Three Reasons Why More European Parliament is Good for Europe

I have been serving as a Member of the European Parliament for 19 years. During these almost two decades, criticism of this house has never been wanting. Yet I have always defended the institution which I now represent against all its detractors not only because I consider the Parliament as the strongest driving force of European integration, but also because within the complex structure of the EU, the European Parliament has supplied EU citizens with three major qualities: boldness, transparency and democracy.

Boldness

Our recent woes originated from financial recklessness, home-grown bubbles and an excessive faith in deregulation. Crisis has persisted and worsened because of a strong interdependency between banks and sovereigns, a fragmentation of our financial systems along national lines coupled with anaemic growth, insufficient liquidity and excessive austerity.

People often tell me that parliaments and the EP have little leverage to influence EU affairs and face the challenges of a globalised world. My experience tells a different story. Among the EU institutions, we in the European Parliament have been, since before the crisis, advocating the bold choices which are needed to put Europe back on track. Whether on economic governance or banking supervision, whether on the long-term budget of the EU or the fight against tax fraud and tax heavens, on the creation of a Youth Guarantee or on the financial transaction tax, or on bankers' bonuses, we have been putting on the table clear options at an early stage. When the legislative texts were finally put before us, we have legislated speedily and with resolve.

We have proved that democracy does not run counter to the capacity to deliver radical proposals and finding good solutions in due time. I believe that the boldness of the European Parliament is an asset for Europe as a whole because it stems from our capacity to put national - and even partisan - objectives behind a staunch commitment to pursue Europe's common interest first.

Transparency

During my first year and a half at the helm of the European Parliament, and my time as Member of the European Parliament, I have never witnessed such a cohesive and impressive popular and online mobilisation as was the case with the debate on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). On 4 July 2012, the European Parliament rejected the agreement between the EU and the other ACTA signatories, an agreement which put in the same basket the fight against counterfeited goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the internet. Most of us were of the opinion that ACTA was too vague, leaving the room for abuses and raising concern about its impact on consumers' privacy and civil liberties. Also, the way ACTA had been negotiated had left many of us puzzled for its lack of transparency. We in the European Parliament rejected ACTA.

In my view, this vote serves well as an illustration of the Parliament's stance on its fight for more transparency. Transparency is not simply good in itself, but it is also instrumental to make sure that the reasons behind an argument - rather than interests or strength - are the real bone of contention.

We became a central focus for popular concern and discontent. I have received tens of thousands of emails pleading for an ACTA rejection. The mobilisation of public opinion was unprecedented. This was somewhat in stark contrast with the opacity which had led to ACTA, a negotiation which took place between governments and the European Commission, without a proper debate. In an epoch where citizens demand more and more transparency, the way ACTA was negotiated seemed to me like a remnant of the past.

Democracy

I am convinced that the European Parliament is and will remain the main source for accountability, transparency and democratic legitimacy at the EU level. When I meet young people, be it in Germany, Spain Greece or any other EU county, they all tell me the same: "the EU does not represent me", they do not feel listened to. I try to explain to them that the solution to fill the void is not to undo the European Union, but rather to make the EU more accountable via less bureaucracy, fewer meetings behind closed doors, a stronger and more visible government of Europe and a European Parliament that fully controls it.

We should concentrate our efforts on those issues where our action really has an added value. There are some developments in the European Union that only alienate people: there are two schools of thought: one that doesn't rest until it privatises even the last local cemetery, and the other is not satisfied until we have an EU regulation for burials.

That is why I attach the greatest important to the next European elections in 2014. These elections matter. A lot has changed from the previous elections in 2009: the European Union is going through one of the biggest crisis of its history, and it has not yet emerged from it. Unemployment, especially youth unemployment is on the rise, wealth has been destroyed, the recession creates material and immaterial poverty and risks dividing a continent, whose unity we so much cherish. I'll put all my efforts to change the current state of affairs, and a change is badly needed.

Through strengthened European political parties and the emergence of top candidates to the European Commission's Presidency, European citizens will have an opportunity to express directly their opinion on the handling of the crisis. The elections will be a decisive passage to determine the direction Europe takes in the years to come.

Citizens have two clear options before them: they can channel their apathy, distrust and frustration with the current state of affairs through abstentionism and a eurosceptic vote or they can engage and participate in a real debate to change our continent, to return to growth and finally exit the crisis for good. You know where I stand, and you know where you can find me.