The Council of the European Union (Council of Ministers) has long been a whipping boy for those angry at the lack of transparency in the EU. In 2002, the House of Commons European Scrutiny Select Committee famously compared it to the closed Parliament of North Korea. Critics have rightly made a stink about the fact that while the EU’s twenty-five member states take a rather preachy attitude towards encouraging democracy in other parts of the world, they take most significant legislative decisions behind closed doors. Last year, the Council bowed to pressure to allow the beginning and end of some meetings to be filmed by news crews. Now, there are moved to allow cameras in for the full length of meetings discussing the single market, the environment and transport. A revolution it ain’t. But British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has cried foul: she is worried that allowing in cameras will encourage participants to play-up to national audiences, thus crippling decision-making.
I can see where Mrs Beckett is coming from. This is a tricky circle to square: transparency is a laudable goal, but it will only work if we trust our fellow member states. If we can’t trust them, then perhaps it is better to avoid a diplomatic brouhaha by keeping decision-making behind closed doors. Yet, I can’t help but think that there is a greater imperative here: ensuring that decision-makers are accountable and are seen to be accountable. It is this that makes Mrs Beckett’s back-pedalling misguided.
There is certainly diplomatic wisdom in Mrs Beckett’s suggestion that open meetings will push real decision-making out of the meetings and into the corridors. It is also undeniable that many decisions are subject to greater political sensitivity than those made in a normal national legislature. As much as the EU might like to think of itself as a supranational body in which everyone bats for the same team, countries do have national interests and these will sometimes impinge on the positions countries take.
There is also an argument to say that bringing in TV cameras won’t make a significant difference. Who will watch footage of an Environment Ministers meeting? But this misses the point: hardly anyone watches C-Span or BBC Parliament, but the cameras are there. So, if an MP or Congressman acts up or behaves in a compromising way, then they can be pretty sure that their misbehaviour will be on the evening news. We might not stay glued to Council of Ministers’ broadcasts, but we can have some hope that our friends in the press might keep half an eye on what ministers are up to. Furthermore, short of turning the decision-making of the EU on its head, there doesn’t appear to be another simple way of bringing straightforward openness to the process. We have spent too long allowing the EU to make decisions like a national government while treating it with the diplomatic reverence of the UN. Let’s face facts: the EU decides on issues about which there is political disagreement. So lets hear why they disagree.
I say open the doors to all but the most sensitive meetings. And if Mr Chirac or Mr Kaczyński gets in a tizzy and storms out, then let us all see it and have a good laugh. Far from undermining decision-making, I think that TV cameras might just focus the minds of our elected representatives. And if some recalcitrant ministers continue to backslide, then let those member states that claim to believe in transparency call them out publicly for their behaviour. Surely the odd acid remark at the expense of a compromised minister is better than the institutionalised backroom dealing that prevails at the moment.