. 1 No. 41 (773), 23 April 2015 © PISM Editors: Marcin Zaborowski (Editor-in-Chief) . Katarzyna Staniewska (Managing Editor) Jarosław Ćwiek-Karpowicz . Aleksandra Gawlikowska-Fyk . Artur Gradziuk . Dariusz Kałan Piotr Kościński . Sebastian Płóciennik . Patrycja Sasnal . Marcin Terlikowski The “Green Card” Opportunity: Time to Rethink Parliamentary Engagement in EU Affairs Karolina Borońska-Hryniewiecka National parliamentarians, together with their European Union counterparts, will gather in Riga at the turn of May and June 2015, to discuss ways in which to strengthen the role of parliaments in EU governance. One of the ideas is the so-called “green card,” enabling national parliaments to make suggestions for EU legislative proposals. Yet, as the climate of distrust between national parliaments and the European Parliament (EP) increases, the project might not get past the debating stage. In such a case, parliaments will either have to re-define their role in the EU, or they will hang as toothless watchdogs in the institutional limbo. Amidst complaints about the EU’s democratic deficit and lack of transparency, hardly anybody today questions the need to strengthen parliamentary oversight of EU policy-making. Yet, while the Treaty of Lisbon formally equipped national parliaments with powers to scrutinise EU legislation, five years down the line there is little satisfaction as regards parliamentary engagement in European affairs. Due to its narrow scope, the so-called Early Warning System (EWS) for subsidiarity control does not guarantee them the desired influence at EU level. Moreover, institutional reforms such as the Fiscal Pact and the European Stability Mechanism, adopted outside the EU legal framework (thus outside parliamentary scrutiny) have further weakened parliamentary leverage in economic and fiscal governance. While the new leadership of the European Commission (EC) has placed special emphasis on forging a new partnership with parliaments, it has been accompanied by arguments for a more central role for the EP. Such a prospect does not seem to satisfy parliamentarians, who have come up with the more innovative proposal of a “green card,” based on a proactive approach towards EU policy-making. However, despite initial enthusiasm, the last few months of testing the waters suggest that the idea has little chance of being put into operation. The reasons are manifold, but the most important ones are the lack of a unified parliamentary approach to EU affairs and strained relations with the EP. The Green Card Fantasy. The idea of a green card, put forward and endorsed by several national chambers including the British House of Lords (HoL), the Danish Folketing and the Dutch Tweede Kamer, foresees a way for a group of national parliaments working together to make constructive suggestions for EU policy initiatives, or for reviewing and repealing existing EU legislation. In principle, to qualify as a green card a proposal should gain an agreed number of signatories within a specified period of time, and be delivered to the EC within the existing infrastructure of a “political dialogue,” through which parliaments and the EC exchange views on the contents of EU policy proposals. According to the author, such a solution would not require a treaty change. Similarly to the European Citizens Initiative, the EC would consider a green card by publishing a formal response stating whether it intends to take the proposed action or not, and give reasons for its decision. In January 2015, the EU Committee of the HoL even put forward three proposals for a trial green card to be considered by national parliaments on issues including food waste regulation, cross-border bank transaction fees and the creation of a European Business Forum. The EC’s reaction to the green card initiative has been careful. While in June 2014 it expressed its readiness to consider national parliaments’ input concerning possible EU legislation or reviews thereof, EC vice-president Frans Timmermans wrote a letter to the Latvian Saeima in February 2015 that clearly changed the tone. The letter stated