June 27, 2008
Too much Europe?
An EU survey sheds more light on the decisive “no” vote in Ireland’s referendum on the union’s Lisbon reform treaty.
The study shows that those who voted against did so because of; a lack of knowledge of the treaty; a desire to protect Irish identity and safeguard neutrality; a lack of trust in politicians; the potential loss of a permanent commissioner in Brussels and to protect the tax system.
The word “protection” stands out here. How deep is the European public’s suspicion that Brussels encroaches too far into everyday life?
Consider some of the European Commission’s recent events. There’s bread and butter work such as reporting on public finances and pursuing postal market liberalisation.
But then there are softer activities - such as efforts to increase children’s fruit and veg intake, measures highlighting diversity - which you’d think would be left solely to member states.
Is this institutional creep? Could Brussels spend its time better on other matters?
Voters can throw out their government if they feel that it has gone too far. Give them a referendum on an EU topic and they’re also likely to make plain their irritation with Brussels.
Tags: Ireland, Lisbon treaty
Give the EU citizens a meaningful vote on the officeholders and the course of the union, and things start to sort themselves out.
Add a dose of effective decision-making, and the EU can protect its citizens in a harsh world.
Posted by: Ralf Grahn | June 27th, 2008 at 4:15 pm | Report this comment“PLACATING VOTERS’ ‘FEARS’ STARTS WITH EU LEADERS BEING HONEST ABOUT ‘WHY’ THE EU WAS FOUNDED!!”
The EU was set up ostensibly to prevent a recurrance of centuries of damaging wars between Continental countries.
‘Acting on the international stage’- is not what the EU was set up for- over 60-years ago…
French president Sarkozy’s interpretation of the recent Irish No-vote to the EU ‘Constitution-in-Disguise’ Reform treaty, as “a rejection of a certain Europe that is too technocratic, to abstract, too distant”…. is way off the mark.
The Irish said no- likely similar to most of their U.K. and Continental counterparts if they were afforded Reform-treaty referendums- because they want to keep their country as an independent entity, IE: keep ‘Ireland as Ireland’ and not have their country subsumed and amalgamated into an EU Super State…
In order to find out what the accurate interpretation of Ireland’s No-vote is, as part of a several month-long ‘conversation-on-the-Future-of-the-EU’, residents of all EU member nations ought to be polled regarding their preferences for the potential structures, authorities and limitations of a future EU.
In other words… residents of all EU member nations ought to at the minimum be asked, non-bindingly, whether the future EU model they prefer is an EU Super State or an EU that is a loose association of to varying degrees integrated and aligned, but independent nations…
Data from this process could then be used in the objective compilation of a new ‘draft’ EU (Constitution) ‘Reform’ treaty (and future treaties), which could be put to binding referenda in all EU member nations…
Considering that the ratification of Constitution-like EU Treaties (such as the misleadingly named Reform Treaty) have vastly far reaching effects on ALL residents of ALL EU member nations- it is the opinions and views of this body of people, not only a very small subgroup of them- a microscopic few bureaucrats and politicians- that ought to be paramount when the clauses and content of Constitution-like EU Treaties (that are to be put to binding referenda) are determined…
An EU-wide, FUTURE-OF-THE-EU DIALOGUE-PROCESS is needed…
This United Kingdom is in an unparalleled position to push for this urgently needed and far too long overlooked process..
Roderick V. Louis,
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | June 27th, 2008 at 4:21 pm | Report this commentVancouver, B.C.,
Canada,
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
The analysis of why the Irish people said NO to the Reform Treaty will no doubt show “a lack of knowledge of the treaty” This has been the line taken in Brussels to explain what “went wrong”. However the reality is that Irish people, probably know more about the treaty than the citizens in any other part of the E.U. The massive debate that took place in Ireland in the run up to the referendum has taken place nowhere else in the E.U. The fact is that there was practically no media discussion or analysis of the Reform Treaty in the E.U. until the Irish voted NO. I would hazard a guess that the Irish were and are better informed than many European politicians are.
Posted by: Kostos Papadopoulos | June 28th, 2008 at 4:40 am | Report this commentThe reality, here in mainland Europe, is that, wherever you go people think their national identity is under threat from the EU: yet this is not true. It seems that most ordinary people I deal with and talk to feel that the EU is even more remote from their daily lives than their own governments.
Surely the time has now come to consider what the EU of the next 10/15 years should be about? No writing of treaties or constitutions: more a “White Book”. Ideas, rather than proposals, philosophies, rather than politics.
It would need a body of people drawn from a wide area of expertise and experience in order to achieve this - but, please, no ex-presidents or PM’s! (Perhaps not even politicians?). I have no idea who they might be, nor from where these wise men and women might come: but they must be able to draw on polling data from the peoples of all nations of the EU for information on fears, expectations, etc about the EU.
