Crazy world of E.E.C.’s multi-national Parliament

Press, 12 February 1986, Page 21

Crazy world of E.E.C.’s multi-national Parliament

The European Parliament is often ridiculed as a kind of expensive travelling circus, which wastes its time debating trivialities — the noise levels of lawn mowers, and vacuum cleaners, the sex of hops to be used in beer, and the composition of sausages. It does not help its own image by regular crises and its inability to come to decisions on key questions. This is not surprising when you consider that it is the debating ground for representatives of the 12 countries in the European Economic Community, some of which have vastly different and conflicting interests.

In spite of its well-publicised difficultes, the Parliament is an impressive institution. When it meets in Strasbourg each month, there is the same buzz of excitement and activity that will be found in any Parliament in the world.

Not only is it more than five times the size of the New Zealand Parliament, all its business is conducted simultaneously in English, French, German, Italian, Dutch, Danish, Greek and Spanish.

It is the only directly-elected, multi-national Parliament in the world. Since Spain and Portugal joined the E.E.C. in January it has 518 members, representing 320 million people in 12 countries. The community’s gross domestic product tops £lB6O, or 3000 billion ECU — the monetary unit created to avoid the problems of exchange-rate fluctuations. It handles 32 per cent of world imports and exports.

One of the biggest mysteries about the European Parliament is its lack of a permanent home. Its work is conducted in three centres, which is why it has acquired the reputation of a travelling circus. The assembly meets for one week each month in Strasbourg, but the 18 committees which are its real workhouse meet in Brussels, the headquarters of the European Commission, for a further two weeks every month. Its secretariat, with a 3000-strong staff, is based in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg located

From

KARREN BEANLAND,

formerly of “The

Press,” now on a journalism study course in France.

roughly half-way between the other two centres. Parliamentarians and bureaucrats alike lead a crazy life, commuting between the different workplaces and their home countries. Tonnes of documents are trucked from one place to the other in huge battered tin boxes. The arrangement eats up 10 per cent of the Parliament’s budget. But the assembly is not to blame for its lack of a permanent home. The Treaty of Rome which founded the community in 1957, states that the seat of the Parliament is to be fixed by the common accord of the Governments of the member States. Typically, they have not been able to agree. The problem is that although many dream of achieving a kind of United States of Europe, there is no identifiable European capital. Choosing one city over another as the “capital” treads on all sorts of national toes.

British M.E.P.s pushed to have Brussels as the seat of the Parliament because of its convenience. Luxembourg, eager to gain the economic spin-offs the Parliament would bring, battled bitterly with Strasbourg and even spent a vast sum building a new assembly chamber. In the end, the Parliament took the matter into its own hands and decided to concentrate its plenary sessions in Strasbourg. Like Luxembourg, the city fought hard to improve hotel and transport facilities to attract the Euro M.P.S. But there was a much stronger factor. Having the assembly in Strasbourg, capital of Alsace, a region which has been fought over for centuries was a symbol of reconciliation between France and Germany. The assembly meets at the Palais de I’Europe, a beautiful square building nine stories high with 15 spacious meeting room (all equipped with full interpretation facilities), 700 offices a library, press area, radio and

television studios, a 100 seat theatre and an exhibition hall. At its centre is the circular assembly chamber, called the Hemicycle, an imposing room with vaulting mahogany beams and a copper roof. Designed by the French architect Henry Bernard, it was opened in 1977 after five years work. The complex maze of facilities also gives a home to the Council of Europe, but, except for the week long Parliamentary sessions each month, the buildings stand virtually empty.

The role of the Parliament is to keep a check on the community’s decision-making process. That sounds straight-forward enough, but with nine separate political groupings and often radically different national interests at stake, the assembly often argues itself into an impasse. Twice it has rejected the Commission’s annual budget and once in 1983, during a long-running debate over Britain’s rebate under the Common Agricultural Policy, the community faced the prospect of going bankrupt.

This month’s debate on a report on the C.A.P. a subject of deep interest to New Zealand, provided a typical example of the Parliament’s difficulties. Everyone recognises the need to reform the farm policy, which chews up an incredible 70 per cent of the Community budget to give farmers protection, while massive food mountains pile up and equally severe social and economic problems are ignored. Countries like Britain complain that they contribute too much to the fund because they have an efficient agricultural sector, although other parts of their economy are in dire straits. The report, presented by the Dutch Christian Democrat, Teun Tolman, took a strong line, saying amongst other things that the preferential import arrangements for New Zealand lamb might have to be reconsidered.

However, so many amendments were made to the report in the course of the debate, that in the end, Mr Tolman himself argued against it adoption. After two days of debate, it was back to the drawing board.

Behind the E.E.C. lies the fundamental, Inarguable belief that in the modern world, none of its member States can afford to go it alone. No single Community country, even West Germany, is powerful enough to match up to the economic giants, the United States and Japan, or the industrialised, cheap-labour countries in South East Asia. Jointly,-though, the countries in the Community have a productive capacity equal to the United States and a formidable domestic market.

That is why the Parliament spends time debating what are seen as ridiculous questions such as the composition of sauasages. “Non-tariff” barriers, the nitpicking rules and regulations imposed by separate nations, have caused real problems for free trade within Europe. For instance, a European television manufacturer has to produce 12 different sets to cater for different transmission systems used on the continent.

The Community has its roots in the after-math of the Second World War. Formed in the 19505, it was seen as a way of healing social divisions and the economic ravages of war. The dream was that economic interdependence in Europe would make further clashes impossible. ’• Now the “Europhiles” of the Community speak with glowing eyes about how Europe can be as one country, albeit with big cultural differences. They talk now of a Euro constitution and a Euro passport, allowing complete freedom in travel and work, and a Euro economy which will be strong enough to match thei United States.

Then, they will add confidingly, “But, you know, I really do not like the French.” Or the English, or the Spanish, or Germans... depending on their own national orgins. The dream of a Parliament for a truly united Europe is still a long way off.