David Cameron has now laid out his plan to reform the European Union – or, rather, to weaken Britain’s role in the union to please his own backbenchers. What Labour must now do is lead, not follow, laying out an alternative programme of reform and build the case for this with the British public and our partners in Europe.

A sensible package of progressive reforms which get the best deal for the British people while also raising the profile and level of debate about Europe in this country should broadly fall into three categories.

First, democratic reform.

Tory Eurosceptics bemoan the lack of national parliamentary oversight of EU legislation while conveniently overlooking the fact that it is entirely at the discretion of the government to change this. Meanwhile, the role of our democratically elected members of the European parliament who have co-legislative powers at the European level is ignored or misunderstood by both the media and the public. And the European commission, the most powerful arm of European ‘government’, has extremely limited democratic accountability. Three ways we could address these problems are:

– A greater role for the British parliament

A beefed up role for the European select committee in the House of Commons, more parliamentary debates on EU matters before and after ministers attend European council meetings and the right of MPs to scrutinise and vote on the appointment of our EU commissioner. All of this could be implemented by members of parliament without any agreement at EU level.

– A stronger role for MEPs

750 elected parliamentarians representing half a billion citizens across a continent which just 60 years ago solved its disputes on the battlefield now come together in common cause to make life better for all Europeans. This is a remarkable achievement and the only institution of its kind in the world. MEPs have never been more powerful but, perversely, turnout at European elections is in decline and you would be hard pressed to find anyone on the street in Britain who could name their representatives.

We need to do more to raise the profile of MEPs nationally and strengthen their role at the European level as the only truly democratic branch of European governance. We could start by looking at how MPs and MEPs can work more closely together. There is no connection between MPs debating European issues in parliament and MEPs making laws in Brussels. MEPs do not even have passes to access Westminster. Surely this can be improved. Giving MEPs more resources to effectively communicate with the millions of people they represent in giant constituencies is one way to increase their profile locally, but there is also an onus on the media to treat MEPs in the same way as MPs. When was the last time you saw an MEP (other than Nigel Farage) on Question Time? In Brussels, MEPs should have a bigger role in holding to account the other institutions.

– Improved accountability of the commission and other institutions

First off, let’s give MEPs the power to veto individual commissioner appointments and drag representatives of the council, the European Central Bank and others before them. Second, let’s give the commission a directly elected president. This is the most powerful individual position in the EU and there is no democratic accountability. Our own party and others should take seriously the selection of candidates for the top job, with political group candidates chosen openly and democratically through member party primaries and then a direct election at the same time as European elections.

Second, institutional reform.

To the very few people who spend any time thinking about such matters, the EU can seem like a confusing and tangled mess. It is not immediately clear who is in charge, some of its practices seem baffling and it is far removed from our daily lives. We need to bring Europe closer to its citizens and stop it shooting itself in the foot with actions which make no sense. A fine example is the monthly travelling circus of thousands of MEPs and staffers to Strasbourg at a cost of €200m per year. This costly and indefensible waste must end. MEPs should have the power to decide where they sit and they have chosen overwhelmingly time and time again to sit in Brussels.

In the United Kingdom we need to take the distribution of European funding out of the hands of the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Work and Pensions and give it to local authorities who can better determine priorities and more effectively administer the process. At the moment this process is heavily managed by central government and the UK has been criticised for unacceptable delays in starting the 2014-20 programme of EU investment. As the most visible example of Europe’s benefit to our communities, the process of administering and distributing EU funding must be devolved and improved.

Better communication

The EU has a big communication problem. It is not helped by our hostile media but the media is not solely to blame.

There is currently some vitally important work taking place at the European level on trade negotiations, the energy union, the digital single market and reforming the banks – all areas where action at a European level is necessary to achieve real change and lasting benefits. But most ordinary people have no idea what is going on, with the exception of the public outcry about TTIP – largely the result of extremely poor communication and a lack of transparency on the part of the European commission.

Subsidiarity is an important principle of the EU but many of its functions are centralised in Brussels or at a national level. One example is the communications budget which is used to promote the work of the EU and communicate its role to citizens. Part of this budget could be decentralised to local and regional authorities who can spread that message more effectively at a local level.

Cameron wants to focus on scapegoating EU migrants for all our nation’s ills and cutting red tape for businesses. We need to be unashamed in making the positive case for freedom of movement and exposing the real motivators of Cameron’s drive to reduce EU ‘bureaucracy’ – his desire to roll back the vital social protections and rights enjoyed by all EU citizens. He cannot be allowed to go unchallenged as he attempts to undermine some of the fundamental pillars on which the EU was founded. We should be arguing for more protections for Europe’s citizens, not less. Initiatives like the maternity leave directive – supported by Labour MEPs last month – are just one example of ways the EU can raise the bar and strengthen the rights of working people across the continent.

An alternative, Labour case for reform should make clear the benefits our membership brings while laying out a series of practical, hard-headed reforms which bring the union closer to the people it represents and is relentlessly focused on improving their lives.

———————————–

Kevin Peel is a councillor on Manchester city council. He tweets @KevPeel

———————————–

Photo: Kalypso Nikolaidis