written by Arnaud HERVE

There are those who oppose anything European, those who accept anything European as providence, but there are also those in-between who desire a stronger Europe, while keeping a critical attitude as regards its democratic deficit. For the critical Europhiles, it was very good news indeed when the “European political parties” were created.

They are also labelled “European parties a European level” or “Europarties”. They were were embryonic in the treaty of Maastricht in 1992 (section 41), confirmed in the treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 (Article J.18 and Article K.13), but it is really the treaty of Nice in 2001 (Article 2, section 19) that granted them an autonomous status.

Why then, you may ask, are they practically unknown throughout Europe, and why don’t they even appear during European elections? The reason is simple: according to their status, the “European political parties” are not allowed to participate to any election. Not at the European level, not at the national level, not at the local level. Nada, nichts, rien du tout.

What do they do then? Well, they organize meetings, and they issue statements. Most of which remain unheard of even by the sympathizers of those parties.

But at least, can a citizen of EU member state participate in order to express his/her dedication at the European level, through European citizenship? Well no, the meetings can only consist of delegates of national parties. Grassroots members are allowed of course… but as observers only. They cannot participate in the votes on the final statements.

As for funding, receiving money from the national parties is strictly forbidden. Only the European Commission controls their funding. Recently, they have been allowed to create foundations and raise money for them, but this resulted in obscure think tanks not known, not controlled by grassroot members, not accountable to them.

To give you the whole story, from behind the curtains, prior to the Nice treaty the “European political parties” were already mere temporary meetings, but they were funded and controlled by the various parliamentary groups in the European parliament, thanks to the important budgets they have. The Nice treaty politically severed the two and financially reduced the budgets, thereby making the emergence of a Europe-wide political opinion more difficult.

Among the intricate galaxy of quangos, consultative bodies and such that surround the European Commission in Brussels, I chose this one to exemplify two principles:

1) Beware of wording. A party that cannot run in elections is not a party, in common language. In the European treaties, every phrase has to be investigated to discover the truth;
2) For an authentically, and not superficially democratic Europe, not much can be hoped from the present European institutions. Not even participating as a minority from the inside.

For a truly democratic society, words must have a meaning. Otherwise you can’t debate, and you can’t produce sense. Therefore, saying No will not destroy Europe, it will bring back meaning.

We can have various opinions, but we must agree on the meanings of words. A No can be conceived as better for Europe.