The 222 members of the Committee of the Regions are not directly elected by the people. The Council3appoints them for a four year term on proposal of the member states.4Each member state itself decides how to chose the representatives in the CoR: Some of the countries, like Germany, Austria and, to a certain extend, Spain, leave this matter to the regions and the municipalities themselves.5One example, how the representatives can be elected, is to be seen in the German region (Land) Schleswig-Holstein. Like in every German Land, the Landtag, the directly elected regional parliament, decides about the representative in the CoR. In 2001, the members of the parliament voted for minister-president Heide Simonis.6So, the directly elected members of the parliament decided who should represent the people’s interest on the European level. Indirectly, everybody had an influence on the decision by taking part on the regional election.
On the other hand, in some states, like France and the United Kingdom, the national government decides about the members of the Committee of the Regions.7In the United Kingdom, the Foreign Office co-ordinates the list of its 24 full and alternate members in the Committee of the Regions. It is able to appoint members form the range of UK local authorities but also from the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland and the Welsh Assembly.8
According to the rules of the CoR, the representatives send to the institution should reflect the political, geographical and regional/local balance in the respective member state.9Although e.g. the UK government says that the political and regional balance are considered when the members of the Committee are appointed10, the regions and municipalities do not have the power to decide on their own who should represent the region’s interest on the European level. Their representative does not necessarily reflect the political colour of the majority in the region when the central government appoints the members of the CoR without having to consider the regions themselves.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Committee of the Regions
3. Is the Committee of the Regions undemocratic?
4. Is the Committee of the Regions a talking workshop to give the idea of consultation and decentralisation?
5. Gives the Committee of the Regions failed politicians and ideas a resting home?
6. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This essay evaluates the validity of the critical statement labeling the Committee of the Regions (CoR) as an undemocratic, ineffective body designed primarily as a repository for failed politicians. The research aims to analyze the structural democracy of the CoR, its actual powers in influencing European legislation, and the professional background of its members to determine if the institution truly serves as a meaningful mechanism for regional representation or merely as a symbolic "talking workshop."
- Analysis of the democratic legitimacy and election procedures of CoR members across different EU member states.
- Evaluation of the CoR's formal powers, advisory role, and its influence on EU decision-making.
- Examination of the "subsidiarity principle" and the role of the CoR in monitoring its application.
- Assessment of the professional profile of committee members to counter claims regarding the institution serving as a "resting home" for failed politicians.
- Discussion on the unequal political weight of different European regions and the resulting democratic implications.
Excerpt from the Book
Is the Committee of the Regions undemocratic?
The 222 members of the Committee of the Regions are not directly elected by the people. The Council appoints them for a four year term on proposal of the member states. Each member state itself decides how to chose the representatives in the CoR: Some of the countries, like Germany, Austria and, to a certain extend, Spain, leave this matter to the regions and the municipalities themselves.
One example, how the representatives can be elected, is to be seen in the German region (Land) Schleswig-Holstein. Like in every German Land, the Landtag, the directly elected regional parliament, decides about the representative in the CoR. In 2001, the members of the parliament voted for minister-president Heide Simonis. So, the directly elected members of the parliament decided who should represent the people’s interest on the European level. Indirectly, everybody had an influence on the decision by taking part on the regional election.
On the other hand, in some states, like France and the United Kingdom, the national government decides about the members of the Committee of the Regions. In the United Kingdom, the Foreign Office co-ordinates the list of its 24 full and alternate members in the Committee of the Regions. It is able to appoint members form the range of UK local authorities but also from the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland and the Welsh Assembly.
According to the rules of the CoR, the representatives send to the institution should reflect the political, geographical and regional/local balance in the respective member state. Although e.g. the UK government says that the political and regional balance are considered when the members of the Committee are appointed, the regions and municipalities do not have the power to decide on their own who should represent the region’s interest on the European level. Their representative does not necessarily reflect the political colour of the majority in the region when the central government appoints the members of the CoR without having to consider the regions themselves.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The introduction outlines the author's plan to evaluate the critical statement regarding the CoR by examining its structure, election procedures, actual powers, and member profiles.
2. The Committee of the Regions: This chapter provides a brief history of the CoR, established in 1991, describing its role as an advisory body for regional and local representation.
3. Is the Committee of the Regions undemocratic?: This section discusses the selection process of committee members, highlighting the disparity between member states that allow regional autonomy in appointments and those where the national government retains full control.
4. Is the Committee of the Regions a talking workshop to give the idea of consultation and decentralisation?: The author explores the advisory function of the CoR, its lack of veto power, and whether it exerts real influence or simply provides a facade of decentralization.
5. Gives the Committee of the Regions failed politicians and ideas a resting home?: This chapter challenges the notion that the committee consists of failed politicians, emphasizing that members are active politicians with current local or regional mandates.
6. Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes that regional inequalities and diverse national traditions in appointments undermine the CoR's democratic standing, suggesting a second chamber of the European Parliament as a potential reform.
Keywords
Committee of the Regions, European Union, Regional Policy, Democracy, Subsidiarity, Decentralization, Advisory Body, Maastricht Treaty, Local Government, Regional Representation, European Parliament, Political Accountability, Member States, Policy-making, Institutional Reform.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary subject of this essay?
The essay examines the legitimacy, power, and role of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) within the European Union, specifically addressing common criticisms regarding its democratic nature and effectiveness.
What are the central thematic fields covered?
The key themes include the democratic deficit in EU institutions, the varying degrees of regional autonomy among member states, the advisory versus decision-making powers of the CoR, and the political background of its members.
What is the core research question?
The research seeks to determine whether the Committee of the Regions is an "undemocratic, talking workshop" for failed politicians or a meaningful body for regional representation.
Which scientific method is applied?
The author employs a step-by-step evaluative analysis, comparing institutional frameworks, reviewing legislative requirements, and assessing empirical examples of member appointments from different EU states.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body covers the history and purpose of the CoR, the democratic implications of its appointment process, its role in the subsidiarity principle, and an analysis of whether its members are truly "failed politicians."
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include Committee of the Regions, European Union, democracy, regional representation, subsidiarity, and institutional reform.
How does the Nice Treaty influence the findings?
The author notes that the Nice Treaty introduced mandates requiring CoR members to hold local or regional electoral mandates, which helps refute the claim that the committee serves as a refuge for retired or failed politicians.
What alternative does the author suggest to improve European democracy?
The author proposes the implementation of a second chamber of the European Parliament composed of directly elected regional representatives to ensure equal power and rights for all European regions.
Why is the appointment process considered problematic?
The process is deemed problematic because national governments in some states appoint representatives without consulting the regions themselves, leading to a system where regional representation does not always reflect the regional political majority.
- Quote paper
- Oliver Hedderich (Author), 2003, Decentralisation within the EU: Committee of the Regions - an undemocratic talking workshop?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/57274
