Advertisement

Ten Years of an Elected European Parliament

  • Juliet Lodge

Abstract

Vilified as impotent, irrelevant and a waste of time and money, the European Parliament receives arguably the worst press of all parliaments within the boundaries of the European Community. Negative and undeserved as its poor image is in many states, the third elections to the European Parliament held on 15 and 18 June 1989 overturned popular media portrayals and expectations of the European Parliament overnight. In Britain, in particular (where turnout was only a few percentage points above the 1984 and 1979 levels and where it remained the lowest of any EC state), the transformation in expectations of the widely misrepresented EP was astounding. Moreover, there were hints of a similar transformation of expectations even in countries where turnout had fallen below the 1984 levels and in which such decline was partly attributed to the relatively weak powers conferred on the EP. Ten years after its first direct election the EP had come of age. But why had it taken so long for its potential to be recognised? Why, moreover, after ten years of pundits insisting that Euro-elections were little more than second-order national elections did the EP acquire a clear ‘European’ image when its Members (MEPs) almost without exception had been elected on platforms in campaigns fought predominantly on national issues?

Keywords

Member State European Council Institutional Reform National Parliament Democratic Legitimacy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 3.
    P. Cecchini (ed.), The European Challenge of 1992: the benefits of a single market ( Aldershot: Gower, 1988 ).Google Scholar
  2. 7.
    J. Lodge and V. Herman, Direct Elections to the European Parliament: A Community Perspective (London: Macmillan, 1982) especially Chap. 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 9.
    J. Lodge (ed.), European Union: the EC in Search of a Future (London: Macmillan, 1986 )Google Scholar
  4. R. Bieber et al., An Ever Closer Union ( Brussels: EC Commission, 1985 ).Google Scholar
  5. 11.
    See J. Lodge, ‘The European Parliament — from ‘assembly’ to co-legislature: changing the institutional dynamics’, in J. Lodge (ed.), The European Community and the Challenge of the Future ( London: Pinter, 1989 ) pp. 58–81.Google Scholar
  6. 12.
    J. Lodge, ‘The European Parliament after Direct Elections: Talking- Shop or Putative Legislature?’, Journal of European Integration, 5 (1982) 259-84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. M. Palmer, ‘The development of the European Parliament’s Institutional Role within the European Community, 1974–83’,JEI, 5 (1982) 183-202.Google Scholar
  8. S. Steppat, ‘Execution of Functions by the European Parliament in its first electoral period’, JEI, 12 (1989) 5 - 34.Google Scholar
  9. 16.
    R. Cardozo and R. Corbett, ‘The Crocodile initiative’, in J. Lodge (ed.), European Union: the EC in Search of a Future ( London: Macmillan, 1986 ) pp. 15 - 46.Google Scholar
  10. 18.
    J. Lodge (ed.), Direct Elections to the European Parliament 1984 ( London: Macmillan, 1986 ).Google Scholar
  11. 19.
    See Ad Hoc Committee for Institutional Affairs, Report to the European Council (Brussels, 29–30 March 1985 ).Google Scholar
  12. 21.
    R. Corbett, ‘The 1985 Intergovernmental Conference and the Single European Act’, in R. Pryce (ed.), The Dynamics of European Union ( Beckenham: Croom Helm, 1987 ) pp. 238–72.Google Scholar
  13. 22.
    W. Nicoll, ‘La procedure de concertation entre le Parlement européen et le Conseil’, Revue du Marché Commun, no. 293, 1986, 3–10.Google Scholar
  14. 23.
    W. Nicoll, ‘Les procedures Luns-Westerterp pour l’information du parlement européen’, Revue du Marché Commun, no. 300, 475–6.Google Scholar
  15. 25.
    For details see J. Lodge in J. Lodge (ed.), The European Community and the Challenge of the Future (London: Pinter, 1989), op.cit.Google Scholar
  16. 27.
    See R. Bieber, ‘Legislative Procedure for the establishment of the Single Market’, Common Market Law Review, 25 (1988) p. 716.Google Scholar
  17. 30.
    J. Lodge, ‘The European Parliament in Election Year’, European Access, 1989: 2, 10.Google Scholar
  18. Draft Report on the Institutional Consequences of the costs of non-Europe, Explanatory Statement, 1987, PE.118.040/corr.en. and chapter by F. Dehousse, in R. Bieber et al., (eds), 1992: One European Market? (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1988).Google Scholar
  19. 33.
    K. H. Reif (ed.), European Elections 1979/81 and 1984 ( Berlin: Quorum, 1984 ).Google Scholar
  20. 34.
    M. Shackleton, ‘The Budget of the European Community’, in J. Lodge (ed.), The European Community and the Challenge of the Future ( London and New York: Pinter and St. Martin’s, 1989 ).Google Scholar
  21. 37.
    G. Loewenberg (ed.), Modern Parliaments: Change or Decline? (New York: Aldine—Atherton, 1971).Google Scholar
  22. A. Kornberg and L. D. Musolf (eds). Legislatures in Developmental Perspective (Durham: Duke University Press, 1970 )Google Scholar
  23. L. Mezey, Comparative Legislatures ( Durham: Duke University Press, 1979 ).Google Scholar
  24. 38.
    V. Herman and J. Lodge, The European Parliament and the European Community (London and New York: Macmillan and St. Martin’s, 1978 ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 39.
    E. Grabitz, et al.,Direktwahl und Demokratisierung ( Bonn: Europa Union Verlag, 1988 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Juliet Lodge 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juliet Lodge

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations