As the Dáil begins new arrangements for the scrutiny of EU affairs, Denis Staunton examines how the Danes do it
Beneath the copper-roofed towers of Copenhagen's Christiansborg Palace each Friday, Danish ministers face up to five hours of tough questions about what they are up to in Brussels. The Danish parliament's European Affairs Committee not only holds ministers to account for decisions made in Brussels - it can determine in advance how Denmark should vote in the EU Council of Ministers.
The committee's chairman, Mr Claus Larsen-Jensen, argues that such a powerful parliamentary mechanism is essential if the democratic gap between Brussels and the member states is to be bridged. After a visit to Dublin to address the Forum on Europe, he is convinced that Ireland can learn a lot from the Danish system.
"Irish politicians said that nobody cared about what happened in the EU. As long as the Government got as much money out of Brussels as possible, everything was OK. But EU policy is no longer foreign policy, it's domestic policy. If we don't get it integrated, there'll be a conflict between the EU and the nations," he said.
Every time the European Commission makes a proposal, the Danish government forwards it to the European Affairs Committee for discussion.
The government outlines how the proposed measure would affect Danish laws and regulations, and the committee often consults other, specialist parliamentary committees with specific knowledge of the policy area concerned.
Most meetings of the Council of Ministers, where ministers from the 15 member states approve, amend or reject Commission proposals, are held in Brussels on Monday or Tuesday. On the Friday before each Council meeting, the relevant Danish minister asks the European Affairs Committee for a negotiating mandate.
The minister outlines to the committee the mandate he would like and answers questions from the 17 parliamentarians.
The committee does not vote but the members express their views and the chairman tells the minister whether he can negotiate on his preferred mandate or if it should change.
The committee's membership is drawn from all parties in the 179-seat parliament, and because Denmark usually has minority governments, the government cannot rely on a majority in the committee.
Ms Charlotte Antonsen, a Liberal member, says that although the committee is no pushover, it avoids unnecessarily cramping the government's negotiating style.
"The Danes don't just do as they are told but we give broad mandates. It's not like a normal committee," she said.
Earlier this year, the committee forced the Danish government to change its position on whether governments should be allowed to subsidise the wine industry.
"The majority in the committee was against it so Denmark had to vote No," Mr Larsen-Jensen said.
Such conflicts are exceptional, however, because the government takes the committee's views into account while drawing up its negotiating stance.
Because the committee has details of EU proposals at an early stage, its members have an opportunity to influence government policy long before a negotiating position has to be finalised.
Critics of strong parliamentary scrutiny argue that it is unrealistic to bind national governments into pre-agreed negotiating positions.
The complex nature of EU diplomacy means that it is sometimes in member states' national interests to show flexibility on one issue in order to secure a concession on another.
Mr Larsen-Jensen dismisses such concerns and points out that his committee can meet at a few hours' notice if ministers want to change their mandate during negotiations in Brussels. More frequently, Denmark will ask the Council to postpone a decision until its minister can meet the European Affairs Committee to request a change in the mandate.
When a minister returns from a meeting in Brussels, he must report on its outcome to the committee and show that he has been faithful to the agreed negotiating mandate.
Once an EU decision is made, the committee has a role in determining how it should be implemented in Denmark.
The Danish constitution gives great power to ministers, so most EU decisions require changes in regulations rather than new legislation.
The ministers work with the committee to determine which regulations should be changed, and how.
The committee is also informed of any legal challenges launched by the EU against Denmark for failing to implement EU rules.
Denmark is perceived as lukewarm about European integration. It has opted out of the euro, the Rapid Reaction Force and some aspects of EU justice and home affairs policy.
But Danish politicians argue that their system of parliamentary scrutiny ensures that their citizens are better informed than most Europeans about how the EU affects their lives.
Mr Larsen-Jensen maintains that there is no conflict between making the EU work smoothly and enhancing the role of national parliaments in the process.
"We want to make decision-making at a European level more efficient but we must also anchor it more closely in democracy," he said.
In the Convention on the Future of Europe, politicians from around the continent are discussing ways of bringing the EU closer to citizens. Like the Government's representative, Mr Ray MacSharry, Mr Larsen-Jensen believes that national parliaments should be given a more prominent role in EU decision-making. He is proud of his committee's watchdog role but he claims that Denmark and the EU would be better served by giving more power to people like him.
"Our system is not good enough. It's not because we have too much parliamentary influence. It's because we have too little," he said.