Covadonga Ferrer Martín de Vidales. Associate Professor of Constitutional Law, Universidad Complutense de Madrid
8 April 2025
Traditionally, constitutionalism has explained that parliaments occupy a central and prominent position in the state system because they are elected institutions that legislate and control their own governments by appointing and supporting their members. However, with the consolidation of the party-state, the executive began to strengthen its position vis-à-vis the parliaments, which gradually lost this centrality. In the case of the parliaments of the EU member states, this loss has been exacerbated by the gradual transfer of powers from the national to the European level, which has led to a parallel loss of powers for national parliaments and a new strengthening of the executives. Nevertheless, parliaments continue to reassert their role and importance in the 21st century, for it cannot be forgotten that they represent political pluralism, bringing together majorities and minorities and embodying the democratic principle through public debate.
This central idea of the role of parliaments was the focus of Round Table 7 on the second day of the Annual Congress of the Spanish Constitutionalists’ Association, dedicated on this occasion to ‘Parliamentarism in the 21st century’. The round table, entitled ‘Parliamentarism in Europe’ and chaired by Sabrina Ragone (Università di Bologna), included two main papers.
The first paper, ‘National Parliaments in the EU 15 years after the Lisbon Treaty’, by Cristina Fassone (Luiss-Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali Guido Carli) and Diane Fromage (Universität Salzburg), was presented by the latter. Its purpose is to assess the current role of national parliaments in the European Union as a basis for some suggestions for improvement. Starting from this loss of the central role of national parliaments in the face of the predominance of the executive, the speaker highlights how the Treaty of Lisbon represents the turning point, with the explicit recognition of their role in Article 12 of the TEU and, in particular, in monitoring compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. However, developments in practice over the past fifteen years have revealed certain weaknesses. Thus, the speaker points to the decrease in the number of reasoned opinions sent by national parliaments or the fact that the early warning mechanism has only been activated on three occasions, resulting in three yellow cards with questionable results. On the other hand, the basis for interparliamentary cooperation has been largely exploited by parliaments. A cooperation which allows them to increase the information available to them and to learn from each other, but which has only a marginal influence on the European decision-making process. Another key point of the paper is the role of national parliaments in EU secondary legislation, which makes little reference to them. The speaker points out that the need to inform or involve them is provided for in general terms, but in economic and fiscal policies, where the European Union is very active and where the greatest impact on the work of national parliaments is produced, there is no obligation for Member States to consult them.
In conclusion, the speaker stresses that while the Lisbon Treaty and secondary legislation have made significant progress in the role of national parliaments, practical implementation has shown that significant challenges remain. Although parliaments receive more information and are involved in several supranational procedures, they can at best delay the adoption of European legislation. They do not play a proactive and constructive role in shaping the adoption of EU policies, even in areas as important as economic and fiscal policies. The involvement of national parliaments remains dependent on the internal factors of each Member State, which also reflectes in the effectiveness of such involvement (which depends on the mechanisms established at these levels). The situation does not seem to have improved, and national parliaments are treated as mere 'stakeholders'. The new economic governance of the EU and the reform of the SGP in 2024 confirm this development. National parliaments are marginalised as they have no say in the drafting and adoption of the plans and are forced to implement them once they have been agreed with the European Commission, with little possibility of changing them.
As final recommendations, Fromage proposes to encourage more consistent and meaningful involvement of national parliaments in the legislative process, to improve the quality and timeliness of information provided to national parliaments, to encourage deeper inter-parliamentary cooperation to strengthen mutual learning and accountability, and to address the challenges of coordination and competitiveness between national parliaments and the European Parliament.
The second presentation was given by Nicos C. Alivizatos (Ethnikό kai Kapodistriakό Panepistimio Athinon) under the title ‘Consensual v. Majoritarian Parliamentarism. Is it Only a Matter of Choice?’, in which he addresses whether the choice between consensual or majoritarian parliamentarism is a matter of political choice or whether it responds to deeper factors linked to the traditions and specificities of each country. The paper builds on Duverger's classic work on political parties and his main conclusions regarding the two models, based on a series of comparative law examples and the failures experienced by the different models.
Thus, as a first example the speaker presents the recent history of his own country, Greece, which has had a fairly stable party system that falls within the typical example of bipolar majoritarian parliamentarism (due to electoral laws, which benefited the majority parties). After the deep economic crisis that brought Syriza to power, it switched to a system of pure proportional representation, which failed because alliances were extremely weak, and a tradition of consensus was lacking. A lack of tradition which, according to the speaker, is the determining factor in the type of parliamentarism that prevails not only in Greece, but in any country. To demonstrate this assertion, the speaker presents the case of England and its traditional first-past-the-post system, which since the 17th century has fostered two-party antagonism and which has been maintained in the United Kingdom, unlike what happened in a good number of continental European countries that introduced the system of proportional representation, based on moral reasons and justice, hand in hand with the expansion of voting rights (a system which, he stresses, was introduced by conservative parties to prevent workers' parties from gaining access to parliament). Although authors such as Macaulay link it to the conservative temperament of the British people, Alivizatos does not share this explanation, as such ‘temperaments’ are variable, depending on the political, social and economic context of each country, as well as geopolitical developments. As the best examples, he cites the cases of the German Federal Republic as opposed to the Weimar Republic, or Spain and its current Constitution with respect to the inter-war period. However, he does recognise a point of truth in Macaulay's statement about the way in which political development and change is perceived in Britain compared to most European countries: he stresses, in this respect, patience as opposed to emotional outbursts, gradualism as opposed to rupture, reform as opposed to revolution. Inherent qualities of the British character that are the product of its long traditions, fostered by practice and its ability to anticipate future developments and act proactively.
