European Parliament: Irrelevant talking-shop costing €1.2bn?

[MichaelHennigan]

The 732 member European Parliament is an expensive talking-shop with a 2006 budget of €1.2 billion, equivalent to €1.67 million per member. In 2005, the Parliament likely headed the global rankings for overseas parliamentatry "fact-finding" missions or junkets, with almost one for every week. Language interpretation costs more than €1 million each week, which is a service that is more often requested than used according to the European Commission, may seem only a drop in a €1 billion language translation bucket or budget, in the European Union.

The first elections to the Parliament by direct universal suffrage, were held on 10 June 1979 with the expectation that voters in the European Union would feel they would have a closer connection with operations at European level. However, the European Parliament has less relevance to Europeans than local councils. It is not an exaggeration to say that it is irrelevant to most Europeans.

MEPs often blame the media for the low public interest but if many of them are more interested in junketeering as suggested by the Parliament's president last Thursday, than attending meetings of the Parliament, the question needs to be asked if the end of a €1.2 billion black hole, would be a blessing for Europeans?

For more information:

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusiness ... 5168.shtml

[ibis]

A body like the EU Parliament only becomes an irrelevant talking shop if it has no powers. The EU Parliament is not entirely powerless, but certainly the national governments did their level best to keep it in the rubber stamp box. The stuff about "voters feeling connected to the EU" is just guff - it's politician-speak for "give them a talking shop while we go on making the decisions". It's surprisingly like the Seanad, and is also a home for super-annuated or awkward politicians (de Rossa comes to mind - not Creevy, they gave him a real job).

Far from getting rid of it, we should be increasing its powers. That would make me feel a bit more "connected to the EU".

[MichaelHennigan]

Far from getting rid of it, we should be increasing its powers. That would make me feel a bit more "connected to the EU".

What would the point be of giving such an unwieldly body more powers?

MEPs would generally support their national/self interest. Until we become net contributors to the EU Budget, are Irish MEPs ever likely to promote reforn of the CAP?

There are existing internal market rules/laws in the EU but we have seen in recent months that France declares that its utilities are protected from the rules while Italy complains loudly even though last year its then Central Bank Governor sought to prevent a takeover of an Italian bank by Holland's ABN Amro.

[ibis]

What would the point be of giving such an unwieldly body more powers?

In what sense is it more unwieldy than any national parliament?

MEPs would generally support their national/self interest. Until we become net contributors to the EU Budget, are Irish MEPs ever likely to promote reforn of the CAP?

Zero. What are the chances of the Irish Commissioners promoting reform of CAP? Zero. What's the difference? Possibly accountability?

There are existing internal market rules/laws in the EU but we have seen in recent months that France declares that its utilities are protected from the rules while Italy complains loudly even though last year its then Central Bank Governor sought to prevent a takeover of an Italian bank by Holland's ABN Amro.

This is with the Parliament in its present powerless state, so I fail to see how it reflects badly on them. I'm not saying that a more powerful EUP would prevent this, but I don't really see why you've brought it up in this context.

[krayZpaving]

MEPs would generally support their national/self interest. Until we become net contributors to the EU Budget, are Irish MEPs ever likely to promote reforn of the CAP?

De Rossa has constantly promoted reform of the CAP. As indeed have PES MEPs from all countries.
Ufnortunately, the PES is probably the only group in the Parliament that's in any way cohesive (although the exit of the Tories from the EPP may improve their internal workings).

[MichaelHennigan]

Following the rejection of the EU Constitution in France and the Netherlands, EC President Barroso has established a review to junk directives, rules and draft regulations, in an effort to streamline the huge bureaucratic monster that has develoiped in Brussels.

On 25 October 2005, Enterprise Commissioner Günter Verheugen presented plans to simplify, repeal or rewrite over 220 EU laws in more than 1,400 legal acts. The process will last until 2008.

Before consideration is given for the EP to be given more powers, it's structure and costs should be strenously examined as should also apply with the other EU institutions. At EC level, every Commissioner is trying to prove their relevance with more and more regulation.

Giving the EP more powers now would be akin to giving an alcoholic a case of whiskey on condition that he stops drinking.

[ibis]

The European Parliament cannot initiate legislation, but it can amend or veto it in many policy areas. In certain other policy areas, it has the right only to be consulted. Parliament also supervises the European Commission, must approve all appointments to it, and can dismiss it with a vote of censure. It also has the right to control the EU budget.

I think you're taking the whiskey glass off the wrong body.

At EC level, every Commissioner is trying to prove their relevance with more and more regulation.

Commissioner. Not MEP. Again, I don't see why you're relating this to the EP - it seems to be the Commission behind the issues you're raising, with the exception of the EP being a talking shop.

The EP either a useless talking shop or responsible for the huge amounts of junk law - but not both, surely!

[MichaelHennigan]

The European Parliament cannot initiate legislation, but it can amend or veto it in many policy areas. In certain other policy areas, it has the right only to be consulted. Parliament also supervises the European Commission, must approve all appointments to it, and can dismiss it with a vote of censure. It also has the right to control the EU budget.

I think you're taking the whiskey glass off the wrong body.

At EC level, every Commissioner is trying to prove their relevance with more and more regulation.

Commissioner. Not MEP. Again, I don't see why you're relating this to the EP - it seems to be the Commission behind the issues you're raising, with the exception of the EP being a talking shop.

The EP either a useless talking shop or responsible for the huge amounts of junk law - but not both, surely!

What new powers should the EP be given?

Although it does not initiate laws, it is a report producing factory that is not renowned for focusing on how the bureaucratic monster that the EU has become, should be slimmed down.

It took years for the EP to agree on an expense system that would end the "gravy train" image that it became a byword for. When it's president says that there should be less globe trotting and more attention to issues that concern European voters, he is ignored.

As to the EP's role in budgetary control, a British Government parliamentary reply last year said that "there is an understanding between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament under which neither amends the other's draft budget--the reason being that since the parliament has the final word on all non-compulsory expenditure it would otherwise be at liberty to amend the Council's administrative budget as it wished--and, thirdly, the Commission may attach a divergent opinion to the estimates for expenditure put forward by each institution at the beginning of the budgetary process."

[eurocrat]

Why does your thread title have a question mark in it but your opening line does not?

The 732 member European Parliament is an expensive talking-shop

Not a very balanced start to an article you would have to admitt.

[St Disibod]

Not a very balanced start to an article you would have to admitt.

Probably not, but the European Parliamentarians leave themselves wide open to criticism.

When Hans-Peter Martin, an Austrian member of the European Parliament, caused a scandal by videotaping MEPs signing for their daily attendance allowance, even on days when they did no work, Parliament reacted swiftly. It proposed a ban on journalists ever filming this sacred ceremony.

They are finely getting their act together now mind, but the criticism heaped upon them is largely deserved given their past performance. I think such criticism should be used to temper and improve their performance though, not to remove their authority.