July 2, 2007
Commission tries to keep in touch
The European Commission is reaching for something old and something new as it tries to re-connect with the people. These are the brainchild of Margot Wallstrom, the Swedish communications commissioner who was among the first politicians to launch her own blog.
The old-style approach is to keep throwing taxpayers’ money at European political parties ; the novel one is to jump on one of the latest internet bandwagons with EUTube - a site on Youtube dedicated to Euro-affairs.
This includes the usual drab press conferences and earnest interviews but also - thankfully - cartoons, bloopers and clips showing you how to reduce your carbon footprint. The good news is that more than 20,000 people have visited it in a weekend. The bad news is that more than half of them viewed just one clip. This is a medley of 18 couples having sex taken from European films financed by the Commission. The clip of romantic moments from films has just a few hundred.
The parliament is trying a similar thing itself - though at a respectful, outsourced, length. It has provided the money for europocket.tv, a web-only news channel run by Europhile twenty-somethings in Valencia, Spain. It’s available in English, Spanish and French and is an intriguing mix of MTV jauntiness and serious euro-federalism, picking up issues such as climate change, animal rights, vodka where the youth and the eurocrats in Brussels have shared tastes. It should do well until the Italians find out and demand a version in the lingua bella.
While it’s easy to mock, the move by Brussels to tap into the zeitgeist does mark a welcome break from its more predicable solution to the nagging question of how to get in touch with voters.
The European parliament already dishes out around 10m euro a year to fund the secretariats of ten political groups made up of parties from at least five countries. There are also umbrella parties such as the centre-right European People’s party, whose members are national parties. The Commission last week said it would ease the rules to allow for the first time the likes of the EPP and Party of European Socialists to fund events and campaign in a European election in 2009. They are also supposed to function like the German political foundations that contribute to making policy. The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung is linked to the Christian Democrats, the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung to the Social Democrats.
The tricky thing is that the rules currently encourage extremists. Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty was cobbled together by far-right parties purely to qualify for funding. The likes of the French National Front and Bulgaria’s gypsy-baiting Ataka will now be invited to form a philosophical basis for their policies. Giving Fascists state funding is likely to attract more attention than common policies when people are still more likely to vote on crime and employment than EU-wide issues such as common agricultural policy reform.
Maybe the latest taxpayer rants from Jean-Marie Le Pen will pop up sometime soon on YouTube. Watch that space.
“EU-wide non-binding plebiscite needed!!”
The EU is at a cross-roads like no other in its history-> rather than continuing 50 years of practice, & floating-onwards-blindly without a publicly articulated, explicitly defined end-point to integration of member nations & its structural development, it ought to either formally declare its intention to become a super-state, or formally state its intention to complete its evolution as an association of ‘aligned (to varying & flexible degrees) independent nations’.
How??
Via an EU-wide, future-of-the-EU dialogue-process. A process followed by an EU-wide plebiscite-type vote in which ALL EU member nations citizens/residents are asked which of two most likely possible structural ‘final outcomes’ for the EU they prefer.
As part of an EU-future-structure dialogue process, residents/citizens of member nations ought to be provided with documentation describing several possible future EU structural models, each stating simply the powers of member nations under that respective model, & showing EU structures such as the Council of Ministers, Commission & EU Parliament + simply outlining their powers & roles in a future EU.
Residents/citizens of EU member nations then ought to be asked in an EU-wide plebiscite:
- “do they approve of or are they against the EU becoming a structure in which its member nations are formally and irrevocably subsumed into an EU of ‘amalgamated peoples’… an EU where individual nations’ parliaments’/governments’ are reduced to being absolutely subordinate to the EU ‘Parliament’, with a permanent, elected EU president operating out of this parliament?”
The EU continuing to float onwards (as the EU ship has done for more than 50 years) in the undeniable- but never stated or legislatively articulated- direction of super-state status, without the citizenry of individual member nations being asked if this direction is one that they are supportive of- or do they prefer an EU that is an association of (comparatively) equal nations, one in which member nations remain integrated- but only to reasonably varying and flexible extents, and an EU in which ALL member nations possess functionally broad powers of veto over EU laws/policies/directives and have the ability to, within limits, opt out of such… will enable mischief to be perpetrated by bureaucrats/others with improper motives.