Therefore, for Alivizatos political traditions and party configuration are the predominant factors that ensure the success or failure of an electoral system and, therefore, the fate of a majoritarian or consensual model of parliamentary government. To this he added a second determining factor for the survival, once adopted, of a proportional representation model: the quality of the state apparatus of the country in question and its capacity to carry out its day-to-day functioning, over relatively long periods of time, without the supervision and management of elected officials.
The presentations were followed by a question time and a lively debate, which for reasons of space we are unable to present in this report. It can be noted that, although the presentations address two apparently different issues, an interesting point in common can be found: the traditions and constitutional configuration of each country are decisive in the choice of a particular model of parliamentarism or the participation of parliaments in the affairs of the Union, as well as of their effectiveness.
At the end of the debate, the table turned over to the communications presented, a total of six, that can be grouped into two broad blocks that complement the perspective of national parliaments in EU affairs. On the one hand, four focused on the sub-national level, on the role of regional parliaments in EU affairs. On the other hand, two provide additional elements of comparison with parliaments in other states outside the EU.
Firstly, Francisco Javier López Hernández (University of La Laguna) asks the question ‘Is a specific constituency for the outermost regions possible in the elections to the European Parliament?’. Starting with a presentation of the context and singularity of the outermost regions (ORs), he examines the current electoral system and its limitations, which make it difficult for political formations from the ORs to obtain direct representation in the European Parliament. The establishment of a separate electoral constituency for these regions in Spain would guarantee their adequate representation, as is the case in France for its overseas regions. This would also recognise their uniqueness and strengthen European integration. Yolanda López Nieto (University of Castilla-La Mancha) then spoke on ‘The principle of subsidiarity and regional parliaments: the Committee of the Regions and possible reforms’. Examining the current limitations of regional participation in EU affairs, she concludes that the current configuration of the Committee of the Regions and the early warning mechanism in Spain favours greater intervention by regional executives, leaving regional parliaments at a clear disadvantage. She therefore proposes strengthening the role of the regional parliaments without the need to modify the structure of the Committee of the Regions, reforming the early warning mechanism in Spain to ensure greater regional intervention in the control of subsidiarity.
On the subject of ‘Parliamentarism and regional integration in the European Union’, Jesús López de Lerma Galán (Universidad Rey Juan Carlos) discussed the participation of regional parliaments in the integration process, a process that has altered the internal constitutional balance of power and which, he stressed, must be restored if we do not want our models to mutate. For this reason, he believes that regional intervention is essential. To close the group of papers related to the European Union, Amalia Lozano España (University of Granada) addressed ‘The rebalancing of powers after the Nex Generation EU: the strengthening of the European Commission and the new mechanisms of European dialogue towards a multilevel cooperative federalism’, which has meant a substantial transformation in the architecture of EU governance and has reconfigured the constitutional relations between the EU and the Member States. The Commission has become a key actor in this new framework, exercising not only supervisory but also coordinating functions. And this new political direction, she stresses, is having an impact on the capacity of national parliaments, as through funding they are influencing the policy of states to carry out far-reaching reforms.
To conclude, Elia Marzal Yetano (Universitat de Barcelona) addressed ‘The role of parliaments in secession referendums: the Canadian doctrine and consensus democracy’, analysing the cases of Canada and the United Kingdom as examples of how it is possible to overcome the traditional resistance to the use of these mechanisms. From the analysis of the theory of clarity by the Canadian Supreme Court (echoed by the UK), she concludes that parliament occupies a prominent position, with the referendum being just one more element in a complex system of will-building, through the search for consensus. Finally, Roger Boada Queralt (ESADE-Ramon Llull University) discusses ‘The House of Lords and its reform’, which seeks to adapt it to social changes, concluding that it is not clear how far the Starmer executive is willing to go in the transformation of the House, while raising some concerns such as the loss of auctoritas (as its members currently enjoy great prestige) or the quality of their work, as well as doubts about the type of territorial chamber that is desired and how to configure the appointment of its members so that it is functional.
As a final reflection, in a context of increasing polarisation, it is necessary to find a way in which opposing interests can be combined and reach a consensus that guarantees not only governability but also a peaceful acceptance of the decisions adopted, as well as an adequate representation of the different actors. It can be said that the papers and communications presented reflect this idea, as well as the need to reinforce the position of parliaments as the place where this search for consensus can be activated through debate and the counterpointing of different political interests.