EUSA Review Summer 2004 1 EUSA REVIEW EUROPEAN UNION STUDIES ASSOCIATION Vol. 17, No.3 ISSN 1535-7031 Summer 2004 www.eustudies.org Information and Ideas on the European Union EUSA Review Forum The European Parliament: Taking Stock after the June 2004 Elections ON JUNE 10-13, 2004, voters in the 25 member states elected a new European Parliament (EP). Five days later, governments agreed on a Constitution for the EU that reinforces the legislative role of the EP in numerous areas. This is a unique occasion to reflect on the evolution of dynamics within the European Parliament and on its relations with other EU institutions. This Forum gathers four recognized experts on the EP and European elections to take stock of changes and continuities in the practices of members of the EP. First, Niilo Kauppi analyzes the key features on the 2004 election campaigns, underscoring previous patterns: low turnout in elections instrumentalized as mid-term elections for the parties in government and the use of celebrities to gather the vote. Next, Michael Shackleton revisits the last five years to underline the evolution of the role of the EP in the institutional triangle with the Commission and Council. Its increased working relationship with the Council spurred by the co-decision procedure has the potential to leave the Commission less influential on shaping policy output. Olivier Costa focuses on the party dynamics within the EP during the last mandate. While confirming that voting patterns have not changed drastically, he observes some changes in coalitions. Finally, Simon Hix looks towards the future. In his view, although the June results have not significantly altered the partisan composition of the EP and the strength of the main parties, he points to the broader picture; a Center-Right Parliament working with a Council dominated by Center-Right governments and potentially a Commission with many Center-Left representatives. The overall Right-wing partisan balance of three major EU institutions may generate decisions reflecting an ideological standpoint much clearer to read and comprehend for the European voters in the 2009 elections. -Virginie Guiraudon, EUSA Forum Editor ‘Europe’: A Side Issue in European Parliamentary Election Campaigns Niilo Kauppi IT IS A PARADOX, but while the powers of the European Parliament have increased substantially since the first direct elections in 1979, electoral participation has plummeted - from 63 per cent in 1979, to 48.4 per cent in 1999, and 45.3 per cent today. The reasons for this high level of abstention are well known: the political stakes are low, there is a public lack of knowledge about the issues, and a distrust of ‘faceless’ Brussels bureaucrats. It is no surprise that in 2004, party campaigns chose to ‘remedy’ the situation by concentrating on domestic issues and promoting celebrity candidates in almost all member states. Although all member states use proportional voting in European elections, national variations in the size of the electoral district and the types of proportional systems used shape candidates’ political campaigns. In the 2004 twenty-five separate elections for the European Parliament, voters chose between over 14,600 candidates vying for 732 seats. The British and Dutch voted first (June 10), followed by the Irish (June 11), the Czechs (June 11 and 12), the Latvians and Maltese (June 12), and the Italians (June 12 and 13). The remaining eighteen member states cast their votes on June 13. In Germany, Italy and the UK, European elections coincided with local elections, in Lithuania with presidential elections, in Luxemburg with parliamentary elections, and in Ireland with a referendum. Competing media events like the Euro 2004 soccer tournament also influenced the European vote. In the host country Portugal, the Euro 2004 tournament totally eclipsed the European Parliament campaign. As it happens, this contest ended prematurely on June 9 when the top candidate for the opposition Socialist Party died of a heart attack while on the campaign trail. Domestic issues and quarrels dominated electoral campaigns in all twenty-five member-states. Traditionally, European elections have served as a vote of confidence or no-confidence in the ruling government and in the European Union as a whole. In Italy and the UK, campaigns centered on domestic issues and involvement in the Iraq war. In Italy, the debate turned into a duel between Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and former President of the European Commission Romano Prodi. In Spain, the Socialists, having pulled Spanish troops out of Iraq, continued criticizing the Conservatives for their war-mongering. In the UK, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s pro- European line was under fire. Former Labor MP and number-one candidate in the anti-European UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) Robert Kilroy-Silk called for a withdrawal of the UK from the EU. In France, the elections turned into a vote of confidence in President Jacques Chirac’s social and economic policies. In Sweden as in neighboring Denmark, nationalists and anti-Europeans challenged the pro-European policies of their respective governments. Although in general pro-European, the Swedish public also deeply distrusts the EU, which is seen as a threat to the welfare state. Only in some member-states like Finland - the exception that proves the rule - have European elections not functioned as a vote of confidence in the government. Here, the issues debated included the fate of social security, EU structural funds, agriculture, and the future of non-alignment. (continued on p. 3)