The EU continuing without an explicitly delineated end-point to the evolution of its
administrative-structure allows persons with unspoken- but dangerous- agendas to surreptitiously move these agendas forward under the guises of flawed, vaguely worded treaties and so-called ‘constitutions’.
The United Kingdom is well placed to lead a ‘future of the EU’ dialogue/plebiscite process…
Since ‘plebiscites’ are not necessarily legally binding and since a plebiscite could occur AFTER a several month-long, heavily publicized & promoted EU-wide ‘future-EU structure’ dialogue process- this process could serve mainly to, for a change, focus- accurately- the EU’s member nations’ peoples’ perceptions of ‘where the EU is’ in terms of its 1/2 century of integration; the pivotal cross-roads it is at in 2007; and what are the main possible future structure-types for it down the road.
In many ways, to use an analogy -the EU is like a puzzle which has been being slowly manufactured over the last 1/2 century.
The puzzle is now more or less finished being manufactured, and it can now be assembled… into not 1, but into 2 or 3 distinct pictures.
Concerned stakeholders across the EU ought to be working overtime to inform EU member nations’ residents/citizens of the possible future structural models for the EU, along with purported advantages of one type over another- with the objective of ensuring that the soon to be fully-assembled EU puzzle accurately reflects member nations’ citizenries’ preferences.
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC,
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | July 9th, 2007 at 3:17 pm | Report this commentCanada,
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
Roderick perhaps the view from Canada is somewhat different; here in Europe, I don’t think very many people want a single EU state. So no plebiscite is necessary to clarify that. Indeed that is precisely this reality that has gone into the Constitutional Treaty and the Reform Treaty, which affirm the primacy of the Member States as the source of EU authority and do away with “ever-closer union” in favour of the new preamble that emphasises the diversity of the EU.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | July 10th, 2007 at 9:35 pm | Report this commentOn what basis do you believe Chris that the goal of ever closer union is being dropped? I see nothing in the June Council conclusions to that effect.
Surely you will not argue that the 2005 referenda results can be ignored and a treaty with the same meaning foisted on the peoples of Europe? Do you think it OK that a British government be elected in 2005 on a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on this issue and then proceed to Whip its MPs to ratify what is the same thing in all but name in Parliament in direct opposition to the promise they were elected on? Are you content to see democracy debased to that degree?
Posted by: John | July 11th, 2007 at 7:02 am | Report this commentJohn if you read the Preamble of the Constitutional Treaty, it now contains the following paragraph:
“CONVINCED that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their former divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny,”
This is significantly different from the current treaty, which proclaims:
“RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe,”
On the question of the Reform Treaty and the referenda, I have said before and will say again that I would like a referendum in the UK, for one reason only. And that is that our leaders need to learn, the hard way if necessary, that they must actually make the case for the EU rather than leaving the field to the antis, as they have done for too long.
On whether France and the Netherlands should have referenda, that is entirely up to them and I would not presume to interfere, as many British anti-Europeans are doing. The differences between the Constitutional Treaty and the Reform Treaty will not be very subjective; they will be identifiable in black and white. And there will be many. Whether those differences are enough to reassure the Dutch and the French, and whether the similarities are enough to placate the majority that ratified the Constitutional Treaty, is really a matter for those countries to decide according to national law. Or do you disagree with that?
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | July 11th, 2007 at 8:13 am | Report this commentSo your claim that the commitment to ‘ever closer union’ has been “dropped” is based on a change of wording to ‘united ever more closely’?
http://www.proreferendumrally.co.uk/
Posted by: John | July 13th, 2007 at 1:12 pm | Report this commentJohn if you read what I actually wrote, I did not say that the EU had done away with the concept of ever closer union - only that the wording had been changed, and more importantly, that this had now been specifically put into the context of diversity. That is significant.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | July 13th, 2007 at 4:19 pm | Report this commentChris – I want serious EU reform to prevent national executives sitting in the EU’s main legislative body approving law that bypasses democratic checks on their executive power at home. I want to remove the Commission’s monopoly of legislative initiative over 490 million people, a power that no unelected body should have. I want to see most EU law made subordinate to national law such that we can once again elect governments able to reverse the actions of their predecessors. I want to see a Constitutional court with the power of judicial review of ECJ rulings relating to the competence of the EU to prevent it extending EU powers through its rulings. I want an EU whose members may force change in discredited polices like the CAP by opting out of them rather than allow them to linger unreformed in-perpetuity. So do not tell me that changing the words ‘ever closer union’ to ‘united ever more closely’ is a significant change.
Posted by: John | July 16th, 2007 at 11:44 am | Report this commentJohn, considering that the phrase “ever closer union” had been in the treaties since the Treaty of Rome, the fact that it has been watered down at all is of no small significance. To those who want a superstate, that is a massive concession that should never have been granted.
Be that as it may, your wish list is a good one. I would agree with most of it, except certainly for any suggestion that national law can be superior to EU law, and perhaps I would also disagree with opt-outs from EU polices being the norm.
As far as the hierarchy of law is concerned, I can’t see how an EU law can mean anything at all if it does not take precedence over national law. That would be a recipe for collapse of the EU, with Member States flouting EU laws, others retaliating by flouting other EU laws, and so on towards collapse. You need to have some sort of neutral referee between the Member States, and the Commission has played that role very well.
As for opt-outs, I would prefer to see a continuation of the current practice where, during negotiation of a particularly controversial policy during an IGC, Member States can negotiate an opt-out. If you had a system whereby opt-outs were available as standard on any new law, you would end up with a hotch-potch of rules and regulations that would be a jungle, an absolute nightmare, to navigate. For companies seeking to export within or into Europe, that would be several big leaps backwards.
However, I would agree wholeheartedly that there must be an end to the practice of national politicians cooking up deals in Brussels and presenting things back home as if they were the work of the Commission. Moreover, as you say, very few of these national politicians have to put up with any really effective scrutiny of their work AFTER it’s done, let alone BEFORE. The solution, as we have agreed previously, is for national parliaments to be an integral part of the EU legislative process. The new treaty will likely prove a step in that direction, albeit smaller than we would like.
The same goes for the removal of the Commission’s power of initiative - I want to see that shared between institutions. And I think the new treaty will also be a small step in the right direction in that regard.
As for the constitutional court ruling on subsidiarity, I am in complete agreement. Although the ECJ has been carrying out those functions itself, it would be better to have a body that was explicitly and solely concerned with watching that the EU did not exceed its authority.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | July 16th, 2007 at 1:23 pm | Report this commentIt is simply laughable to call a change from ‘ever closer union’ to ‘united ever more closely’ a “massive concession”.
The supremacy of EU law over national law is the root of all evil in that organisation. Without it, cabinet ministers would not be able to use the Council of Ministers to bypass democratic checks on their executive power at home. Without it bad policy like the CAP would not last past one general election, much less persist unreformed for decades. Without it national governments could not use EU law to bind their successors. It is the supremacy of EU law that increasingly constrains the issues put to the people in successive general elections, and requires even the results of national referenda to be ignored when in conflict with any EU legislative act. So long as that supremacy persists every new EU law diminishes our democracy.
It is perfectly possible to separate out technical rules related to the common market from all the other areas and say that national governments elected on a democratic mandate should be able to overrule anything proposed by the supranational bureaucracy outside the area of the common market. Current treaties on the European Community and European Union already differentiate these policy areas. To argue for the supremacy of EU law in all areas is to say that there will come a point when the Westminster Parliament can no longer legislate in any area and our de facto government will be in Brussels. It is totally unacceptable.
————————————————
Posted by: John | July 16th, 2007 at 2:08 pm | Report this commenthttp://www.proreferendumrally.co.uk/
John, it is a matter of record that many integrationists regard the change of “ever closer union” to the new proposed wording as a major concession.
In a 27-member organisation, radical change is harder to achieve than incremental change. Indeed the EU’s development, as I am sure you will agree, is a prime example of incremental change that has produced a very significantly different outcome from that which was originally intended. In this case, I am optimistic that the momentum is on our side.
I disagree with your conclusion that the supremacy of EU law is “the root of all evil” in the EU. You certainly haven’t explained why it is a necessary and sufficient condition for all the “evils” you list. Ministers could be subjected to scruntiny in Parliament completely independently of anything the EU has to say about it. The CAP’s persistence is not the product of the supremacy of EU law but of the difficulty of reforming past agreements - institutional inertia. I think you are deluding yourself if governments bind their successors only in the context of the EU. The supremacy of EU most decidely has no effect whatsoever on whether referendum results are ignored.
I don’t see how EU law has any meaning without supremacy. Would a national law against overtaking on the right have any meaning if Somerset could overturn it?
On opt-outs, the issue is the same. On the one hand, you want EU member states to make decisions on common policy or law, but on the other hand, you want them to be able to ignore decisions they change their minds on or don’t like. Let’s take co-operation on extradition. Imagine, of you will, that Italy had refused to extradite the London bombing suspect on the European Arrest Warrant issued by the UK. The UK would have objected, and likely retaliated by refusing to honour the wishes of Italy in another area. This would quite possibly have led to an escalation of conflict between Italy and the UK, and to a total lack of co-operation in related areas - law enforcement, anti-terrorism, etc.
What we have instead, which makes far more sense, is an agreement to respect each other’s extradition requests, that is backed up by well-established legal means of enforcement. In fact, if Italy had refused the extradition request, the UK would have taken Italy to a neutral arbitrator, the ECJ, which would doubtless have enforced a course of action on Italy to bring it into compliance with ITS OWN commitments.
Supremacy of national law and blank cheque for opt-outs would make the EU less worthwhile than the UN, which at least enforces its international law. Why international law should be supreme but EU law should not is beyond me.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | July 16th, 2007 at 3:55 pm | Report this commentThe supremacy of EU law lies at the heart of each of the problems discussed. National executives can only use the EU Council of Ministers to bypass democratic checks on their executive power at home due to the supremacy of European law. The power of national parliaments to ‘scrutinise’ EU legislation is toothless because they cannot modify or block EU law due to its supremacy. If the law of national Parliaments were superior to EU law then cabinet ministers would know that any measures introduced by the back-door in Brussels would still be subject possible overrule by the parliamentary checks on their executive power at national level. National parliaments draw their power from the sovereignty of the people and their law should be supreme. For you to suggest the superiority of EU law is legitimate is to suggest that the democratic will of the people as expressed in national elections and referenda can be systematically be overruled, which is something I will never accept.
Similarly the CAP is prime example of decisions taken ~1970 binding all subsequent parliaments. The CAP is unfortunately not the only example of this. Whenever the EU creates law the right of our national parliaments to make law in that area is permanently suppressed by the very fact that European law is superior to national law. The French may elect both Chirac and Sarkozy on a promise to reduce VAT on restaurant bills but decisions agreed to by earlier governments bind these newer governments and prevent them implementing the mandate they were elected on. There is no reason why French VAT rates should not be decided by the French electorate. The Poles may want to hold a referendum on the death penalty but if such a referendum was held and won, their government would be in breach of superior EU law should they act on the will of their people. The ECJ would strike down the will of the people as expressed in the most democratic form of mandate possible.
Therefore the supremacy of EU law is directly related to all these key problems we see with the EU. The EU Constitution/Reform treaty would extend the usage of the illegitimate ‘community method’ into 40+ new areas of policy making such that EU law superior to democratic law will be created in these areas for decades to come that will slowly suppress the very power of our own parliament to legislate. The EU should only be able to propose common laws using the community method. These proposals should be subject to acceptance or rejection within each country by national governments and the voters who elect them. Nowhere else in the world do unelected bureaucrats have a monopoly on proposals for new law superior to any other, with the proposals only being modifiable in the unlikely even of complete unanimity among all 27 governments. That such proposals can be imposed by QMV as law in direct opposition to the will of national governments and their electorates is a gross violation of any concept of democracy and is only made possible by the supremacy of European law.
