EU Research Commissioner arrogantly disrespects successful citizens’ initiative

By J.C. von Krempach, J.D. | January 9, 2014

In a recent press conference on the implementation of the EU’s newly adopted research framework programme “Horizon 2020”, Research Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn was asked by a journalist how the Commission was going to respond to the Citizen’s Initiative “One of Us”, through which 1.9 million citizens asked the Commission to exclude from EU funding research projects that involve the destruction of human embryos.

The Commissioner’s answer was that the Commission does not see any need to take into account what citizens are asking for. As she pointed out, the Commission finds it sufficient to abide by a set of rules that was already included in the previous framework programme, and which blocked the EU from funding projects that did not abide by the legislation of the Member State in which they are carried out.

Now, it is certainly a great achievement, isn’t it, for the EU not to finance activities that are illegal in the Member State where they are carried out – thank you, Commissioner, for this generous concession! Upon listening to you, one might think that the Commission had seriously contemplated the funding of such illegal activities, and that we all should be grateful that finally it was decided not to do so…

But that is, as Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn must be aware, obviously not a sufficient response to what the petition has asked for. In the EU, the destruction of human embryos for research purposes is a highly controversial issue – there are some Member States in which such research activities are illegal, whereas others have legalized it. The Commission’s stated policy not only fails to prevent the ethically controversial research from taking place, but, by obliging Member States with high ethical standards to co-finance activities that can only take place in the countries that have adopted the lowest ethical standards, it actually creates an uneven playing field to the advantage of the latter. In doing so, it exerts economic pressure on Member States to lower their ethical standards: they are in any case obliged to put their citizen’s money into this Frankenstein-style research, but they can only benefit from that money if they accept to apply lower ethical standards. In other words, the Commission very openly encourages a race to the (ethical) bottom.

Building monsters will be eligible for funding under "Horizon 2020", provided it is legal in (only) one Member State, it is eligib

While these implications should be fairly obvious, Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn prefers to play stupid. But does she seriously believe that citizen’s will be misled? Her assertions that “all projects must undergo a rigorous ethical review” cannot even be regarded as “lip-service” – they are just plainly ridiculous and completely devoid of any credibility.

The story will certainly not end here. The organizers of the citizens’ initiative will certainly not consider that this is an appropriate way of dealing with their petition, and they will continue to press for a research policy that is based on sound moral principles. Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn’s mandate ends this year, and it is likely that a different person will assume responsibility for the EU’s research policy as from summer 2014. The issues raised by the citizens’ initiative are likely to re-appear in the electoral campaign preceding the elections to the European Parliament in May, as well as in the hearings preceding the nomination of any future Research Commissioner.

But the issue raises an institutional question that, reaching far beyond the individual case of “One of Us”, has important implications for all present and future citizens’ initiatives: is the European Commission completely free to not endorse a successful Citizen’s Initiative??? Can it turn down a legislative proposal that has been endorsed by more than a million citizens without giving any reasons at all, or by offering an intellectually feeble reasoning such as the one proffered by Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn in the present case, which is just as good as offering no reasons at all?

The relevant legislation, Regulation No 211/2011, is not very explicit on this point. What it says is that within 3 months after having received the submission of a successful citizens’ initiative, the Commission must “set out in a communication its legal and political conclusions on the citizens’ initiative, the action it intends to take, if any, and its reasons for taking or not taking that action”.
At a first glance, this rather sounds as if, from a purely legal point of view, the Commission were under no obligation at all to launch a legislative procedure that might lead to the adoption of the measures that “One of Us” has proposed. But at a second glance it seems clear that the Commission cannot simply refuse to take action without giving any reason at all – and this in turn implies that, if the whole procedure is not to be turned into a farce, it would be inadmissible for the Commission to base its decision on “reasons” that survive no scrutiny. In other words, it is arguable that the reasoning offered by the Commission must be open to review, and that, if the Commission finds no compelling arguments for not doing what the successful citizens’ initiative has been asking for, it is under an obligation to take action.

There is thus some margin of discretion for the Commission, but it cannot be unlimited. If it were limited, then it would not make any sense for anyone to make the effort of organizing a citizens’ initiatives and collect 1 million statements of support. It would suffice to write a letter to the Commission in which one sets out a proposal: if the Commission likes the idea, it will transform it into a legislative proposal – if it doesn’t, it will abstain from doing so. But the purpose of a “citizens’ initiative” precisely is to bypass the Commission’s exclusive right to make legislative proposals, and to give a “right of initiative” to citizens. If the Commission had a right to veto a successful initiative, the newly created possibility of launching EU-wide citizens’ initiative would entirely lose its sense – and one fails to see why any citizen would still want to launch such an initiative.

The way in which the Commission handles “One of Us” is therefore an important test for the EU’s ambitions to reduce its democratic deficit. If the initiative is not correctly handled, this will affect not only “One of Us”, but the idea of citizens’ participation in general. But Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn’s misguided and arrogant reply makes us fear the worst.

You can listen to Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn’s press conference here. The issue of stem cell research comes up at min 5:15.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter