http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/bruno_...18/the_unrepresentative_and_antidemocratic_eu
This film is worth watching to get something of an idea of what the European Union is really all about. Hat tip to Dan Hannan. Many of those speaking against plans to make the European Parliament less representative and democratic are pro-Europeans, not just the usual suspects.
Proposals to raise the threshold for the formation of political groups in the Euro-Parliament (voted through last week) are on the surface just a nerdy technicality - which is perhaps why Richard Corbett, Labour MEP and arch-nerd has fronted them.
But the substance and the context is much more important, as can be seen in the increasingly shrill protestations from Mr Corbett. The logic of his proposals is to give the main political groupings in Parliament a near monopoly of resources and committee posts (where the action happens) making the EU assembly even more slavish than it already is now.
The main two political groupings - in order of size they are the EPP (centre-right, Christian Democrat, including the Tories) and the PES ("Socialists", the inverted commas are necessary as the grouping includes New Labour types such as Mr Corbett) - are essentially delegations that express the centrist consensus of governments across Europe.
In his excellent book, Stranger in Europe, Sir Stephen Wall, one of Britain's most experienced mandarins, noted how ALL Euro-MEPs now play their master's game. He is referring to a weekly briefing that all MEPs get from the UK Representation to the EU (His Master's Voice as it should be known) on the legislative issues of the day.
"When I first arrived in Brussels as the UK Permanent Representative in 1995 under a Conservative government, Conservative MEPs were heavily outnumbered by Labour ones, who made a point of telling me how much they valued the British government's briefing because they immediately knew which way to vote: the opposite of what the government was recommending," Sir Stephen writes on page 202.
"Today's MEPs of all main parties are more sensitive to the national interest and more inclined to look at issues on their merits, helped by the fact that Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour policy on EU economic issues does not these days differ greatly."
When Sir Stephen Wall talks about the "national interest" he is, naturally, talking about the Whitehall, ministerial and "Crown" interest - and his book shows that the UK's EU policy has remained essentially unchanged despite changing governments over the last 25 years.
The political independence of MEPs - both Labour Conservative - is non-existent (calling it a fiction would do it too much credit) and to reinforce the main political groupings is return the Parliament to its true origins as a figleaf, fake assembly.
As part of the EU institutional structure (the Parliament was created by diplo-bureaucrats not peoples), Euro-MPs tend to reflect the official outlook, with nuances reflecting "national interests". It is also hamstrung by the dominance of mainstream national political parties cohered around consensus seeking EU groupings.
Political parties, such as the Conservatives and Labour, are less representative than at any time in their history - a political truth that is confirmed by plummeting election turnouts, collapsing membership and a popular disenchantment that is rapidly becoming loathing.
Sadly, national parliaments are becoming more like the European Parliament as MPs become as distant from voters as MEPs. Westminster majorities have more or less slavishly followed the "national interest" on EU Treaties, a historically unprecedented onslaught on civil liberties and much more for decades now. Our contempt has been earned.
As participation in national and European elections continues to decline as a long-term secular trend, turn-out in EU referendums (which tend to return a No result) has increased. The new schism and political moment in European politics is not left and right but the progressives versus the reactionaries who believe that EU referendums should only have one answer, Yes.
As we see in the clip, the Parliament is doing its (futile) best to make sure that this new political cleavage, one that alarms every "national interest" and scares very official in Europe, finds it more difficult to assume organised expression in the EU's only directed elected body.
To the extent that the European Parliament is democratic (its members are at least elected), I am a supporter of it and I admire a number of MEPs who do their best to represent people not governments there. Mr Corbett's rules changes will reinforce its weaknesses and the failure of MEPs to represent voters.
This film is worth watching to get something of an idea of what the European Union is really all about. Hat tip to Dan Hannan. Many of those speaking against plans to make the European Parliament less representative and democratic are pro-Europeans, not just the usual suspects.
Proposals to raise the threshold for the formation of political groups in the Euro-Parliament (voted through last week) are on the surface just a nerdy technicality - which is perhaps why Richard Corbett, Labour MEP and arch-nerd has fronted them.
But the substance and the context is much more important, as can be seen in the increasingly shrill protestations from Mr Corbett. The logic of his proposals is to give the main political groupings in Parliament a near monopoly of resources and committee posts (where the action happens) making the EU assembly even more slavish than it already is now.
The main two political groupings - in order of size they are the EPP (centre-right, Christian Democrat, including the Tories) and the PES ("Socialists", the inverted commas are necessary as the grouping includes New Labour types such as Mr Corbett) - are essentially delegations that express the centrist consensus of governments across Europe.
In his excellent book, Stranger in Europe, Sir Stephen Wall, one of Britain's most experienced mandarins, noted how ALL Euro-MEPs now play their master's game. He is referring to a weekly briefing that all MEPs get from the UK Representation to the EU (His Master's Voice as it should be known) on the legislative issues of the day.
"When I first arrived in Brussels as the UK Permanent Representative in 1995 under a Conservative government, Conservative MEPs were heavily outnumbered by Labour ones, who made a point of telling me how much they valued the British government's briefing because they immediately knew which way to vote: the opposite of what the government was recommending," Sir Stephen writes on page 202.
"Today's MEPs of all main parties are more sensitive to the national interest and more inclined to look at issues on their merits, helped by the fact that Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour policy on EU economic issues does not these days differ greatly."
When Sir Stephen Wall talks about the "national interest" he is, naturally, talking about the Whitehall, ministerial and "Crown" interest - and his book shows that the UK's EU policy has remained essentially unchanged despite changing governments over the last 25 years.
The political independence of MEPs - both Labour Conservative - is non-existent (calling it a fiction would do it too much credit) and to reinforce the main political groupings is return the Parliament to its true origins as a figleaf, fake assembly.
As part of the EU institutional structure (the Parliament was created by diplo-bureaucrats not peoples), Euro-MPs tend to reflect the official outlook, with nuances reflecting "national interests". It is also hamstrung by the dominance of mainstream national political parties cohered around consensus seeking EU groupings.
Political parties, such as the Conservatives and Labour, are less representative than at any time in their history - a political truth that is confirmed by plummeting election turnouts, collapsing membership and a popular disenchantment that is rapidly becoming loathing.
Sadly, national parliaments are becoming more like the European Parliament as MPs become as distant from voters as MEPs. Westminster majorities have more or less slavishly followed the "national interest" on EU Treaties, a historically unprecedented onslaught on civil liberties and much more for decades now. Our contempt has been earned.
As participation in national and European elections continues to decline as a long-term secular trend, turn-out in EU referendums (which tend to return a No result) has increased. The new schism and political moment in European politics is not left and right but the progressives versus the reactionaries who believe that EU referendums should only have one answer, Yes.
As we see in the clip, the Parliament is doing its (futile) best to make sure that this new political cleavage, one that alarms every "national interest" and scares very official in Europe, finds it more difficult to assume organised expression in the EU's only directed elected body.
To the extent that the European Parliament is democratic (its members are at least elected), I am a supporter of it and I admire a number of MEPs who do their best to represent people not governments there. Mr Corbett's rules changes will reinforce its weaknesses and the failure of MEPs to represent voters.