Posted by: John | July 16th, 2007 at 8:04 pm | Report this commentJohn at least we agree on much of what is needed to reform the EU.
But on the supremacy of EU law, I just think you are wrong. Yes, decisions taken by people directly are a Good Thing. But when you say, “National executives can only use the EU Council of Ministers to bypass democratic checks on their executive power at home due to the supremacy of EU law”, you are simply incorrect.
The supremacy of EU law had nothing to do with the Iraq WMD dossier, and yet Parliament signally failed to hold the executive to account. The same is true of EU policy and EU legislation, but not because of the supremacy of EU law; rather, it is because of the toothlessness of Parliament, which is ever more beholden to the executive.
You are still obsessed with this idea that all people should be able to control all areas of policy. You’ve never explained why a Lib Dem voter in Wales or an anti-abortion voter in London should expect to find himself in opposition to national policy, but finding himself in opposition to European policy is in some way unacceptable.
Your position is transparently one that is anti-European, and not the reformist position you dress it up as.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | July 17th, 2007 at 8:55 am | Report this commentThere are certainly inadequacies in the checks and balances within the Westminster system that grant inappropriate powers to the Prime Minister. The American checks on the executive, such as the right of Congress to declare war or the need for international treaties to be ratified by the 2nd chamber (Senate) are well designed and would be worthy improvements to the British system. It would, in my opinion, have been better if Lloyd George had made the British 2nd chamber directly elected in 1909 rather than weaken its powers to amend bills from the House of Commons. However in the case of Iraq there was at least a vote in Parliament to approve the military action, even if the outcome of that vote may have been different had the information presented at the time been known to be bogus. A similar vote in Congress took the same decision on the same ‘intelligence’ and that cannot be put down to excessive executive powers in the UK.
However this is a blog about Europe and no shortfalls in the British system can be justification for what is being created in Brussels. The monopoly right of the Commission to create or modify legislation has no parallel in any presidential or parliamentary democracy in the world and is totally inappropriate for a supranational bureaucracy. However it is the supremacy of EU law that makes these defects so serious. It should be clear that cabinet ministers from numerous European countries frequently use the EU Council of Ministers to pass legislation that would not make it through their national parliaments. It is only because EU law is supreme that these national parliaments cannot check this legislation. Any talk of national parliaments “scrutinising” EU law is entirely meaningless unless accompanied by the power to amend or block and that cannot be done today due the supremacy of EU law. Nothing in the Constitution/Reform treaty will change that. No government should be able to bind its successor, but European legislation approved by one administration cannot be repealed by its successor precisely because it is supreme. The supremacy of EU law in an ever-expanding range of policy areas subject to QMV is quite simply incompatible with our status as a self-governing nation or a democracy. National vetoes were once perceived as protecting this status but they have gone and never anyway were able to prevent one government using EU law to bind their successors. Nor could they prevent cabinet ministers (who wielded those vetoes in the Council of Minsisters) from using the EU to bypass the need for approval of their legislation in national parliaments. The only option now available for restoring democracy is to make EU law subordinate to national law in most areas. What other solution to these problems do you see?
I have made clear on multiple occasions why the people of London or other parts of the Britain accept majority decisions taken in the British parliament as legitimate. By contrast, unless the British nation is assimilated into a united European people, they will not accept as legitimate majority decisions in any European Parliament with which they or their elected parliament in Westminster disagrees. There are two types of government in this world; those which assume power through usurpation and those which derive their legitimate power as representatives of the people. The actions of the EU elites in seeking to impose a Constitution already rejected by various nations in referendums makes clear that Brussels is of the former type.
