After Britain voted to leave the EU in 2016, Brussels feared it could trigger a domino effect in several of the bloc’s eurosceptic member states. However, during the European Parliament election campaign, it became apparent the populist movements from countries across the bloc that once advocated quitting the EU are now almost all looking to reform it from within. Italy’s Interior Minister Matteo Salvini triumphed in the elections, as his party, the League, won 34 percent of the votes.

The results confirmed Mr Salvini’s status as one of the most influential politicians in Europe, as he seeks to forge a populist, nationalist bloc in the European Parliament to reform Brussels from within.

The leader of Italy’s League party said his first aim is now to rewrite the EU’s seven-year budget, which he dubbed “unacceptable”.

He also said he would change the EU’s “fiscal and economic constraints” and return to “pre-Maastricht rules”, referring to requirements that EU nations stick to prescribed limits on public debt and deficits.

According to Mr Salvini the results from the European elections send a strong signal that European citizens are asking for a “different Europe”.

In a newly-resurfaced report, seen by Express.co.uk, Ukip founder and LSE lecturer Alan Sked put forward a series of proposals that would have reformed the bloc and not led to the creation of a “bully superstate”.

Mr Sked, who was at the time a member of the Bruges Group – a think tank based in the UK which advocated for a restructuring of Britain’s relationship with the bloc – wrote the paper in 1987, before the Maastricht Treaty came into force.

In it he acknowledged the European Economic Community (EEC) – the precursor to the EU – developed because European states recognised that there are certain areas in which they must work together.

However, he argued the existence of a federal supranational government should have been rejected as totally “unnecessary”.

He wrote: “European states are highly sophisticated organs which are already used to operating an enormous range of policies. They do not require supranational supervision.

“At the heart of these proposals therefore is the reform of the European Parliament in order to put an end to the centralising dynamic which it creates.

“In short, it is proposed that Europe should be run along with a parliamentary structure which established at the outset that sovereignty derives from the individual member states.

“This is, in my opinion, the only way to insert a protective shield between the freedom of the individual and the bureaucratic tendencies, already all too apparent in Brussels, which treats Europeans as identikit beings to be shaped according to institutional needs rather than personal desires.”

Mr Sked also suggested it was imperative that a European Parliament should exist to scrutinise the men and measures involved.

He noted: “Given the self-expanding powers of the Commission, the result is a democratic deficit at European and national level.

“It is therefore proposed to strengthen parliamentary accountability in the EC and to eliminate the democratic deficit by integrating the parliamentary process at national and Community levels.”

For example, Mr Sked proposed: “If a majority of any national delegation objects to legislation proposed in the European Cabinet on the grounds that it undermines a vital national interest, and find their objections sustained by a majority in their national parliament, the proposed legislation, even if passed, will not be applicable to the country concerned.”

Regarding the bloc’s budget, the academic added: “The European Parliament will not have the right to increase the EC budget without the consent of the EC Cabinet and Council.

“In order to ensure that member states contribute equitably, funds for the EC budget will derive from national quotas defined as an agreed proportion of national GDP.”

Moreover, Mr Sked envisioned a European commission with no political role.

He wrote: “The European Commission, though no longer retaining the right of initiative, will exercise the following responsibilities:

“To review legislative progress and to take member states to the European Court if they default on their obligations under the Treaty of Union.

“The right to issue directives, to issue regulations, once they have been approved by the European Cabinet.

“The European Commission will cease to have any political role, and will not for example, function as the middlemen between the European Parliament and the European Cabinet.

“Given the increase in powers of the European Parliament, this will no longer be necessary. “

Mr Sked concluded the paper, arguing the advantages of these proposals were “manifold” and “logically consistent”.

He noted: “The fact that members of the European Parliament and Cabinet will be functioning on both European and national levels would correct the democratic deficit.

“There will also be no rivalry between the European Parliament and the national parliaments.

“Finally, no single state could dominate others, or find itself contributing disproportionately financially.

“Secondly, inherent within these arrangements are both explicit and implicit safeguards against big government.”

In the early Nineties, when John Major signed the Maastricht Treaty, Mr Sked changed his mind about the proposals.

He believed the bloc could have been reformed, but only if Maastricht had not come into force.

To this end, in 1993, Mr Sked set up a full-blown political party to campaign for withdrawal from the bloc: the UK Independence Party (Ukip).

In a letter address to Sir John found at the LSE library, Mr Sked accused Sir John of betraying Britain as Maastricht was “unconstitutional” and “had to be repealed”.

He said: “No government can constitutionally deprive the British people of its right to self-government.

“No parliament can constitutionally abdicate its authority to be the sole law-making body for the United Kingdom.

“No sovereign can constitutionally consent to deprive parliament of its sovereignty.

“The UK Independence Party therefore pledges itself to use all democratic means to oppose the three major parties and to restore to all British subjects of all colours and creeds their rights to democratic parliamentary self-government.”

Source: Read Full Article