Νομοθετικά σώματα -- Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, Χώρες της Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση Legislative bodies -- European Union countries European Union
Πάντειο Πανεπιστήμιο Κοινωνικών και Πολιτικών Επιστημών
National Parliaments, as far as European Union is concerned, are thought to be ‘late-comers’ or ‘losers’ in its ‘construction’. But, could National Parliaments take an active part in the project?In this study , we find out that the majority of National Parliaments , in the frame of their internal organization , had never had the power to make decisions on their own initiative or even exercise an effective control over the acts of national Governments , despite the fact that within a democratic State, National Parliaments are, formally, the ‘Kings’, as they represent people. This contrast can be explained, since, the Government, because of its structure and action techniques , has always been a lot of steps ahead and this is why EU constitutes the achievement and the ‘child’ of the Governments.In the First Part our effort has concentrated, ( First Chapter) , on presenting consicely the institution of ‘National Parliaments’ and enlighting some aspects of the peculiar and complicated decision - making process of the Union., in order to understand deeply the dynamics of these two institutions. The more we know about these two characters, the better we approach their relationship.In the Second Chapter , we are presenting the relationship between National Parliaments and EU , from two points of view. :In the first place we are dealing with the way and the extent National Parliaments have entered the statutory framework of the Union, as an aspect of the EU “nationalization”Secondly , we focus on the way and the degree EU has affected National Parliaments , on the execution of their internal duties , with relation to EU policies , as an aspect of their ‘europeanisation’.In the first case, one may realize that EU has allowed National Parliaments to enter its world , but from a distance , still leaving an open door for a future embodiment.In the second case, it becomes obvious that National Parliaments get better and more information now about European laws, from their starting point till their passing, from their governments. Right information means better scrutiny capabilities. National Parliaments have the opportunity to keep in touch with Governments and take part in the decision making process of the Union, There is a change for adopting an active rather than a reactive behavior –as they used to have-. The technocracy of specialized committees, set up in the frame of National Parliaments contributes to a great extent to these tasksIn the Second Part , we try to find out the deeper and wider aspects of the relationship between National Parliaments and EU , its subconscious , so as to explain the reality of this relationship easily.So, we observe the relationship in the light of the meaning of the ‘State’, as the State was established and developed at the same time with National Parliaments and EU tends to adopt the shape of a ‘State’ itselft . Does EU repeat what happened centuries ago to the States , starting being a State , while the European Parliament , parallely, is becoming what National Parliaments are now.?We examine as well the conflict between the intergovernmental and the supranational element , which has its roots in the fundamental disagreement between Functionalists and Federalists , about what form EU should have. Functionalists have been of the opinion that EU is mainly a function , an efficient mechanism of bringing nations together , a political and law producting factory which belongs to the member states , and that is why it should have and maintain an ‘impersonal’ character. Federalists support that EU should be a Federation, a real State , a political Union , with its own constitution.10The demand for greater involvement of National Parliaments in EU , is based on the view that EU is characterized by democratic deficit. The question is: Is there a democratic deficit in EU? How can we answer this question? Apart from this , we should take into account that nowadays Democracy can be achieved by more and direct ways.We end up with the remark that the relationship between National Parliaments and EU depends on the basic and fundamental relationship , for the law and the politics , between Democracy and financial freedom of individuals. Which of them predominates over the other? Liberal Democracies of today are characterized by a problematic Democracy and an increased liberty. If we manage to define this relationship , we will be able to figure out a lot more about the progress of the relationship between National Parliaments and EU.
Διπλωματική εργασία - Πάντειο Πανεπιστήμιο. Γενικό Τμήμα Δικαίου, ΠΜΣ "Δίκαιο και Ευρωπαϊκή Ενοποίηση", κατεύθυνση Δημόσιο Δίκαιο, 2006