The European Economic Community was set up by the Treaty of Rome in 1957. Its chief task has been to abolish restrictions on trade between member states and to encourage the operation of unimpaired market forces.
Over the next few years we are going to be increasingly affected by decisions taken on our behalf in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg, decisions which were previously taken in Westminster.
It is therefore more important than ever before that we understand how the EEC takes its decisions and where the real power lies.
The three main institutions of the EEC are:
In addition there is the Court of Justice and the Economic and Social Committee.
What are their powers? The Council of Ministers is the most powerful body. It has twelve members and has the final say on all EEC policy proposals. It meets in secret: no minutes of its meetings are publicly produced. The ministers present on the Council vary according to the subject under discussion. Thus when farm policy is being discussed each member states agriculture minister, attends.
The Commission cannot itself make laws. Nonetheless it initiates EEC policies - the completion of the internal market by 1992 for instance. It also is responsible for implementing Council decisions.
There are 17 Commissioners each with a four year term of office. The powers of the Parliament are limited but it, can dismiss the Commission must approve the EEC's annual budget can block the entry of new members to the community.
Under a new 'co-operation procedure' it can now also alter certain legislation but only if the Commission accepts the Parliament's amendments and the Council does not reject them unanimously.
Members of the European Parliament are elected for a fixed term of five years.
The Court of Justice rules on disputes over EEC legislation. It recently forced the British Government to impose VAT on spectacles. It is comprised of 13 judges and 6 advocates.
The Economic and Social Committee has no real power. It is purely consultative, offering opinions on legislation passing before the Council. There are trade union representatives on this committee.
(diagram tob be inserted)
It is worth stressing in the light of new claims for an "independent Scotland in Europe" that, whilst before July 1987 each member state had a right to veto any proposal in the Council of Ministers, this is no longer the case.
Most decisions are now reached by qualified majority voting. The veto can now only be applied on a limited number of issues including taxation, the free movement of individuals' and the rights and interests of employed persons.
We have show that power in the Common Market still rests largely with the Council of Ministers. We therefore need to consider how we make Government ministers accountable for the decisions they take on our behalf in Europe. As more power is centralised in Brussels this need becomes more pressing.
In the next Euro Examiner we will consider how, if at all, we can exercise democratic control over the EEC.
In the last European Examiner (issue 4) we looked at decision making in the EEC.
In this edition we are going to consider how, if at all, we can exercise democratic control over that process.
The Council of Ministers is the most powerful body in the EEC. It is empowered to take important decisions about our industries, our environment, our trading links and the way we run our economy.
Commission President Jacques Delors has predicted that by the mid-1990s, 80% of all economic, and possibly fiscal and social legislation will be decided by the EEC. Yet the Council meets in secret and is largely unaccountable. So how can we increase control over the Council of Ministers and thus over the measures enforced by the EEC?
There are a number of options:
At the moment the European Parliament has only limited powers. It has been argued that if the EEC's powers are going to continue to grow, the European Parliament should have a bigger say. In particular, it is claimed, all EEC legislation should be passed on the basis of joint decision-making between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.
But, at present, the UK, has 81 MEPs for an electorate of 56,000,000. That means that each Euro MP on average represents almost 700,000 constituents (compared with 86,000 for every Westminster MP). The opportunity for holding an MEP accountable is therefore much smaller than for a member of the British parliament.
In any case, increasing the powers of the European Parliament requires the EEC treaties to be amended. This can only be done with the unanimous approval of all twelve member states. Not one has indicated that it would support such a move.
At the moment the House of Commons merely acts as a rubber-stamp for decisions taken in Brussels. The 1987 Single European Act, which surrendered major powers to Brussels, was guillotined by the Government in order to stifle debate (see Euro Examiner No.1).
All too regularly Government Ministers have already agreed to EEC proposals by the time a debate is held.
We are faced with a crisis in Britain. At a time when EEC legislation is having more impact on our daily lives we have got less democratic control over it.
