Quickfire debate as our panel of MEPs and experts discuss Europe's energy dependency, democratic credibility and economic plans for the next five years.

The big political picture for the next 5 years

https://api.multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/documents/20125/11835294/d006-0009-enx.srt

Hello, and welcome to this edition  of the Hangout with EuroparlTV

live in the European Parliament  with me, Paul Anderson.

With me in the studio are  the Polish MEP, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski,

a Vice-Chair  of the European People's Party,

and German MEP, Jo Leinen,  from the Socialists and Democrats.

We're discussing the big political  picture in the next five years, no less,

as laid out by EU Member States during  their post-election summit last month.

The issues are the economy -  more integration, less austerity -

energy - more independence,  less CO2 emissions -

and politics - reform of  the EU institutions, more democracy.

We'll be joined via video link  by several specialists in these fields

Suffice it to say,  our first guest is Darren Hughes

from the Electoral Reform Society  in the UK.

Before we start with the question  of Europe's democratic credentials,

that surfaced during  last week's inaugural plenary session.

Today the Parliament,  this unique institution,

can no longer be ignored by anyone  in the EU, whether at national or EU level.

We were told that this time  it would be different,

that transparency  would prevail over secrecy,

just a few weeks  after the European elections

we're being invited  to endorse a cosy consensus.

For the first time in history  we had an election campaign

in which the big European political families  have nominated the candidates.

If Mr Juncker's is the only name put  forward for the Parliament to vote on,

how can this possibly be  a victory for democracy?

It is time to recognise  that this Parliament

is the real European democracy  of the European continent.

The powerful idea of democracy  has prevailed.

Concerning more democracy  across the EU, dear colleagues,

the next logical step  for those who ask for decomcracy is

to take decisions that are crucial  for the future in a parliament.

Let me start with you, Jo Leinen.  What do you say to those criticisms

that it was the complete opposite,  that it was anything but democratic,

much more a stitch-up  between the grand parties of Europe?

We clearly have opened  a new chapter of European democracy.

In the past those faces for Europe have  only been known after the elections,

presented personalities  before the elections.

So it was known that Martin Schulz  was running for the Socialists,

Juncker for the European People's Party,  and they won the election.

That was the new method, the promise,  that those who win the elections

get their candidate  as President of the Commission.

this is the way it happens in Member  States across the EU. No big surprise.

But more of a surprise  was that the rules

governing the appointment  of chairs of the committees

were ignored on this occasion,  or the conventions were ignored.

Some of the fringe parties  who earned substantial support

were squeezed out of chairmanships of  key committees and co-chairmanships too.

How does that square with your idea  that this was a democratic process?

No, the D'Hondt system is one criterion  for distributing positions in the EP,

Those forces who turn their face  against the Parliament

have no right to have prominent  positions in this citizens' chamber.

They were voted for by many citizens.  -But they can do their work.

They don't need to lead committees  or have really prominent positions.

But why should they represent the EP  if they're against Europe?

Let's take your thoughts on this,  Mr Saryusz-Wolski.

First of all, the way we designate and  elect the President of the Commission

is the copy of what happens  in Member States

and nobody questions  the democratic credentials

of Prime Minister Cameron, for example.  It's exactly the same.

Secondly, in terms of chairs  and co-chairs of committees,

they're elected. And during the vote,  one political group didn't get elected.

but it's also a gigantic squeeze-out  of one particular group on the fringe,

the EFDD, which is not democracy at all.  -It squeezed itself out,

because they say they came here to blow  the Parliament up, to liquidate the EU.

That's why they weren't voted for.  This is democratic.

Let me turn to Darren Hughes in the UK  from the Electoral Reform Society.

I know, Darren, that you have been  preoccupied with some of these issues

Perhaps you'd like to say briefly  what you think

and then put one or two questions  to both MEPs.

We're convinced there's a democratic  deficit in the European Union.

One is citizens and the nation states  of the individual members,

but also across Europe in the way  that decisions are taken.

But we must try to think of practical  recommendations on how to improve that.

Although we didn't think the candidate  system for the presidency was perfect,

we think it was better  than what existed before.

Anybody who was taking a genuine  interest in the conduct of the election

would know that the party groupings  had chosen their candidate beforehand.

One of our recommendations is that  the size of the Commission is too big,

now that there are 28 members.  I just wonder if they have a view

on whether there could be a cut  in the number of Commissioners

of more senior and more junior posts  that would be on rotation,

so the Commission is more efficient  and have a more direct democratic flow.

Perhaps from the point of view of  the efficiency of the Commission's work,

it would be better  not to have it so big.