity, their findings possibly leading to a cabinet reshuffle or even a change of leader.
• • For established parties long in opposition, they can test the extent of their recovery and demonstrate to the voters that they are proceeding on the right lines.
• • For small parties, particularly those with a keen interest in European developments and policy, there is an opportunity to hit the headlines and make some kind of breakthrough. Various far-right, anti-immigration and eurosceptic parties performed strongly in 2004. As Geddes points out: ‘the votes cast at a European election may be more expressive, or from the heart.

A vote for UKIP may represent anti-EU sentiment rather than a hardheaded decision that a UKIP government would actually be a good idea’. European integration has become an issue in the national politics of some states.

It might not rank highly as a general election issue; in the 2005 general election in the United Kingdom, it was barely mentioned by the established parties, only UKIP and Veritas making it a key theme. But in the previous two elections, it had featured more strongly, in 1997 proving particularly divisive and damaging for the British Conservatives.

Anti-government swings and support for small parties

In second-order elections, voters are influenced much more by what they think about the performance of the national government of the day than by any other issue. Broadly, parties that gain success in national contests may expect to do well in European ones held within a short period of time, whereas government parties that are experiencing a bout of mid-term unpopularity can expect to fare badly. The elections present an opportunity to register discontent with the ruling party, even though they are supposed to be a means of choosing a parliament dealing with different issues to those that dominate the domestic political scene. Voters are more preoccupied with their concerns about the state of their national education or health service, or what is happening to pensions, matters which are not determined by the European Parliament.

Yet if elections are dominated by national issues, nonetheless some consideration is given by the parties to European issues. The European party federations adopt common manifestos and produce brochures and material which address contentious topics concerning the future direction of the Union. In the last three elections, national parties have made increased use of the federation material. But the attempt to sway voters on European issues is a half-hearted one. In Britain, European coverage by the main parties is often more related to the desirability of fending off Brussels interference, hence the Conservative slogan in 1999: ‘In Europe, but not run by Europe’.

The third feature which Curtice and Steed pinpoint as a characteristic of second-order elections has traditionally had less application in Britain, for the electoral system was not favourable to small parties. Now that there is a greater choice of parties and a situation in which they have a realistic chance of securing representation, voters have responded by awarding them their votes in greater numbers – in 2004, 35.8 per cent (20/78 seats) did not go to the three main parties. In particular, UKIP performed particularly well, securing more votes than the Liberal Democrats and an equal number of seats (twelve each).

In Europe as a whole, some small or new parties fared well, particularly eurosceptic groupings such as the Swedish Junelist, which gained three seats, and the League of Polish Families. But the present Parliament contains a highly diverse collection of representatives of many persuasions, ranging from far rightists to unreconstructed communists, from nationalists to populists.

Turnout and apathy

The disappointing level of voter participation in European elections has always attracted a great deal of attention. In three countries, Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece, voting is compulsory and their turnout figures can be regarded as respectable. Belgium and Luxembourg regularly manage a turnout of just above and just below 90 per cent respectively, while in six elections Greece averages out at just over 74 per cent. In Italy, where voting is not compulsory but is regarded as a civic duty, there has always been has a turnout of at least 70 per cent, usually considerably better.

In most other countries of the Union, the turnout is little more than 50 per cent, recently rather less. It can, of course, be affected by the timing of other elections. Holding a national and a European election on the same day yields a higher figure. On the other hand, if a European election is held soon after a general one, it may be influenced by voter fatigue (the UK in 1979 registered figures of 76.0 per cent and 32.2 per cent in the general and European elections respectively). Such factors cast doubt on the validity of any comparison between the five-yearly figures within and between member states.

There has always been a Europe-wide apathy towards the European elections, with turnouts in the past ranging from a high of 62.5 per cent in 1979 to a low of 56.8 per cent in 1994. In 1999, however, fell significantly to 49.4 per cent, meaning that less than half the EU electorate felt ready to vote for the European Parliament, despite the increased powers it had been given. Five years later, it had deteriorated further, down to 45.5 per cent. Whilst in 1999 five countries had turnouts of no more than 40 per cent of the electorate (in Britain, the figure was a mere 24 per cent), five years later the position across the continent was considerably worse, with eleven countries – admittedly in a substantially larger Union – falling below that level. Six of these were from among the ten most recent entrants, Slovakia managing only 17 per cent. The expansion of the EU has clearly not created Europe-wide or national interest in the outcome of elections.

Turnout in European elections is low compared to national elections, although it was for several years relatively high compared with US presidential and congressional ones. In 1994, it was an overall 56.8 per cent, compared with 55 per cent for the presidency in 1992 and 38.7 per cent for Congress two years later. In 2004, the 45.5 per cent represents a considerably lower figure than for the presidential and congressional elections of November that same year (59.4 per cent). Whereas the US trend is upwards, the European one is going down.

Many explanations are given for the disappointing figures across the European Union:

1. Unlike the situation in ‘first-order’ general elections, there is no prospect of a change of administration; polling therefore does not generate excitement or interest, for the outcome will not greatly impact upon people’s everyday lives.

2. Campaigns are essentially national contests, ‘but of a secondary sort . . . [having] little coherence or coordination’,3 and not arousing media interest.

3. Many voters across the Union have little or inadequate knowledge about the European Parliament and what it does – or indeed, about the European Union in general. Some do not care about an international body that seems remote from their experience. Of those who do have an understanding of the EU and the way in which it operates, some would conclude that as it has modest powers it does not merit a journey to the polling stations.

4. The politicians who approach national campaigns with enthusiasm do not exhibit the same tendency in European ones. Often, the ‘big names’ whose presence might arouse a response from the voters play a relatively minor part in campaigning. This may be because they wish to play down mid-term protest results that are often disappointing for those in power.

