Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
European Parliament (EP) is an essential part of governance and representation in the European Union. Representation plays a vital role in the democratic aspect of EP, which means that it allocates a certain number of seats for each member nation. Although the overall power of EP has increased over the years, it failed to gain trust of its citizens due to the factor of unequal representation. The main contributing factors are intra-parliamentary disputes, Brexit, misrepresentation, and Euroscepticism. The given argumentative paper will introduce critical information on the EP and state major arguments and counterarguments for the question.
European Parliament
In order to thoroughly discuss the underlying reasons for EP failing to connect with its citizens, it is highly important to understand both the roles and functions of this unit of governance. The European Parliament is a unique legislative body, which has no analogues in the world. Its unusualness lies in multinationalism and multilingualism. Deputies from 28 countries speak 24 languages and try to find a common one by adopting general laws (Jacobs et al. 32). The European Parliament is the legislative body of the European Union and the only institution of a united Europe, which is elected by direct vote of citizens. The main function of the European Parliament is legislative, and it shares it with the Council of the EU. Bills are not submitted for consideration by parliament itself, but are only considered and approved by it.
The European Commission always initiates bills, but parliament may ask the Commission to draft a bill, for example, based on proposals from citizens. In addition, parliamentarians make decisions regarding the signing of international agreements by the European Union and the admission of new members to the Union. The second important function of the parliament is oversight, that is, it exercises democratic control over the activities of all EU institutions (Jacobs et al. 28).
Therefore, the plenary session of the parliament approves or rejects the board of the European Commission and its chairman, discusses monetary policy with the European Central Bank. In addition, parliament may put forward a vote of no confidence in the European Commission and dismiss it. MEPs also participate in election observation missions. And the last, but no less important, function of the European Parliament is budgetary, as deputies approve the budget of the European Union and monitor its implementation.
Misrepresentation
One of the primary reasons for such a distrust is the fact that there is an inequality of representation in EP. It is due to large nations being underrepresented and small countries being overrepresented, which can be a root-cause of a mistrust. It is stated that one of the most plausible solutions for the inequality is to use Brexit as an opportunity for shifting the given disbalance (Kalcik and Wolff).
Allocating seats previously occupied by Britain would allow to correct the given misrepresentation. Alternatively, an online tool can be created, which will help to determine the process of allocation by asking citizens directly (Kalcik and Wolff). Therefore, it is important to note that the mentioned facts are main reasons for EP failing to connect with its citizens. However, overrepresentation can lead to the state, where EU is ruled by few nations, whereas smaller one will be forced to oblige.
Euroscepticism
The overall shift in Euroscepticism plays a major role in EP’s failure to connect with its citizens, The Euro-skeptic faction of Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy, which existed in the previous composition of the EP, a significant part of which were members of the United Kingdom’s Independence Party, ceased to exist. Deputies of the new Brexit party were not included in any of the party groups, nor was one representative. Outside the formed fractions, there were also deputies from the Italian movement. The unwillingness of the Brexit party to join other Eurosceptics allowed the right-wing populists to unite in a strong group.
Despite such growth, their influence, as was the case in the previous composition of the EP, will not be significant. First, they found themselves in various political groups, because public opinion became hostile to EP and EU (Brack and Startin 239). but many remained outside the factions, which means for them a decrease in funding, a reduction in the number of support staff and time for speeches. Thus, these supporters, who are so active in the previous parliament, will not be too noticeable in the current one.
Secondly, consensus within the Eurosceptic fractions does not exist across the whole spectrum of problems. On the one hand, Eurosceptics are consolidating in favor of strengthening national states, returning some of their powers and limiting EU competencies. On the other hand, the views on the problems of migration, climate change, budget policy and relations vary greatly depending on the country affiliation of the deputies-Eurosceptics. This divergence of views was reflected in how the factions voted in the previous convocation of the EP.
Thirdly, in the distribution of posts in the updated composition of the European Parliament, the principle of the sanitary cordon was actually applied against the Identity and Democracy group, and it did not receive a single leadership seat in the EP structures, although it had all the reasons for this, and representatives of smaller ones headed the committees by the number of political groups. Evidently, cooperating with moderate skeptics fit perfectly into the party-political landscape of the European Union (Brack and Startin 241).
On the one hand, they are adjusting the general direction of development of integration, and on the other hand, pro-European parties are ready to cooperate with them. The use of the sanitary cordon as a whole contradicts the principles and rules of the European Parliament and cannot be considered democratic. Nevertheless, Euroscepticism can be a critical component in bringing a mixture of public opinion to the EP.
Brexit
The ramifications of Brexit on parliamentary structure are one of the key factors contributing to citizen distrust. In general, after the members leave Britain, the pro-European parties will retain their advantage in the European Parliament, despite the loss of British integration supporters, and the total number of Eurosceptics will noticeably decrease. However, given the current configuration of political groups and the distribution of committees, these changes will not have a strong impact on the functioning of the European Parliament.