I have at least proposed reforms to make the EU acceptable. If they cannot be achieved I would favour abandonment of the EU. You on the other hand either turn a blind eye to these deficiencies or propose nothing to rectify those you do see. You regard a change of wording from ‘ever closer union’ to ‘united ever more closely’ as a “massive concession”. So I say to you that your position is transparently pro-EU without the least attempt to propose meaningful reforms other than a continuance of the same old “more EU” agenda that has lead to the current mess.
Posted by: John | July 17th, 2007 at 12:10 pm | Report this commentJohn you’ve shifted your position. Initially you were saying that the supremacy of EU law is the root of the problem, and now you are saying that it simply exacerbates the fundamental problem (”that makes these defects so serious”). I would agree with the latter and not the former view.
I think there is a middle ground between EU law replacing national law and EU law being inferior to EU law, and it is that middle ground that needs to be found if sovereignty is to be maintained at the same time as enabling European-level co-operation to have meaning and value.
I don’t think this is the zero-sum game you make it out to be. National parliaments and/or people are sovereign; they decide whether to stay in the EU. Staying in the EU must mean abiding by the rules, or else there is no point. But the rules do need to be made in a way that draws voters into the process not just through the EP and national governments, but through national parliaments as well. By contrast, any agreement that says, “I will commit to this course of action, but only as long as I decide to honour the commitment”, is no agreement and no commitment at all. It therefore provides no added value for the people of the Member States.
This concept of not binding future governments is really something of a red herring too. No future government is bound to stay in the EU. And indeed a country that does not bind itself to the rule of law and certain fundamental values does not have much of a future anyway.
We’ve come full circle again and touched on the question of EU legitimacy. In principle, I would recognise the legitimacy of any political system that enjoys the support of the people it governs. I don’t see why that set of people has to define itself as a “nation” for the political system to be legitimate. Further, I don’t accept that the “nation” is a sacred end in itself; on the contrary, it is a means to good government.
I don’t see why an individual Londoner or a Welshman should be entitled to expect each EU law to be compatible with his or her preferences, but not each UK law. You seem to base this on the notion that the Welshman and the Londoner are “British” and therefore accept UK law even when they disagree, but are not “European” and therefore do not accept EU law when they disagree.
But your notion of a “British” or “national” identity that is exclusive of a European identity is essentially self-defined. It has no basis other than itself as a supposedly self-evident truth. Reality is more complex. I regard myself as English, as British, as European, as Christian, as an Arsenal fan, etc etc. As an individual, I cannot accept others telling me that one of my identities, which are all true identities for me, is in some way incompatible with the others.
Essentially, I think you are making claims about people’s acceptance of the legitimacy of the EU on their behalf, like those who feel all warm inside when they say that “our servicemen” died for this or that modern cause, which may or may not have been one of, let alone the primary, motivation for their service.
What this means for the EU is that it is legitimate as long as it has Member States willing to stay in. It loses legitimacy in a Member State when the majority want out, but not because of some inherent characteristic. That is what democracy is about - legitimation of government. It is not about legitimation of a demos or nation. Again, you need to distinguish between the means and the end.
Please note - I repeat - that I am not expressing my own point of view when I say that many integrationists regard the change of wording of ever closer union as a major concession. No amount of spin on your part can put those words in my mouth. But the fact is that negotiations on a new treaty are always difficult and complex, and that integrationists DO think they have conceded too much. You ignore this at your own expense.
You and I agree on the problems that the EU faces, but part on the severity of those problems. I very much hope that a constitution along similar lines to the one you proposed earlier this year can be adopted in the future; I am realistic enough to know that this will not happen in one go, and that it will require incremental change. That is why I see no contradiction between adoption of the new treaty and the more radical reform you propose (although I do acknowledge that we have some fundamental differences, such as that on the supremacy of EU law).
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | July 17th, 2007 at 2:28 pm | Report this commentThere is no change in my position and you know it. I presented a solution to the problems I identify here some time back in my “alternative constitution” and every thing said in this thread is entirely consistent with those articles. Given the lack of legitimacy enjoyed by Brussels, national law should have priority in cases where no principle of ‘cross-border harm’ can be shown to exist.