5. There is the more general consideration that voting in all elections and across the whole continent is becoming less fashionable than was once the case. There may be many explanations for this general drop in turnout, but among them are a feeling of disillusionment with political parties and the politicians who represent them; the narrowing of differences between the major parties; the disappearance of some of the leading postwar issues, such as capitalism v. communism and the introduction of contentious welfare policies; and the preference of many young voters interested in environmental and global issues for pressure-group campaigning.

Low turnout means that the EU faces a problem of legitimacy in that it has been saying for years that something must be done to correct the democratic deficit - only to find that when something is done about it the outcome is spurned by the electorate.

Yet the broad decline in public involvement in European elections as has not been matched by perceptions of its importance. EU polls taken during the 2004 campaign were indicating that 54 per cent of European citizens trusted the European Parliament, 46 per cent thought it had more power than their own national parliament and 66 per cent felt the European elections were ‘very important’.

Turnout in Britain for elections to the European Parliament

1979 31.6% 1984 32.6% 1989 36.2% 1994 36.4%

1999 24.0% 2004 38.8%

Turnout in British euro-elections has traditionally been low, perhaps a reflection of geographical insularity from the continent and a consequent feeling of remoteness from European institutions. It may also reflect the doubts of the British people about the value of the European enterprise or more specifically the ambivalence of governmental attitudes to Britain’s position in the EU and the lack of leadership on the issue. Certainly, the issues surrounding the EU and its future have failed to arouse the British electorate. In 1999, there was a general decline in popular participation a cross the Union, but in Britain the lack of interest was startling. The turnout was the lowest ever recorded in a euro-election in any country: just under 24.0%. Many commentators were forecasting an even worse figure in 2004, assuming that disillusion with the government and the European Union had both significantly increased over the last few years. Contrary to expectations, the turnout was higher than before. It averaged out at 38.8%, but varied across the regions from 36.0% in the West Midlands to an impressive 51.7% in Northern Ireland.

Great Britain, as opposed to Northern Ireland, has always had a poor turnout record for anything other than Westminster elections, the level of voting in European elections being very much in line with the turnout for local ones. Large elements of the British public do not understand the European Parliament, do not see that it has any relevance to their lives, and therefore see no reason why they should vote for it.

Thanks to the indifference of the British electorate to European elections, the people who ought to be working hard to overcome that apathy – the politicians, parties and the media – are equally indifferent. The media are only interested in what interests their readers, listeners or viewers and therefore display only limited interest in what apparently leaves the public cold. The parties are not going to devote precious funds to European politics when their resources are already limited for the more important field of national politics. And, with a few notable exceptions, politicians of ability and public appeal are not going to become involved in an activity so far removed from influence and power in the national arena.

Varying features of the European elections in member states

Although the Council of Ministers was forced to concede direct elections to the European Parliament in 1979, the Council proved unwilling to grant the other provisions laid down in the Treaty of Rome that were meant to create a uniform procedure in all member states.

To exercise the right to vote in European elections, people must be 18 or over and citizens of one of the member states. However, beyond these two basic considerations, there is no uniformity about the conduct of elections:

• • Since the implementation of the Maastricht Treaty, European citizens can vote and stand for election in their country of residence rather than their home country, but the interpretation of residence is different across the Union. For instance, in Austria, Denmark and the UK – among others – they must be registered on the electoral roll; in Belgium, Germany and some other states, they must customarily reside there; and in Luxembourg, which has a very high proportion of non-nationals in its resident population, they must prove a minimum period of five years’ residence.
• • There is no common eligibility for candidature as an MEP, the age qualification in the various member countries ranging from 18 to 25. In countries such as Germany, Spain, the Scandinavian states and most of the new entrants, 18 is the qualifying age, but it is 21 in Belgium, Greece and the UK, 23 in France and 25 in Italy.
• • Some countries allow the dual mandate – enabling politicians to be members of their national parliament and the European Parliament – whilst others do not. Prior to 1979, MEPs were chosen from among the representatives of their national legislatures. Nowadays, the practice is officially discouraged and has been prohibited under national law in a number of EU countries, Belgium, Germany and most recently Italy among them. Despite this, a small and dwindling number of members do hold a dual mandate.

The British Labour Party does not allow its MPs to stand for the EP. The Conservatives have no members of the House of Commons holding the dual mandates but in 1999 and again in 2004 three Conservative peers were elected as MEPs, as were two Liberal Democrats. Ian Paisley once held the ‘triple mandate’ of MEP, MP (in the House of Commons) and MLA (‘Member of Legislative Assembly’ in the Northern Ireland Assembly) at the same time. In its favour, the dual mandate does encourage and facilitate dialogue between national parliaments and the EP and allow prominent national figures to participate in EU affairs.

• • There is not even agreement on the day on which European elections should be held. The UK chooses to stick with Thursday, the day normally used for Westminster or local/devolved elections. This practice has been followed by other countries including Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands. Most European countries, however, vote on Sundays, in both national and European elections. Since election results are declared simultaneously in all member countries, this divided practice means that voters in those countries which vote on Thursday have to wait until Sunday evening to find out whom they have elected, while officials have to ensure that ballot papers are securely locked away for the best part of three days.
• • More seriously, there are not equal electoral districts. There is a significant variation in the populations represented by MEPs in the various states. Seats are allocated between countries as much for political reasons as for considerations of strict proportionality. Smaller states are over-represented in an attempt to prevent them from being overwhelmed by the larger states in the decision-making process. Malta, the smallest state, has far more MEPs per head of population than Germany, the largest one.

However, the most serious failure in standardizing the procedure for European elections concerns the choice of electoral system to be used.