153 / 262
THE VEDEL REPORT ON REFORM OF
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
ERWAN FOUERE comments on the recent important report on the EEC institutions
An extension of the legislative powers of the Euro-
pean Parliament, direct involvement in the appoint-
ment of the Commission, implementation of Article
138 of the Rome Treaty providing for direct election
of the European Parliament—these are some of the re-
commendations contained in the recently published
Vedel report which recognises the need for an overall
strengthening of the powers of the Parliament so as
to ensure a greater participation in the institutional
framework of the community.
Composition of group
The Vedel group—Professor Georges Vedel of Paris
University was its chairman—was established by the
Commission towards the end of last year and given the
task of examining the future role and powers of the
European Parliament consequent on enlargement and
its relation with the other community institutions. It
was composed of fourteen eminent lawyers and consti-
tutional professors from the six member countries and
the four applicants; Senator Mary Robinson was the
Irish representative on the group. Over 120 pages long,
the report covers a wide area putting forward a con-
siderable amount of recommendations and proposals.
Present position—Council sole decision-making power
It begins by casting a hard look at what the Com-
munity has already achieved since 1958, and enumer-
ates the areas where little or no progress has been made
so far, or where action on a European Community level
is just starting, such as regional policy and economic
and monetary union. After setting the context it goes
on to examine the position and powers of the Com-
munity Institutions set up by the Paris and Rome
Treaties, and comes to the conclusion that the Council
of Ministers has reached a point where it is now the
sole centre of decision-making within the Community,
to the detriment of the Commission. The Commission's
power of initiative and the substance of its proposals
are considerably diminished as a consequence. The
Parliament, at present a body with purely consultative
powers, is also affected by this preponderance of the
Council of Ministers in the decision-making process;
the lines of political communication are much more
direct with the Commission, on which it has a certain
control, than with the Council of Ministers.
The report also points out that the decision-making
process as now operating erodes the functions of the
National Parliaments without at the same time replacing
this function on the Community level—'the logic of any
democratic system requires that this decrease in parlia-
mentary powers on a national level should be replaced
in some way on the European level'.
Need to strengthen European Parliament
This brings the group to state unequivocally that
there is a grave need for the powers of the European
Parliament to be strengthened in view of the new areas
of activity at European community level, notably
economic and monetary union.
The Vedel group's proposals to ameliorate and induce
some democratic control into the Community Institu-
tional System are based mainly on an extension of the
Legislative Powers of the Parliament. Although the
Council of Ministers would continue to be the main
legislative organ of the community, in certain cases a
power of co-decision would be attributed to the Parlia-
ment. The report proposes two stages in this develop-
ment. In the first stage, the Parliament would receive
a power of co-decision with the Council of Ministers
in the following matters: revision of the treaties,
application of article 235 of the EEC Rome Treaty,
(new actions not expressly covered by the treaty but
which are required for a proper functioning of the
Community), admission of new members, and ratifica-
tion of international treaties concluded by the com-
munity. During this first stage, the European Parlia-
ment would also receive a consultative power reinforced
by a suspensive veto in areas of community policy deal-
ing with harmonisation of legislation and common
policies, transport policy, etc. This would allow the
Parliament to demand a second deliberation on a
decision taken by the Council of Ministers. The Council
of Ministers would then have to proceed with a second
deliberation; its subsequent decision would be final and
executive.
In the second stage, this suspensive veto power in the
areas listed would be turned into a power of co-
decision alongside the four main areas where co-decision
is allowed already in the first stage.
No
timetable provided for direct election
On the question of the method of election of the
European Parliament, it is significant that the group
were unanimous in stating that direct elections of the
European Parliament should not be regarded as a pre-
condition to the strengthening of its powers. As the
report says, it is not a change in the method of recruit-
ment of the Parliament which will automatically rein-
force its powers. Rather, once the progress towards an
increase in the powers of the Parliament has been
advanced, the logical follow-up will be the immediate
application of article 138 of the Rome Treaty. It is
perhaps a pity, however, that the report doesn't bring
out a precise timetable for this implementation. But
the report does include the opinion of some members
of the group who were in favour of an implementa-
tion of direct elections by 1978; others felt, however,
that the complex preparatory procedure would depend
on political circumstances difficult to evaluate in any
precise manner. As to the actual method whereby the
parliamentarians would be directly elected, the group
agreed that, as a transitory measure, the elections could
be carried out according to each country's electoral
system. Two members of the group, however, came out
strongly in favour of a uniform electoral system with
the least possible delay. They felt that this would
facilitate the creation of political parties on a Euro-
pean level.
It is difficult to know what sort of decision, if any,
152