Rights and obligations
In the few remaining areas (currently ‘special legislative procedures’), Parliament will either have the right of consent to a Council measure, or vice-versa. Certain areas where the old consultation procedure applied, will remain apart, with the Council
simply needing to consult the European Parliament before voting on Commission proposals and to take its views into account. In those cases, the Council would not be bound by Parliament’s decision, only by the obligation to consult it. However, Parliament would need to be consulted again if the Council deviated too far from the initial proposal. In addition, the new treaty confirms the established practice of working with a multi-annual financial framework, which Parliament will have to approve in future. But Parliament’s authority would be extended from ‘non-compulsory’ expenditure to include the budget in its entirety. On the other hand, the Commission would no longer be obliged to submit a preliminary draft budget to the Council, but to submit the budget proposal directly. This innovation creates a new balance between the Council and the Parliament when approving the EU’s budget: both will determine all expenditure together and the Parliament’s authority will be extended to include compulsory expenditure.

Information gap
Proponents of the Treaty of Lisbon claim that the increase of the directly elected Parliament’s power and relevance would make the decision making process more democratic. Their consideration is based mainly on research indications, which demonstrate that elections to the European Parliament are routinely turned into ‘second order’ elections in which concerns about national governments – or, more recently, issues handled by national governments – are aired. This is because intense efforts to stimulate electoral participation tend to encourage symbolic rather than substantive politics. In addition, there was an information gap created by a number of journalists who knew little about the EU; accordingly, parliamentarians had to work very hard to raise their profile. As a result, citizens (the majority of whom are aware, according to polls, of the increasing importance of the European Parliament) still turned out for direct elections in declining numbers. Thus, strengthening the democratic control by the European Parliament and expanding its powers, would extend majority voting and extenuate democratic deficit.

Countering opposition
Opponents argue that it is simply false that the European Parliament is weak. This is because executive dominance (which is the current situation at EUlevel) is simply a reproduction of the informal situation in the member states. Critics also observe that the European Parliament has already acquired something of a de facto scrutinising role where the conduct of Commissioners is concerned. This is evidenced, according to them, by the resignation of the Santer Commission in 1999 under EP pressure in addition to explicit powers to veto Commission line-ups (used mainly in 2004 against the Barrosso Commission). However, it should not be ignored that the rule of law requires legislative provisions; factual circumstances cannot fulfil the principles of democracy. Other counter arguments, such as those of the British think-tank Open Europe and the former Danish MEP Jens- Peter Bonde, are that the Treaty, if ratified, will centralise the EU and weaken democracy by moving power further away from national electorates. They seem to ignore the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon’s aim is to promote the role of national parliaments, not to create a European ‘super state’. Besides, this is an international treaty agreed by sovereign member states that consent to share some of their sovereignty in supranational cooperation and acknowledge that the Union reflects the will of the member states and their citizens, and that its powers stem from these states. As Professor Nicolaïdis rightly says, the EU remains more than a confederation of sovereign states with its peoples being connected through the European Parliament and a regional civil society. The Lisbon Treaty is going to continue bridging the gap between remote EU institutions and the citizens of member states. It establishes a clearer distribution of powers between the Union and its states, which will make it easier for citizens to understand ‘who does what’. In addition, the Treaty strengthens the democratic control of the European Union by its directly elected body, the European Parliament, thus ensuring that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizens of the Union. As a result, the ‘them and us’ mentality is brought to an end and the Union becomes stronger and more effective.

Maria Ath Alexopoulou is a PhD Candidate

For example, the leading British tabloid newspapers, notably The Sun and The Daily Mail continually portray the EU as an ineffective Soviet-esque bureaucracy that operates from Brussels and threatens to disrupt the very fabric of life in the UK. Furthermore, this approach is not only restricted to tabloid journalism; the position taken by the ‘quality press’ is not much better and in reality, it is only The Independent that makes any attempt to portray the EU in a positive light.¹

Consequently, it is questionable whether we should accept the position of groups such as the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which advocate that the interests of this country would be better served if we withdrew entirely from the EU. This paper will briefly consider the consequences of an imaginary UK withdrawal from the European Union. It will be argued that not only would such a measure be extremely harmful to British interests but it would also represent an exercise in futility.

The Nuclear Option: Withdrawal
Imagine this hypothetical situation: at the next General Election UKIP has won a large enough majority in the House of Commons to permit the newly elected Prime Minister, Nigel Lafarge, to successfully pass legislation that revokes British membership of the European Union. Although the initial media reaction is positive and the new PM is immediately hailed as a ‘national hero’ by The Sun and favourably compared to Winston Churchill by The Daily Mail, the celebrations are premature, and as The Independent correctly predicts, the PM’s political triumph is short-lived.

Mr Lafarge fails to fully realise the implications of his actions until they are too late. The morning after enactment of the legislation, reports reach Downing Street that British citizens are being refused entry into or the right to leave any foreign country. At first, the PM thinks this is a joke – but apparently, the joke, if there is one, is on him. Since 1986, all British Passports have been standardised so as to conform to other EU Member States and bear the words ‘European Union.’ Consequently, by withdrawing from the Union, all British Citizens are stripped of their rights under Article 17 and 18 of the EC Treaty as EU Citizens and hence, their passports are invalid.

By lunchtime, the PM is given further bad news. Aside from the outbreak of riots at the major transport terminuses and reports of desperate British citizens stranded abroad, it is announced that all of the main multinational corporations that have their headquarters in London are to relocate to Frankfurt. As the UK is no longer a Member of the EU, the laws of the single market no longer apply. Consequently, the UK is deemed as an inappropriate place to undertake trans-European business. Furthermore, the provision of cross-border services between EU States, and the now independent UK, is also required to cease, whilst those British individuals who have established businesses in other States of the Union are informed that these too are also at risk of forcible closure.

The PM is left in a desperate situation. He knows that reapplying for EU Membership is not an option and instead tries to negotiate a British re-entry into the European Free Trade Area (EFTA). Although the UK is eventually readmitted to EFTA, it is a lengthy process and irreparable harm is done to the British economy. In the meantime Lafarge’s popularity continues to fall and he faces rebellion from his own Party when it emerges that a consequence of the European Economic Area Agreement, which the UK has been forced to sign to allow the country to participate in the single market, has meant that the UK continues to be partially bound by the Acquis communautaire of the EU , yet is denied any actual representation in the EU institutions.

Six months later, the PM is forced to call an election and is swept from office in a landslide defeat. The incoming Government immediately renegotiates a British re-entry to the EU, which according to a Eurobarometer poll is now supported by 99% of the populace.

Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale
The example above is, of course, pure fantasy. However, it is worth remembering that whilst many UK nationals are hostile to EU Membership, we have become accustomed to the rights and freedoms provided by the EC Treaty. Although withdrawal from the Union may win support from populist groups, the author argues that it is neither in the political nor economic interests of the UK to take such action.

Ben gained a first class law degree from Kent and is now studying for a Taught LLM in Medical Law and Ethics.

1. Testing oneeeeee