Letter: Democracy in a confederal Europe
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Democracy in a confederal Europe
Sir: Your leading article has to be welcomed, given the current Europhobia emanating from most of the British press. It should also be welcomed because it breaks through the sterile choice between "Europe as free-trade area" and "Federal Europe". I have never believed that the federal models of the US or Germany could simply be transplanted to the complex collection of differing languages, histories and political systems that make up today's European Union. Nor can Europe simply be a free-trade area loosely governed by a European version of the World Trade Organisation. The European Union is a unique body. Your essay recognises this point.
However, I would like to address two points.
You argue for the democratic renewal of the EU by redefining the powers of the European Commission (which I welcome), strengthening the role of the Council and freezing the influence of the European Parliament. However, this would not achieve the democratic renewal you seek. Unless all national parliaments have the same powers to scrutinise and control their ministers' actions in Council (which they clearly do not) then centralising decision-making in the Council will only make it even more of an unaccountable body than it already is. Similarly, national parliaments will, quite rightly, only judge the actions of their ministers in the context of domestic politics. Instead, the powers of the European Parliament, as the only body capable of holding the Council accountable at a European level and the only body democratically elected at a European level, should be increased.
Second, you argue that social policy should not be a core function of the EU. But just as Britain is bound to Europe historically, culturally and economically, so is she bound by the common experiences of the labour and trade-union movements. Out of these arose a unique social model in the form of the welfare state and social partnership that has allowed Western European societies to enjoy unparalleled wealth and social cohesion. Now all European societies are experiencing the same threats to this social model. Instead of divesting the European Union of its powers in the social field, we should be using the common experience to find common solutions for a new form of welfare politics in the 21st century.
I hope your essay has signalled the first step in the fight back for rational debate and argument over the politics of European union.
NICHOLAS CROOK
Brussels
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments