Growing influence already obvious. Just as Community activity starts to go into overdrive again, we should focus our attention on the European Parliament. Before the summer break, the newly elected Guy Verhofstadt referred to the strengthened competencies of the EP that mainly result from the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and asserted that “we are entering a parliamentary regime”. Evolution is two-fold: expansion of the domains where legislation and Community action will be subject to Parliament/Council co-decision; extension and deepening of EP competencies in the nomination and composition of the European Commission. A third factor, which is both politically sensitive and therefore controversial, can also be added: the EP's goals regarding foreign and defence policy. The strengthening of parliamentary competencies is less obvious in this area and misgivings on the part of the different governments and national parliaments are substantial. This column will be returning to this subject.
There is no question of summarising the increasingly learned legal analyses and expanded competencies of the European Parliament in this column, but we can examine to what extent the current development has already influenced how the Union functions. This development had in fact already begun under the previous Parliament and it is worthy of some praise in this respect (or at least some of its members are). The EP had already determined the course of the EU in a number of essential sectors. Some of the most important legislation was defined by the Parliament, which amended the projects submitted by the European Commission and then together with the latter defined the indispensable compromises with the Council. We only need to recall the “Bolkestein directive”, European regulation in the chemicals sector and the compromise on climate and energy to underline this point. Unfortunately, the public has not always been aware of this. This is partly down to the confusion sown by certain elements in the media, which attribute European decisions, as well as failures and shortcomings, to a vague and amorphous entity called “Brussels” (“Brussels decided”, “Brussels imposes” and so on an so forth), and mixes up the institutions and the proposals with the decisions.
A development that often goes unnoticed. It would be extremely useful if the public were aware of the institutional evolutions taking place. The Commission maintains its right of initiative and this is essential. In several domains it remains responsible for managing common policies (competition, trade policy, agricultural policy); but the legislative power is increasingly held by the Parliament and the Council of Ministers. The Commission itself recognises that its role is sometimes that of a mediator between the two institutions. An indispensable mediator, because it is the Commission that makes a preliminary examination of all the elements in the drafts it proposes. It also has a deep knowledge of the national and economic interests at stake because it analyses and discusses them at length before launching its proposals. It is the Parliament, however, which definitively decides and which has the power to block the Council if an agreement is not forthcoming.
Controlling agricultural spending. Currently, the most spectacular aspect of parliamentary debates and their preparation within the political groups, is that involving the nomination of the new European Commission president. This is an issue covered by our publication for our readers on a daily basis and this column will be returning to it. The new Parliament will have to give its view on other crucial debates emerging and its line in this connection will prove decisive (financial legislation and immigration policy for example). Another essential area also needs to be highlighted in which, until extremely recently, parliamentary powers were legally constrained: agriculture. Funding the common agricultural policy (CAP) has always escaped Parliament's budgetary remit and compulsory spending has been decided by the Council and managed by the Commission. Agricultural spending has for many years accounted for the main part of the European budget but the Parliament has had no say in it. The absence of power negatively influenced the positions it took, which were too often based on demagogy and called for the total opening up of the EU's borders to agricultural products from the whole world, without realising the repercussions this evolution would have. Several symptoms suggest that the EP is becoming more aware of the real stakes at play in agricultural activity: the fight against starvation in the world, environmental protection, the need for European food autonomy and so on.
Everything appears to indicate that the EP's agricultural committee intends to play its role fully when planning reform of the common agricultural policy - basing these plans on the budgetary competencies the Parliament will acquire for CAP funding.
(F.R./transl.rh)