I think we can make very long conversations about this topic. My short answer about my opinion is: yes, latest reforms were for EU Parliament and also for further steps in enhanching the role of national parliaments. On one hand, the crisis, budget cuts and austerity have negative effect and deeped the lack of European "demos" and the gap between citizens and their national authorities and this can play role in national and future EP elections, too. Also, national elections are not the best way to change EU policies as one vote against austerity in one member states does not affect policy positions across Europe. On other hand, European Parliament itself can not resolve the problems of legitimacy of the EU because MEPs have little / or no connection to national political systems (national parliaments) and do not represent national interests and have another priorities although they are elected directly.

These interests can be represented by national parliaments through their governments with effective parliamentary scrutiny over governments' activity and there would be important to give them (more) formal role (besides subsidiarity check according to the Lisbon Treaty) in the EU decision-making process. (This could open another chapter that could deal with connection/cooperation/rivalry between EP and NPs.) Furthermore, the links between national parliaments have to be further strengthened where the COSAC an the IPEX can play important role. And, finally, I think transparency is also very important both in the European and national activity connected to EU issues.

Thank you, Andrea, for your answer. I fully agree with you. In my opinion, one of the main aspects of the democratic deficit refers to the lack of opposition in the institutional framework. The Commission as executive branch is a mixture of politicians from very different ideological backgrounds. The same is true for the Councils. Thus, European citizens, if they are unsatisfied with the ruling elite cannot (as in nation states) bring an oppositional party to power.

I would say that the need to bring everyone on board to ensure national endorsement of measures taken on financial supervision and (other pressing issues) has enhanced transparency and communicative skills on the executive side. Suffice it to have a look at the impressive agenda of HvR over the last years. Nonetheless, when looking closely at national and EU parliamentary debates on these measures, one gets the impression that the tabled arguments lack a sound theoretical basis; we should thus open the Pandora's box of the M(E)P's capacity (and perhaps true interest as well) to lead a qualitative scrutiny of sensitive measures adopted by finance ministers and Heads of government.

The democratic weakness of the EU starts with the fact that there are no European citizen.

I agree with Andreas Kiraly. The question is complex and requires a complex answer. However, since the central institutions of the European Union are (1) the Commission, which depends on (2), national governments, and (3) the European Central Bank, which depends - by whom?, I think the core of the our observing system should include primarily these three actors and the relationships they have with other actors relevant for policy making