While the EU is not devoid of flaws (“UK political horrors should not blind us to EU failings”, Letters, January 24), to repeat the refrain about its democratic deficit spread by Brexiters, and use as proof Donald Tusk’s praise of Joseph Muscat’s Malta, is farcical.
If there is an EU democratic deficit, it lies with the “intergovernmental” European Council, which has seized a de facto decision-making power that does not belong to it, deciding unanimously even some quasilegislative matters and at times guiding the commission on the broad lines of its future proposals.
Having said that, the European parliament, although without the power to decide on taxes, plays a far larger role than Westminster and the French Senate in influencing legislation. This is so simply because the executive in the UK or France can generally count on parliamentary majorities to pass legislation proposed by prime ministers and their cabinet bureaucracies.
The lack of a European parliament majority supporting the European Commission (with its multi-party structure) leads the parliament to submit plenty of amendments to commission proposals. After selection by the commission, these become part of the so-called inter-institutional “trilogue” — the process that Harry Cooper’s letter complains about.
For instance, while I was a chief of staff at the commission, the Common Agricultural Policy reforms of 20032004 led the parliament to table 3,200 amendments — 800 for the wine reform proposal alone. Of course, it was up to the parliament to first combine them into a more rational set before submitting them to the commission for consideration. Can Cooper say the same about Westminster?
Corrado Pirzio-Biroli
Brussels, Belgium
