From - Tue Jul 2 10:47:14 1996 Message-ID: <31D8F022.2929@th.ph.ed.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 10:47:14 +0100 From: jon ivar skullerud Organization: Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b4 (X11; I; SunOS 5.4 sun4m) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: talk.politics.european-union,alt.politics.ec,eunet.politics,soc.culture.europe Followup-To: talk.politics.european-union,alt.politics.ec,eunet.politics Subject: Re: Subsidiarity References: <4r8g0n$1hue@sol.caps.maine.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 5923 Status: RO Scott Erb wrote: > > In recent discussions on the European Union, one point of potential agreement > between Euroskeptics and pro-EU positions is the need for subsidiarity. It is both a point of potential agreement between the two positions, and a point of potential disagreement within the two "camps" > "Euroskeptics" see it as an illusion, a term without substance, masking the > building of an undemocratic superstate. Pro-integrationists see it as a way > to decentralize power will centralizing other governmental functions such as > monetary and trade policy. Perhaps painting with a broad brush there, since both sceptics and pro-integrationists come in many shapes and colours. But you're right in that most sceptics will have a tendency to see it as just empty words. > My question: What do people think subsidiarity means now (practically), and > what should it mean. Could a working definition of subsidiarity, if > implemented, qualm the fears of some "euroskeptics"? A working definition might dispell the fears of some, but it would also inevitably open up new arguments over how far decisions should be devolved and what powers should be devolved. I am of the opinion that subsidiarity should not stop at the nation state, or at the region, county, or district, but go right down to the neighbourhood where appropriate. This is to me the most sensible interpretation of the phrase 'decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen.' But implementing it and enforcing within the framework of the EU would mean European institutions meddling in the constitutions of member states, which will not be acceptable to those states. I am also of the opinion that decisions should mean not only political, but also economic decisions, which means that multinationals or big national conglomerates should not have the power to determine the fate of local communities. But devolving economic power would run counter to the whole idea of the Single Market, so I see no prospect whatsoever of implementing real subsidiarity within the EU. I (a Eurosceptic) also find myself in total disagreement on almost all points of substance with those Eurosceptics in the British Tory party who only see subsidiarity as a way of grabbing power back to the level of the UK superstate and will have no truck with devolution or subsidiarity even down to the nations of the UK - and who want to see the unhibited free play of market forces on the world arena, making a nonsense of any idea of economic self-determination. I think the closest we have come to a working definiton of subsidiarity is the declaration from the Edinburgh summit in 1992. I am not aware of any significant developments on that point since then, so I think the comments I made on that declaration still stand: ------ The decisions on subsidiarity and transparency should mark the beginning of a process of making the EC more `user-friendly' and bringing it closer to the citizens. If these aims were achieved, this would be a great achievement of the Edinburgh summit. The question is: How much is only words and how much is substance? The essence of the principle of subsidiarity is spelled out in the second sentence of the decision on this: It `contributes to the respect for the national identities of the Member States and safeguards their powers'. Although the next sentence states that the principle `aims at decisions ... being taken as close to the citizens as possible', there is no mention of regionalisation of decentralisation within member states. It is repeatedly made clear that the powers already conferred to the EC are not called into question, important areas like competition policy are not to be affected, neither should the primacy of EC law or the aquis communautaire be questioned. The single market and the aim of economic cohesion have priority to the principle of subsidiarity. When this is noted, it must be said that the conlusion from Edinburgh does contain several positive elements. The principle of subsidiarity is defined in article 3B in the EC Treaty, introduced at Maastricht. This article contains two main points: 1. In areas that do not fall within its exclusive competence, the EC shall act only if the objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states, and 2. Any action must not go beyond what is necessary. In the conclusion from Edinburgh, it is made absolutely clear that compliance with this principle is subject to control by the Court, the Commission shall monitor the observance of the principle and justify all proposals it makes, and the Council shall make subsidiarity considerations an integral part of any decision it makes. Some explicit guidelines are also stated, including conditions for action --- eg, presenting a single position of the EC vis-a-via third countries is not a sufficient justification, while strengthening economic and social cohesion or regulating issues with transnational aspects will normally be. Any claim that an objective cannot be sufficiently achieved by member states, and can be better handled by the Community, must be substantiated by qualitative or quantitative indicators. As much scope as possible is to be left to national decision: Framework directives, encouraging cooperation or supporting national action is preferred to detailed regulations, and common standards should be minimum standards, leaving the member states free to set higher national standards. -- ______ ______________________________________ / | | | jon | jon ivar skullerud | \______ | | \ | jonivar@th.ph.ed.ac.uk | ivar | | http://www.ph.ed.ac.uk/~jonivar/ | _______/ |______________________________________|