EU “democracy” – Page 2

Long live the European constitution Lisbon Treaty

Published on March 10, 2008

Michael Greenwell calls out the fundamental undemocratic nature of the European Union:

The rebranding of the constitution has also allowed New Labour to squirm out of its manifesto commitment to a referendum as it promised a vote on the constitution (which it cancelled after the defeat in Holland and France ensured it couldn’t be ratified – all the countries have to agree for something of this sort to be passed) but it hadn’t promised a vote on the treaty.

The people of Ireland will have the chance to have a referendum and it looks like they are going to be the only ones. Myself and millions of others can only hope they say no but given the importance that the leaders in various European countries attach to this treaty I can only assume that every trick in the book will be employed to make them say yes and that a lot of cash will be given to the yes campaign.

If the public had went along with the idea then I am sure panegyrics would have been written about the wonderful democracies we live in. The fact that the public didn’t and don’t want these measures means that instead our (sic) leaders simply change the name, try to do it on the quiet and say ‘fuck you’ to the lot of us (Iraq, trident, nuclear power, GM foods etc etc).

That’s the whole point of a liberal democracy, of which the European Union might just be the ultimate example: the voters are only there to give their consent to the decisions their leaders made for them. If they withhold their consent, they don’t fulfill their part of the contract. Because France and the Netherlands said “no” last time they don’t get to vote this time, as these voters have proven themselves to be irresponsible. If the Irish are so willful as to reject the Treaty, another referendum will be held until they vote the right way. The European project is too important to be endangered by democracy.

That EU mess

Published on October 10, 2007

Some two weeks ago, the Dutch government decided that holding a second referendum about the new European Union treaty was not needed. Balkenende patiently explained, in his own inimitable style how the criticisms levelled against the original EU constitution had all been answered with this new treaty, that it was no longer a treaty anyway and besides, the Netherlands could not afford a second no. The coalition partners agreed, including the PvdA, the party that had championed the original referendum two years ago, but now glad not to have to deal with another no vote or inclined to fight with their partners over this. After all, the criticisms have been met and the treaty is different from the constitution, right?

Wrong.

A very “helpful” British report on the new treaty was published this week, and it turns out it’s essentially the same as the old constitution. Which means most of the reasons the Dutch government gave for not holding a referendum have fallen by the wayside. The only remaining still valid argument is the one that was the real reason all along: that a second no would “damage the Dutch position in Europe”. In the end, the will of the people can not be allowed to inconvienience the progress of the EU project. A referendum is only useful as long as it will endorse the treaty.

But ignoring the problems with the EU doesn’t mean these will go away. For decades the Dutch have been more or less enthusiastic supporters of greater European unity, when it was all still fairly esoteric and dull, not sharing the hangups the British have about surrendering sovereignity. In the last decade or so however, this support has been draining away, as the result of two developments: the metamorphosis of the EU from a trade organisation into something more like a real state and the enormous enlargement of the EU. The euro hasn’t helped either. It has all happened too soon and too fast for people to be comfortable with.

And because there has never been a real debate about the European Union in the Netherlands, as support for the union has long been a given for all mainstream parties, because succesive governments never sought to stimulate debate other than giving people the vague impression European integration was a good thing, a sort of moral stance rather than a political position and granted, also because most people were more than willing not to care overtly much about the EU, we’re now in the position that we cannot afford any debate anymore, because the EU train has to move on and we have no other alternatives. But public support for it has been lost and is not likely to be soon recovered, as more sovereignity is given up for dubious benefits.

No second EU referendum?

Published on September 22, 2007

Two years ago the Dutch voters overwhelmingly (63 percent iirc) rejected the proposed EU constitution, several days after France had done the same. This rejected put the European Union in deep crisis, as a new treaty had to be negotiated. So all the bell and whistles like a European anthem and flag were stripped out, the word constitution was crossed out and replaced by treaty, and some more substantial changes were made (more power to the national parliaments frex) all in order to placate the unruly naysayers. In France, they’re going to hold a new referendum; here the government has just decided not to.

Their reasoning is that legally, the new treaty does not require a referendum (and the highest court has agreed with the government in its official advice about this), while the treaty has changed so substantially that the objections against it two years ago have been overcome. Therefore getting their approval is no longer necessary.

Or might it just be that the government is afraid that a new treaty would also be rejected? Many of the objections of two years ago are still valid, while the skepticism about Europe has only grown. Which is why the government cannot afford to let the population give their approval, as a second no would “make our position in Europe untenable”. It shows how little democracy matters in these grand schemes.

The European Union may have grown from a honestly held ideal of a new Europe without borders or war, but it has grown into a technocratic nightmare whose main function is to make it easier for big business to operate. Through the EU, with its lack of democratic oversight, measures can be taken that would never get through a national parliament. Nothing must derail this project, least at all the voter.