One suspects on a purely impressionist basis that not 10 percent of United States citizens could identify the European Union (EU) if asked in a poll.
Some Background
Essentially the EU, starting from modest origins, evolved into a monstrously naïve, monstrously ambitious, and monstrously complex organization that defies ability to describe coherently.In its own right, drawing on Wikipedia sourcing, the European Parliament is the only parliamentary institution of the EU that is directly elected by EU citizens. Together with the European Commission and the Council of the European Union (the Council, which should not be confused with the European Council and the non-EU Council of Europe organization), the parliament exercises the tripartite legislative function of the European Union.
The legislature has a voice in some of the biggest issues facing the European Union. It approves senior officials, it signs off on Europe’s massive budget, and delves into detailed lawmaking as reflected in sweeping data privacy rules instituted last year (affecting operations well beyond European borders). It has been the source of niggling and immensely irritating rules and regulations that have infuriated member countries and particularly the UK.
While the European Parliament has legislative power as does the Council, it does not formally possess legislative initiative which is the prerogative of the European Commission, as most member states retain such. The Parliament shares equal legislative and budgetary powers with the Council. It likewise has equal control over the EU budget. Finally, the European Commission, the Executive Body of the EU (with executive powers but no legislative ones other than legislative initiatives) is accountable to Parliament.
Got it?
Essentially, the EU structures have evolved without a clear master plan. Tom Reid of the Washington Post said, “nobody would have deliberately designed a government as complex or redundant as the EU.”
And Now to the European Parliamentary Election
Under this collage, between May 23-26, the 28 EU members held their first election in five years. Uniquely, parties do not sit as nation states but rather as political groupings. Thus, you have under various, often vague, nondescriptive identifications: Conservatives, Socialists, Greens, and assorted less prominent parties, all with individual agendas.The election is remarkable in its own right—second only to India in the number of eligible citizens. Moreover, in contrast to steady declines in participation since 1999, participation in this year’s election spiked to almost 51 percent up from 42.6 percent. It is unclear immediately whether this year’s election indicated new passions, new anxieties, new interest in “Europe,” or all of the foregoing.
The outcome of the fragmented electorate and election provided much ground for alternative explanation. In the United States, for example, the Wall Street Journal headlined “Pro EU parties hold fragmented majority in European parliament.”
The Washington Post suggested “With biggest turnout in quarter-century, EU elections skew less centrist.”
And the Washington Times declared “Polarized voters pick far right, Green candidates.”
But all of the alternative explanations are correct.
And What Does It Mean for the United States?
Essentially very little. It is not an event of little consequence in far-away lands. Nor is it an assembly of the “Carjackistan” states of the former Soviet Union. It is an illustration of the aphorism “all politics are local” and a recognition the United States has the same level of specific concern that Belgians/Italians/Germans/Hungarians, and so on have in the internal politics of Ohio.To be sure, Washington has and will have problems with European countries and organizations, but these are a function of specific national controversies rather than any issues generated by the European Parliament.