It is not a question of a nation abiding by the rule of law, but of their elected representatives being able to determine what that law is. This is the fundamental basis of representative democracy. If past governments can be replaced but not the EU law they allowed to be created then there our current ‘representatives’ are no longer able to represent us.
You say that the EU is legitimate as long as member states are willing to stay in, but this is upside-down logic. Peoples (and not states) constitute governments and define via a constitution the manner in which that government may act. The EU is legitimate in a member state only if the majority of the people of that country agree to its constitutional arrangements. This was the purpose of the 2005 referendums and it was found that no such majority existed in France or the Netherlands and it is a certain fact that no such majority exists in this country. If the people of Britain had been allowed to vote on the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam or Nice then they too would all have been shown to be illegitimate. It is still less acceptable for the British government to run for office in 2005 on a promise to hold a referendum on these constitutional arrangements but once elected to renege on that commitment on the facile basis that the name of the document is changed but not its substance.
It is rather amazing to see you once again saying that any form of identity however weak is sufficient basis to form the supreme law of the land. I can only conclude that you have a serious case of attention deficit disorder if you are back to that once again. Let me remind you: There is no European ‘demos’ and therefore no European democracy. If Britons were part of a European ‘demos’ then they would feel Brussels decision-making to be more legitimate that decisions taken in Westminster when the two bodies are in disagreement such that Brussels law may legitimately be supreme. But this is not the case. The EU’s own polling evidence shows that by an overwhelming 97% to 3% margin UK citizens identify more strongly with Britain than with Europe. The supremacy of European law as a general rule is therefore illegitimate. Please do not insult your own intelligence once again by recycling this issue for the 100th time.
Posted by: John | July 18th, 2007 at 5:22 am | Report this commentJohn if you look at what you and I have said about the legitimacy of the EU, it is not that different. I said that if the majority of people in a Member State wanted out, it was no longer legitimate in that country. That is what you have said too. Far from being upside-down logic, it is your logic.
I accept that the Constitutional Treaty does not enjoy legitimacy in the Netherlands or in France. In practice, this has meant that the other EU Member States have had to drop it and prepare a new treaty.
Perhaps I should remind you that there is a European democracy, whether or not you can speak of a European demos. And that many democracies have been established without a demos by any criteria you can define. As long as you base your view that democracy is impossible in the EU because it is not a nation or a demos, you look like a very amateur student of history.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | July 18th, 2007 at 8:45 am | Report this commentThere are still European democracies but there is certainly no EU democracy. Opinion polls show that there is a majority in every one of the 27 EU member-states in favour of holding a national referendum on ratification of the resurrected Constitution. But this week the EU Parliament voted 512 to 111 to defeat an amendment from Jens-Peter Bonde MEP that would have required referenda as part of the ratification process. It is clear that the EU Parliament represents nothing other the supranational interest itself.
There was once an era when the entire world was ruled by monarchs that treated conquered lands and their peoples as personal property that might be merged as a form of dowry for a royal wedding. But those days are long gone. The American and French revolutions introduced a new form of government that derived its legitimate power from the people, and other nations (such as the British) also gradually established democracy to replace the once arbitrary rule of kings. It is impossible now to arbitrarily merge two nations except with the express consent of those peoples, and this does not exist in Europe.
Posted by: John | July 19th, 2007 at 12:59 am | Report this commentJohn the EP does not have the power to require that Member States use referenda to ratify treaties. I would have thought it quite worrying if it did.
No one is suggesting the merging, arbitrary or otherwise, of any nations.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | July 19th, 2007 at 8:24 am | Report this commentJens-Peter Bonde’s ammendeny “suggested” rather than required referenda, but was heaviliy defeated in the EU Parliament, despite clear evidence that all the peoples they pretend to represent want such referenda.
