One of the least explored angles in the national discussion on European politics lies in the deficient scrutiny by members of the Assembly of the Republic of the positions adopted by the Government in European bodies.
There is no way to avoid the issue: Parliament does not truly scrutinise or monitor the Government’s actions within the European institutional context. And what is most shocking is that it does not do so because it does not want to. That is how it is.
And so the high abstention rates in the European elections or the more or less constant disinterest of the Portuguese in the European decision-making process are not surprising.
But this article, more than about the disinterested, is about the interested. Those who are aware that 80% of national legislation results from decisions adopted in Brussels.
In a way, it is incomprehensible that the Portuguese Parliament continues to be guided by minimum standards when it comes to its intervention in monitoring the European construction process.
This is how Parliament finds itself facing what has come to be known at European level as a “regulatory tsunami”. Little or no account has been taken of Portugal’s involvement in such important legislative issues as the Artificial Intelligence Regulation, the Anti-Deforestation Regulation and the Zero Impact Industry Regulation.
The first point to note is that Parliament exercises the prerogatives it has, which are provided for in Article 12 of the Treaty of Lisbon, on its contribution to the functioning of the Union, very sporadically. In fact, the number of times in the last ten years, Parliament has activated the procedures for monitoring the compatibility of European legislative initiatives with the principle of subsidiarity, what is known as the “yellow card” or “orange card”, can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Likewise, and considering the transversal impact of those dossiers on the national economy, from the agricultural sector to the distribution sector, perhaps we should ask ourselves today: should we not hold debates in the parliamentary committee, prior to the Council meetings in its various and respective formations, with the relevant ministers, with a view to adopting recommendations on each of those dossiers, assessing their impact on the national interest?
With a modicum of will and a minimum of demand, one would say yes.
The Law on Monitoring, Assessment and Pronouncement by the Assembly of the Republic within the scope of the European Union Construction Process (see Law 43/2006) requires the Prime Minister to participate in a debate, in a plenary session, prior to the European Councils, as well as the presence of the Secretary of State for European Affairs, in the week following the European Council meeting.
Now, it is not the European Council that adopts European legislation, it is the Council of the European Union.
The most formalistic will perhaps say that the procedural hearings provided for in the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of the Republic, which are held four times a year, serve this purpose perfectly, since the deputies, in these hearings and in the second round, will be able to ask questions about “the positions to be debated or debated in the ministerial meetings of the Council of the European Union, depending on whether the hearing is held before or after it takes place.”
However, it is enough to attend one or two procedural hearings, regardless of the Minister or parliamentary committee, to be confronted with reality. And the reality is that the second rounds rarely focus on the positions adopted by the Government in the Council of the Union. It is as if these did not exist.
It is perplexing to hear so much criticism of the opacity of the European decision-making process from some parties when it is the parties themselves that are refusing to contribute to Portugal’s position within the Community framework.
In any case, one thing is certain: there are precedents set and good examples to follow.
The Danish Parliament – the the Danish parliament – not only listens to but is listened to in the direction followed by the Danish Government in almost all negotiations on proposed European legislative initiatives.
The lesson to be learned is clear and urgent: either Parliament changes or the country changes without us realizing it.
Until then, we will continue to rely on a lackluster scrutiny of the Government’s actions in European bodies.
Source: expresso.pt
