Mid and South West Norfolk Liberal Democrats

Why Europe's parliament deserves a vote of confidence

The last Strasbourg session of this European Parliament ended on May 7. Hectic negotiation between Parliament and the Council of Ministers saw a number of important laws enacted, many at first reading. One or two draft laws did not make it - notably, an important telecoms package which stalled as MEPs insisted on a prior judicial procedure to block internet access, and, secondly, the revision of the controversial working time directive.

Overall, the outgoing Parliament passed about 1200 laws over its five-year term, many of them harmonising 27 different national laws for the first time, while several others re-visit earlier EU legislation with an eye to modernisation and better regulation. In several instances - the services directive, control of chemicals (REACH), the climate change and energy package - MEPs were able to broker the deals that had eluded ministers and officials in the Council.

The Parliament successfully assimilated its new Members from the twelve accession countries, and adopted their languages. The House undertook some important internal reforms, including the introduction of a new regime of salaries, pensions and expenses of Members. Parliament asserted its influence over the design of the EU budget as well as tightening its grip on budgetary control. It continues to develop its scrutiny of foreign and security policy, and to grow its own expertise in the field of human rights. Citizens now petition the Parliament on all manner of subjects, some with material significance like the failure of Equitable Life and Lloyds. Parliament has also become a major and indispensable player in the constitutional reform of the Union.

On 6 May the Czech Senate voted through the Treaty of Lisbon, thereby completing the parliamentary ratification processes in all 27 states. If the Irish say Yes at the second Lisbon referendum in early October, very little can impede the entry into force of the reform treaty by 1 January. What the new treaty means for the European Parliament is an immense accretion of scrutiny, budgetary, legislative and constitutional powers. Parliament as an institution deserves a big vote of confidence in the elections on 4-7 June. Will it get it?

Alas, probably not. The European Parliament does very well: except at election time. There are two main reasons for Parliament's failure to engage the electorate. The first is the lack of genuine European political parties that would stand candidates against each other and develop a debate about where the EU's common interests lie. National parties give low priority to and spend little money on the European elections; candidates are usually selected too late to make much of a difference themselves.

The second problem for the Parliament is the lack of a European media to sufficiently report it. European level politics remain a matter of very great fascination for very few. The bulk of the voters get what little they know about EU politics at third hand, distorted through the prism of national political parties and national press. Even those organisations of civil society and the social partners which play a large role in Brussels fail to project the importance, let alone excitement, of EU affairs to their membership back home.

Individual MEPs, no matter how assiduous, can do very little to counter this sorry state of affairs. My information budget, of about € 30,000 a year, is barely enough to keep my own party members informed and engaged, let alone many of the other 5,500,000 electors of the East of England. Under the dual threat of the internet and the recession, local newspapers are cutting back on their already minimal efforts to report the work of MEPs. The size of the Brussels press corps has been cut, especially from the UK and France. Political programmes on regional TV are being squeezed out. Even the BBC, which should know better, persists in behaving as if the only way to cover the EU is to pitch against it. Few BBC current affairs programmes manage to move beyond the existential British European question of 'in' or 'out'.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap. In my constituency poll on 4 June, there are as many as twelve parties standing of a eurosceptic or europhobic tendency (as well as an independent candidate of as yet indeterminate views). Labour and the Lib Dems alone compete for the pro-European vote.

The battle in Britain is given an extra edge this time because of the extraordinary decision of David Cameron's Conservative party to divorce itself in the new Parliament from the Christian Democrat MEPs of the European People's Party and to set up shop with as many fellow Lisbon deniers as can be found. (Under Parliament's rules, the Tories need MEPs of six other nationalities to form a group.) The defection of the Brits from the EPP will have two consequences, one good one bad. Good is that the EPP itself will become a more coherent federalist force; bad is that the British national interest will be ill-served, especially in terms of the advancement of liberal market policies.

The Tory departure from mainland, mainstream politics will not be enough by itself to change the overall balance of power within Parliament. Unless both the far right and the far left do better than expected, there should still be a solid absolute majority in the new House for the continued integration of Europe. It may be no bad thing for the image of Parliament, indeed, to have the distinction between federalists and nationalists more sharply drawn.

The really important question, after all, is whether the European Union wishes to become a world power. At a time of severe economic crisis, to say nothing of climate change, the nationalist case for retreat may be counter-intuitive to an electorate which is already disillusioned by the caprices of national politics. In time of trouble, more Europe may just prove to be a better bet than less Europe.

We will soon know how 375m voters have chosen 736 Euro MPs. The first job of the newly elected assembly, on 15 or 16 July, will be to endorse or reject - by simple majority - the nomination of the European Council for the new President of the European Commission. This will be Jose Manuel Barroso.

There is a big irony that the late June meeting of the European Council that is supposed not only to nominate the candidate but also to agree the package of measures demanded by Ireland before its second referendum is likely to be chaired by Czech President Vaclav Klaus. Mr Klaus, of course, is the champion of the anti-Lisbon brigade. Mr Barroso's fate is glued to Lisbon.

It could all go horribly wrong. Aux urnes!

Andrew Duff MEP is President of the Union of European Federalists and Liberal Democrat MEP for the East of England. His new book 'Saving the European Union: the logic of the Lisbon treaty' is available via www.shoehornbooks.com/SavingtheEU.