It will be necessary to merge the various peoples of Europe into a single ‘demos’ if there is ever to be EU democracy. If you do not acknowledge it, it only says something about you. Many EU funding programs come with conditions attached requiring participants from multiple countries in the hope that their participants will become Europeanised and thus the EU ‘demos’ might grow. The trouble for Brussels is that it is not working.
Posted by: John | July 19th, 2007 at 9:32 am | Report this comment“PUBLIC PREFERENCES OUGHT TO BE ASCERTAINED- BEFORE- TREATIES ARE WRITTEN AND TABLED FOR VOTES”
In the surreptitious proposed EU Reform Treaty the term “diversity” is, apparently, referring to the EU’s peoples-> IE: EU peoples’ differing and varied culture’s, religions, ethnic groups, etc.
In the draft Treaty, “diversity” is, very obviously, not being applied to EU Member nations and their ‘differences’.
Why is this not outwardly-articulated-in-the-treaty situation important?
- The protection and promotion of ?diversity? of peoples, while laudable- has nothing to do with protection of EU member nations integrity or primacy…
- if EU member nations’ peoples can be swindled into buying into slogan-of-the-day romantic jargon like “diversity” (or “united ever more closely”) in a legally binding, specious treaty, and led to believe that this treaty?s promotion & protections of peoples’ “diversity” is a reasonable substitute- and a viable protection- for member nations? integrity within the EU?s structures… it strengthens the abilities of those whose objectives are facilitating a full ?amalgamation of the EU peoples’ while effectively rendering its member nations? authorities’ completely subordinate the EU?s structures… (such as its disaster-in-wait elected-Parliament…)
If it is ?well known? that the EU?s member nations? peoples? are, in large majority, against the EU becoming a super state, while this alleged reality is not backed up with statistically based evidence to ?prove? it?s a fact, (and well publicized) then EU treaty/law/policy writers will continue to have free reign to silently, but undeniably, attempt to steer the EU into super state status…
ALL of the EU?s member nations? peoples (of voting age ) need to be polled regarding basic ?future of the EU issues? like the ?association of nations? EU model versus a ?super state model?; and whether the ridiculously unwieldy elected EU Parliament ought to be substantially altered in structure to remove the inherent, dangerous conflict of interests between it and member nations? elected governments, and to prevent it being used- in future EU Treaty development processes- as a false-logic tool to fully subordinate member nations? governments/elected bodies to the EU?s structures.
If questions like:
- “should the future EU be an ?amalgamated-peoples? super-state, or should the future EU be an ‘association of integrated- to varying and flexible degrees- nations, with member nations enabled to opt-out of specific types of laws/policies/directives or programmes, without expulsion’?”
- “should the absurdly-enormous, demographic-ratio-electoral-system EU parliament be down-sized substantially?”, and as part of this, “should EU MP?s be appointed by their member nations? government/elected body- rather than elected- with perhaps, equal numbers of EU MP?s (10?) for each member nation?”…
…. were put to ALL EU member nations? peoples, preceded by a pre-poll EU-wide several month-long dialogue on these subjects- and accompanied by broad-based and substantial publicity- this could only put pressure on the EU?s treaty writers- and others- to ?write treaties (and laws, policies, etc) based on EU member nations? peoples? known preferences?, rather than continue previous practices- in effect, writing treaties that ?tell those who are most effected by the treaty?s clauses ?what they want?.
It would also motivate the establishment of an ?EU political culture? where the EU’s potential future structures would be very plainly delineated- openly- for public consumption and debate: PREVIOUS TO DRAFT TREATIES BEING PUT TOGETHER, AND TABLED FOR EU MEMBER NATIONS’ POLITICIANS TO VOTE ON… which could only increase confidence of member nations’ citizenry in national & EU politicians & bureaucrats and their all-too-often opaque endeavors.
_________________
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | July 26th, 2007 at 9:40 pm | Report this commentRoderick V. Louis
(near) Vancouver, BC,
Canada,
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
Roderick in what way is the treaty “surreptitious” or “specious”?
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | July 27th, 2007 at 11:02 am | Report this comment