Under the Single European Act decisions taken in Brussels can be imposed without the consent of the British people or the British Government. In other words, it no longer matters what the House of Commons or the British people think of the legislation once it has been passed by the Council of Ministers.
If we are to remain in membership of the European Economic Community we are therefore left with the sole option of improving the scrutiny of EEC legislation before a decision is made, and improving the accountability of British Ministers to the British people.
Such measures would not require a change to the EEC treaty.
The Danish parliament is much more proactive in scrutinising new EEC moves. Any new EEC law must first of all be fully considered by the Danish Parliament and its committees.
A majority in the Council of Ministers, consisting of people who are not responsible to the British electorate, can now carry out economic and political decisions which may be against the interests and wishes of the British people.
That is a major set-back for democracy. A future Labour Government is pledged to improve the scrutiny and influence over EEC policies by Westminster. However we should not wait until then. Trade Union and Party branches should be calling on our representatives to raise these issues now. Motions should be tabled in the House of Commons calling for the implementation of the above proposals.
It may no longer be possible for the people of Europe to exercise any meaningful control over the EEC at all, but we must at least take steps to hold Britain's representatives much more accountable.
Big changes are taking place across Europe. Whilst the eastern bloc dissolves, in the west the European Community is taking over powers which were once the exclusive preserve of national governments. In less than five years three major steps toward EEC union have been taken:
In 1988 the "Committee for the Study of Economic and Monetary Union", chaired by President of the EEC Commission Jacques Delors was set up.
The following year the "Delors Committee" concluded that stage by stage national governments should give up their remaining rights to pursue their own big economic objectives like keeping unemployment or price rises down. Instead they should simply implement policies designed centrally at an EEC level.
The "Delors Committee" suggested three stages on the road to this "Economic & Monetary Union" (EMU).
Stage One: To start in July 1990.
Stage Two: To start subject to agreement by all 12 EEC member states at a conference held later this year.
Stage Three:
Economic and Monetary Union as currently proposed will mean:
As part of the policy review statement at the 1989 Labour Party conference there was a call for closer European cooperation. But the statement rejected both the Delors approach of a European Union, and existing European Monetary policies which make borrowing so expensive that investment in industry is deterred.
Although the statement was passed it was not debated.
It is time the Labour Movement examined closely just what "European Union"
With the likelihood of German unification many - including Jacques Delors - believe that European unification (economic, monetary and political) is more important than ever.
Without it, in an open Europe a strong Germany will prove too powerful.
Conversely others believe that the old divisions between eastern and western Europe are becoming blurred - so that to rush ahead and strengthen the EEC bloc is at best irrelevant, at worst damaging and provocative. Supporters of this view argue that the time is right to put the brakes on the creation of the monolithic, secretive centralised bureaucracies which typify the EEC. Instead we should create a "common European home" from the Atlantic to the Urals which is based on a looser Treaty of voluntary cooperation; a Treaty which enables national and regional economic decision making to have superiority.
A third option of eastern European states joining the EEC is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. The Treaty of Rome is explicitly capitalist based. It is difficult to see eastern European economies abandoning all forms of state or popular control, and giving profit guided decision making full rein in the short term. But pressure from multinational businesses is already forcing big economic restructuring and an enlarged but unreformed EEC cannot be absolutely ruled out.
The labour and trade union movement must consider its response to these options.
But already there are signs that the push toward Stage Two of the Delors programme will be speeded up.
If EEC union proceeds we must demand that all policy decisions rest with elected members accountable to the people for their actions. All officials, particularly Central Bank Governors, must be under the direct control of elected members. As we showed in European Examiner No.5 this best be done by strengthening the control of national parliaments. If national parliaments like Westminster fail to take up this accountability, pressure to increase the powers of the European Parliament will become unstoppable.
Whether EEC union proceeds or not, multinational business chiefs are poised to switch investment away from EEC economies - particularly peripheral ones like northern Britain, to lower cost, well trained workforces in eastern Europe. We need a strategy for dealing with this.
In the next European Examiner we shall consider how we can respond to these big changes, and how we can attempt to re-chart the destiny of Europe in the interests of its people.