Sir, – Gavin Barrett ("Lessons for UK and EU in fractious Juncker episode", July 10th, 2014) indicates with reference to the Spitzenkandidaten procedure that the European Commission is "being subjugated to a majoritarian European Parliament". The inherent concept surrounding the deemed Spitzenkandidat is not based upon a simple majority of MEPs in the European Parliament, but a different approach whereby the candidate nominated by the political grouping winning the most seats is selected. After the elections in May, the largest grouping had 221 MEPs out of a total of 751 MEPs (29 per cent); the next largest grouping has 191 (25 per cent). This is an obviously flawed approach in direct contrast to the typical modus operandi present in national European parliamentary systems.
Furthermore, the total composition of political groupings in the European Parliament is only technically finalised a number of weeks after the election is held. The French politician Marine Le Pen, for example, was involved in efforts to form a new grouping in the parliament in the immediate aftermath of the election result (but failed). Brian Crowley MEP, much to the embarrassment of Fianna Fáil, indicated his allegiance in the parliament for this particular term also in the aftermath of the result.
If a new political grouping were formally declared after the election result that consisted of greater than 29.4 per cent of the total MEPs elected, who is to say who the Spitzenkandidat ought to have been? This may not have been a concern on this occasion, but for future elections with tighter outcomes, it could be relevant.
The central point with respect to this innovation is that this does in effect represent a considerable power grab by the parliament, far beyond its envisaged scope outlined in the EU treaties. It is an illusion to suggest that the citizen is more closely involved in the selection process that would have been the case previously. – Yours, etc,
JOHN KENNEDY,
Knocknashee,
Goatstown, Dublin 14.
Sir, – Simon O’Connor argues (July 7th) that the EU is undemocratic because the names of candidates for the office of commission president are not on the ballot papers of European parliament elections. The names of potential taoisigh don’t appear on the ballot papers in Irish general elections. Does that make Ireland undemocratic? As for his assertion that “people across Europe have repeatedly rejected treaties”, very few member states hold referendums before ratifying treaties. In the past where one or two electorates said no, either the treaty in question was revised through EU-wide renegotiations, or it was resubmitted unchanged to the reluctant voters and they (with a larger turnout) changed their verdict. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL DRURY,
Avenue Louise,
Brussels, Belgium.