Argument On EU Is Neither Efficient Nor Democratic.

Answer :

With respect to the EU legislation, it is believed that there exists not an efficient or the democratic state of legislation as it is believed within the European Union one would an argument that there exists no such `democratic deficit. Also, there are some arguments which run in favor of the existence of a `democratic deficit` but also provide a rationality that it is not problematic. In this paper, we tend to build an argument with the consideration that even though there have been numerous reforms but eventually the idea of the democratic credentials which are building within the EC can also remain an area of concern. Such an argument would be built on the light with respect to the evolving nature along with the prime role of parliament.

Firstly, it is important for us to understand the concept surrounding the legislation if it is  `democratic deficit` or it is “inefficient’. While the legislation statutory of the European Parliament would only direct the elected body to hold the concept of being minor or to pursue a role within a legislative process. There are also supporters who have developed the concept surrounding the `democratic deficit` argument, which have build a theory that the European Parliament was also one of the prime elected along with the balancing of the democratic element which surrounds the European Community that works on the exertion of more power which works over the legislative process along with managing the current situation which requires the control of the legislative process with respect to the non-elected Council.

One also works with regards to the notion which also focuses on the current situation which not only creates a `democratic deficit` but also works for the public interest in terms of the elections with respect to the European Parliament considering it as low. 

In such argument, we can also highlight the consideration of the Bermann points who has indicated that there are also “participation within the elections which works for the European Parliament in June 2004 which has worked lower in terms of the 45.3 percent and covering a total of twenty-five member states.” One can build on an argument that there are also MEP’s which have highlighted the theory elected by the public, but in reality, such support or claim cannot work by the majority, which can be matched with respect to the greater power. One can also build a platform of the major problems which can bring in the pointers of consideration in determining if the EU legislation is `democratic deficit` or ‘inefficient’ that can possibly increase with respect to the possibility which is inclined for the perspective of the small minority in a state that can work for the over-representation in terms of the intergovernmental process along with the working of the preferences in terms of determining the overwhelming European majority”. Under this,  it would be of little relevance in terms of defining the persons that have been placed within the member state. One needs to also work for the support of the argument that can be eventually needed to be evaluated with respect to the solution. This would also methodologically increase the power of the European Parliament but cannot include the power of member states which is inclined to the legislative process.

Discussions relating to the legislative procedures of the EU

Even though there has been an increased power which has been given to the European Parliament that has eventually followed the process of the various treaties can consider the various Weiler points such as the European Parliament "this is also still characterized as per the lesser degree in terms of defining the parliamentary representation and including the majority decision while highlighting the European political process which can include the counterparts in national democracies". But in terms of the discussion, Dehousse proceeded by the argument which has also highlighted the democratic deficit which is also shown as a flaw which can make the EU encounters to face the similar problems in terms of the democracy that needs to be encountered within the scope of the domestic systems. This has also been highlighted as a procedure to be considered within the scope of the "loudest complaints that has been determined in the European democratic deficit that has process the idealizations of democracy included within the nation-state". Such ideas actually do not support the concept of a `democratic deficit` or ‘inefficient' after building an argument with respect to the "preoccupation which has also developed the concept of democratic deficit that can also be limiting and build in terms of the little scope of improvement in our understanding in terms of the role highlighted within the European Parliament". The last argument is the Majone which has highlighted the EU is a "regulatory state' which is also a state that dwells the democratic deficit or builds on the inefficiency that can be considered as accountable". 

It is important to understand the history of the European Parliament which is considered to be important to lay the foundation of the legislative process along with building a growth of European Parliament’s role within the process. One needs to also explore the possibility of the limited number of Treaty Articles which has often provided and established that there can be Council which needs to also build on the basis of the consulting the European Parliament in terms of defining the opinion and arriving at a decision on the basis of the Community secondary law. Such important aspect can also be confirmed within the case of the Roquette Freres SA v Commission in which there is also an element of the Council which can work on the level of the ignorance and in terms of the overrule with respect to the opinion that is expressed and highlighted within the European Parliament.