The results of the elections to the European Parliament did not become sensational, but revealed a number of important trends in the development of the party-political landscape of the European Union (Meislova 243). The general decline in the popularity of the classic right-wing and center-left parties has led to a serious decrease in the number of fractions of the popular parties and social democrats. On the other hand, there is an obvious increase in voters’ interest in right-wing populist parties, greens and liberals, and these phenomena have their causes and consequences.
One of the reasons for the growing popularity of non-mainstream parties was that EU citizens had a request not for general centrist slogans, but for concrete, understandable proposals that corresponded to their needs and interests. In particular, environmentalists demand more attention to the problem of climate change and the development of clean energy. Liberals urge to strengthen the influence of the EU, including in the international arena, and protect the freedoms of citizens.
Right-wing populists advocate restricting migration from third countries to the return of part of the powers to national states. Recently, new political national parties have appeared in the European arena, which expand the political spectrum within the framework of the EP and change the configuration of pan-European political groups. Among them, the movements that directly or indirectly changed the balance of power in the new European Parliament received the greatest influence.
However, as a counterargument, the total number of representatives of the right-wing parties, greens and liberals in the EP has increased, although the growth of sympathy for the right-wing populists – Eurosceptics was not as high as experts feared. In all countries except Great Britain and Italy, such right-wing parties lost or did not increase their representation in comparison with the previous elections (Meislova 251). Considering the absence of a joint majority among the two traditionally largest political groups – people’s parties and social democrats – it is obvious that the results of the voting will become less predictable and will depend more on the nature of the issue under discussion. However, centrist factions will be forced to cooperate with other political groups, which may not always be an easy task.
The forced participation of the United Kingdom in the elections to the European Parliament had a number of features. The voting results confirmed a split in British society regarding the country’s exit from the European Union. The watershed passes both by social groups and regions. In addition, proportional voting demonstrated increased instability in the United Kingdom’s political landscape. The British deputies made a significant contribution to the formation of political groups in the new composition of the European Parliament. However, it is indicative that the leader of the British elections, the Brexit party, remained outside the renewed factions. If Brexit nevertheless takes place and the British deputies leave the European Parliament, the balance of forces within it will not change significantly.
Disputes
A controversial topic of intra-parliamentary discussions and decisions was the relationship with a group of countries in Eastern and Central Europe. The point of contention was the position of these states on refugee issues, as well as the violations that the EU saw in interpreting a number of legal and humanitarian problems in these countries. Hungary became the main object of criticism, which in a rather sharp form rejected the EU quotas for the reception of refugees. Therefore, it can also be considered as facilitating factor of citizen distrust.
The EP Special Commission has proposed sanctions against Hungary due to a derogation from the democratic principles of the European community. It dealt with violations of subordination between the executive and the judiciary, mass corruption in state bodies, prosecution for dissent, violation of the rights of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees. All this was interpreted as a violation of an article of the Treaty on the European Union, for which the violating country could lose its voting right in the EU Council.
The overwhelming majority voted for the resolution, which proposed to the EU Council to determine the extent of damage from Hungary to the fundamental values of the European Union (Furedi 26). The next step in punishing Hungary was the suspension of the ruling party’s membership in the European People’s Party. This decision was also supported by most representatives. In addition, the party created a special commission to analyze the situation in the country. It is important to note that in the neighboring countries of Hungary, primarily in Poland, the Czech Republic, and Austria, these actions were sharply criticized.
Another object of dissatisfaction with the EP was Poland, which was accused of reforming the judicial system, contrary to the principles of the European Union. The European Parliament recommended that the EU’s highest authorities launch a sanctions procedure against Warsaw, which, as in the case of Hungary, could lead to the deprivation of the right to vote in the EU Council. In addition, it is important to mention that Romania has parties that use populist and anti-European rhetoric (Furedi 68). A month before this statement, the EP sharply criticized the ongoing judicial reform in Romania. It is also necessary to consider that the lack of such disputes would most likely mean that EP is failing in regulating member EU nations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is highly important to understand that the European Parliament failed to gain the trust of its citizens due to a multitude of factors. One of the main reasons is the fact that there is a severe inequality of representation in EP, because big nations are underrepresented, whereas smaller ones are overrepresented. Another critical aspect lies in the emergence of Eurosceptics, who promote the idea of changing the current state of EP. In addition, the major shifts in power due to Brexit led to connotative alterations, which contributed to the citizen’s trust level. Disputes among the member nations of the EU and the processes in EP played a role in proliferating the overall mistrust.
Works Cited
Brack, Nathalie, and Nicholas Startin. “Introduction: Euroscepticism, from the Margins to the Mainstream.” International Political Science Review, vol. 36, no. 3, 2015, pp. 239-249.
Furedi, Frank. Populism and the European Culture Wars: The Conflict of Values between Hungary and the EU. Routledge, 2017.
Jacobs, Francis, et al. The European Parliament. Routledge, 2019.
Kalcik, Robert, and Guntram B. Wolff. “Is Brexit an Opportunity to Reform the European Parliament?” Bruegel, 2017.
Meislova, Monika B. “The European Parliament in the Brexit Process: Leading Role, Supporting Role or Just a Small Cameo?” Brexit and Democracy, edited by Thomas Christiansen and Diane Fromage, Palgrave Macmillan, 2019, pp. 235-261.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.