The "subsidiarity principle" in the functioning of the European Union
Mirosław Skórka, January 15, 2010
Just before the appointment of the new European Commission, in Germany emerged a significant criticism against the present course of European politics. The importance of this criticism derives from the weight of the arguments. Former German President Roman Herzog, former EU Commissioner Frits Bolkestein and outstanding expert Lüder Gerken published jointly in the FAZ daily an article entitled: "The European Union undermines the European idea." The entry into the force of the Lisbon Treaty and the appointment of the new European Commision create an opportunity to seriously rethink the directions of the development of the European Union.
According to the recent surveys 80% of the current German legislation was adopted in Brussels. It proves that the European Union has many undeniable successes; however, in some cases European Union began to go beyond the thresholds of its competence and by doing this it undermined "subsidiarity principle." The "subsidiarity principle" has become one of the fundaments in catholic social thought, which was developed particularly among the German Catholics. This is one of the main principles of the CDU after the World War II. According to the "subsidiarity principle" the state should assist its citizens. Thus the decisions related to the citizens should be taken at the lowest possible level of governance. The states should have exactly as much power as it is necessary. The decisions taken at the lower level should not be a subject to regulation at a higher level. The key role should be played by the family, civil society and free market. The "subsidiarity principle" was introduced in the Maastricht Treaty as one of the ways of the functioning of the European Union.
According to the authors of the article mentioned in the first paragraph the biggest challenge for the EU nowadays is to regain the acceptance, which was lost in the eyes of the citizens but also within the economic environment. Lack of this acceptance might provide not just to the failure of the individual actions but also to the failure of the whole European idea. The reason why the confidence was lost is the belief that Brussels takes decisions over the heads of citizens, ignoring the traditions and customs as well as legal and economic culture. The European Union began to issue the regulations on matters which should be regulated on regional or national rather than EU-wide level. The EU should be active in the areas of the international importance. Therefore, it is worth considering whether the matter has the cross-boarder character.
The perception of the "subsidiarity principle" is rather low among the European politicians, officials and representatives of the various industry associations and lobbyists. People, who attempt today to defend the original sense of this principle are ridiculed. The interpretation of the "subsidiarity principle" seems to be understood other way round. It looks like if Brussels gives the money to the local government the problems will be solved. And Brussels willingly give money for these purposes. Hence the common ground of understanding what should be either protected or regulated is lost. Thus, the question emerges which institution should define the matter and which institution should take the appropriate decision regarding the regulation? Such decisions cannot be applied neither by the European Court of Justice nor the European Parliament. Both institutions tend to extend their competences.
Therefore, this is an issue for the member states, public opinion and mass media. The member states must send a clear message that just and only the cross-border matters should be regulated at the EU level. The main role in taking such decision should be played by the national parliaments, because they have a democratic mandate and they have an ability to shape the law on the national level. This is not an easy solution, nevertheless the national parliaments should become the guardians of the "subsidiarity principle" in the name of the European democracy. Therefore the national parliaments should create effective mechanisms to evaluate the individual phenomena, which would allow to define on the range of controversial issues. It would allow to classify whether the matter should be regulated at the European or lower level. Another instance in this decision process should be played by the governments, which through the specialized and professional structures of the ministries should provide an objective assessment of the matters. The governments then should ensure an appropriate level of the legal regulation. Finally, the national governments must develop a culture of categorical "NO" vote, at the European Council in case in which the "subsidiarity principle" is undermined. A good example when the European Union passed the limits of its power is a regulation related to the status of single mothers. According to the opinion of the German Government, the European Union did not have the appropriate competence to decide on this matter, because this matter falls within the competence of the national social systems. However, the pressure of the members of the European Commission caused that Germany decided not to block the law. Hence, the Europe implemented the law which from the beginning is incompatible with the systems of many member states. There are many other examples of such laws like in the fields of requirements for restaurants, accessibility for disabled people of small businesses etc. All these measures violate the "subsidiarity principle" and consequently, cause the transfer of power to a level that, by definition, such decisions should not be taken at.
The countries and organisations should also be concerned about the belief prevailing in the EU circles, that consumers are confused and therefore the EU must defend their 'real' interests. It may indicate that the EU show the way to the people which should be followed to reach happiness. Such an approach is a clear abuse of the role of the bureaucrats. The European Union must return to the concept of the "adult" consumers, who must be fairly informed but who decide and take actions individually. The EU must also move away from a planned economy, setting the prices and the excessive subsidization of products. As a result of this regulatory policies, it is not a free market which has an impact on the availability and the quality of the products. It is actually the European reglamentation.
How can we summarize this important voice of criticism presented by Herzog, Frits Bolkestein and Lüder Gerken? The European Union must be a space of freedom based on a competitive, free market and responsible citizens who make democratic decisions.