Powers  & Decision-making procedures of the Council, Commission, and European Parliament

It was during the Maastricht reforms which were amended within the scope of the Art 251. In this, there is also the new regime which has often described the process of the co-decision procedure which is working in terms of the European Parliament that can proceed to reject or work in terms of the legislative proposal. It is often also a significant description which can outline the European Parliament views with respect to the legislative proposal. one can also define the Council can work on the procedures of the common position with respect to the qualified majority. It is also built within the European Parliament which can work in the parameters of the three months, through the process of approval or can also consider the decision in terms of defining the Council which can take appropriate measure. Considering all the elements within the European Parliament it can either proceed to reject or amend a given proposal in terms of getting an absolute majority. Under this situation, one can also establish a process of the Council members who can proceed to approve such amendments within the class of the qualified majority that can also work within the three-month time limit. In the case of the Commission having a negative opinion or issuing any false opinions on the amendments, there are changes under which the Council can so proceed to approve through the process of unanimity. In a situation wherein, if Council would not agree as per the given amended proposal it would also proceed to referred within the scope of the Conciliation Committee to approach and align in an effort in order to acknowledge and process the compromise within six weeks. It has also been noted under the joint text that has also been approved by the Council and European Parliament one can proceed to accept the provision within the tenure of the six weeks and in such situation one can also outline the European Parliament which may also proceed to reject such proposals within the six weeks through the absolute majority. It is important to outline such reforms which cannot proceed to address the situation of the `democratic deficit` or  ‘inefficient' legislation that can provide a conducive of the negative power through the veto rights along with the provision of the applied reforms within the scope of the limited specific areas.

It is also important to align the changes that have been provided and concluded within the scope of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which can process the decreasing power of the democratic deficit or inefficiency which is not in such situation applied. There is also a Treaty of Amsterdam which can also focus on the streamlining the co-decision procedure⁵. Such place of building the Treaty is also the agenda within the prime areas and assent in the ideas of the respect to building a strategically Parliament decision which is also required and build. One needs to also build a relatively structural and cohesion funds. 

Reforms 

One can consider the proposed changes that have build in terms of the Constitution for Europe which has highlighted the scope of the foundation and can also build in the legislative procedures that have been working from years and in this regard one can define the challenge and importance. One needs to focus on the three main changes which have been considered as a proposal in terms of the defining the constitution that is working in terms of the improvement with respect to the `democratic deficit`. Considering this change, the first of these needs to include the involvement of the European Parliament with respect to the adoption of all EU legislation along with the focus of the achieved success through the greater use of the “Co-decision procedure”, that is inclined. One needs to consider the normal course of the procedure for enactment of legislation. 

The second change which needs to be considered with respect to the proposed as determined in term of the Constitution which can make the member states’ parliament that has a high involvement. One needs to also consider the proposed procedure which would be enacted to proceed with the national parliaments that can work with respect to the formal objections in terms of de European Commission proposal because it failed to respect the principle of subsidiarity. The final proposal can be considered from the perspective of the Council meetings which needs to make it public or televised with respect to the legislative procedures.

This has been proposed or considered to be voted upon, in terms of the proposals to e considered yes or no cannot be defined within the `democratic deficit` or ‘inefficiency' which can remain to be seen. Such problems may or may not resolve would be dependent on the problem. There are two main suggestions for the improvement of democracy in Europe. The first argument and the one which has been the subject of this assignment is to increase the power of the European Parliament. Another prospective suggestion which includes the process of the increase in terms of the power which can align the process of the national parliaments in terms of the legislative process considering the perception of the general public having little interest or can also proceed to elect within the European Parliament.  As per the Steiner and Woods who have highlighted the argument which concludes in terms of the process of the building ‘in the individual pieces of legislation, one can see that there is an involvement of the national parliaments which can also proceed to delay the process along with emphasizing the real impact upon the outcome, and in terms of the level of control which can be exercised with respect to the individual national parliaments which has prosper in terms of the significant between highlights of the Member States.

Conclusion

For the conclusion one can consider the pointers which can bring out the elements which can increase the level of participation which can work in an European Parliament along with the given capacity in order to measure specific which can help in reducing the `democratic deficit` and ‘inefficiency’ which can also make the Union more democratic.

It is also important to consider the changes which can also work on the implementation through the working of the Nice Treaty, along with the working of the limited scope of building the working dynamics along with the inclusion of the improvement in building the `democratic deficit` and  ‘inefficient'. One needs to consider the extension of the Qualified Majority Voting which needs to work on the new areas and work effectively with respect to the increased efficiency in terms of the co-decision procedure that can work for the extended provision of more treaty articles.