It may be, as Roderick V Lewis details, that frameworks for action (ie embedding into treaty form) could be tested via referenda. But I admit to a dislike of referenda, per se, as an instrument of government (eg would there be a ban on capital punishment if it had been subject to a referendum?). There is a need for ELECTED (sorry about the caps) politicians to make considered policies on our behalf.
The Lisbon Treaty appeared to be more concerned with the mechanics of how the EU needed to work than what the EU is for. The mechanics are important - but the horse must come before the cart!
Posted by: Derek Tunnicliffe | June 28th, 2008 at 5:49 pm | Report this commentAll this EU bashing is sickening. Those who want to keep their precious “independence”, should withdraw from the EU. There is no point arguing with people who constantly accuse the EU of being an unelected, undemocratic body….Don’t we send mps to Strasbourg? don’t we elect our own pm’s and head of states who meet in the council in Brussels? So please stop it.
Posted by: pascal-pierre | June 28th, 2008 at 6:16 pm | Report this commentThe best thing for those who believe they would be better off outside the EU should then leave the EU…..I think being an independent “nation” is meaningless since the 27 states that make up the Union have decided to share that independence together. If we want a more democratic Union, why not elect our president ?
We could also imagine a second house in which each member state would send 2 or 3 “state senators” ? No one obliges anyone to be a member of the EU, if some believe they future would be rosier out of the Union, well…leave it. As far as I am concerned, I am proud to be a European citizen…..Living on continental Europe you really feel European..I guess for people living in the UK or Ireland, that feeling must be hard to understand. When i take my car and travel across the different states, paying with the same currency, it’s hard to feel anything else BUT European!
I was very pleased to read Pascal-Pierre comment. I deeply enjoy myself the same things: freedom of travel, the euro and the permanent joy of being a European citizen. I would be very pleased to kick the Irish no voters out of the European Union AND the euro area. They got our money and now they are sabotaging our effort to improve a union we have built since to 1950 ( Jean Monnet and European coal and steel community) to stop wars and warmongers. We have Jean-Marie Le Pen, Olivier Besancenot, Laurent Fabius: we do not need any more eurosceptics from Ireland (or Britain. Or the Check republic). Nobody obliged Ireland or Britain to join the European Union. If you are a member of a club you are supposed to play by the rules and not keep trying to destroy it. And when a government signs a treaty, it has the duty to ensure that is approved. When I signs a check I am sure that I have money in the bank. If not I do not sign anything.
Posted by: Emilio Tempia | June 28th, 2008 at 8:27 pm | Report this commentThe EU debate is interesting to me as an American. Having traveled extensively on the continent, UK & Ireland; both before and after the EU went “full tilt”, I do not see individual countries losing their national idenity, nor are they at risk of doing so any time soon. The common currency is handy, and, if you have noticed, the strength of the Euro is beating the US Dollar up presently!
Posted by: Liza McClain | June 28th, 2008 at 9:49 pm | Report this commentThe debate of exactly how much “control” the EU should have over member states is one that has been going on here since our union was founded. The balance between “states rights” and the “good of the union” will probably always be around because it is a delicate balance and the line is constantly moving. Sometimes for the better, sometimes not. But, in the end, usually where it needs to be.
I agree that the ones in Brussels need to be elected by the citizens of the member states, and should be required to seek re-election on a regular basis to insure the population continues to be adequately represented. Being a member state has its good points, and its bad. But, the whole has to be considered to decide whether or not states should stay.
As many know, we fought a devastating war over “states rights versus the union”, and the union won. And, although it was well over 150 years ago, it is not an issue anyone here seeks to raise again.
So, the discussion is essential, and the EU should continue to be modified and, hopefully, improved, as time goes on. For as in our case, the establihment of the EU is an ongoing experiment of a new form of goverence and things have to be made up as you go. But, in the end, hopefully everyone in EU will feel it was worth the time and effort. Good luck!
To Emilio and Pacal-Pierre: I agre with everything you say about the positive aspects of the EU. I have lived in France for many years now, by choice; and I enjoy the freedom of travelling the length and breadth of the continent with out the hassle of passports, money exchange, etc at every border crossing.
However, as I note above, there is a malaise throughout old Europe, at least, concerning how much the EU is involved in petty details of day-to-day living. eg surely it is up to supermarkets to stipulate their needs (size, weight, etc) of fruit and vegetables on their shelves: we don’t need an EU Directive! There are many other examples of such over-centralisation.
Also, national governments do their worst by the EU. Anything beneficial is claimed as a national governmental success (whether it is or not). Anything which governments think deleterious for their citizens (or sectors - eg fishing) is always presented as “EU-imposed”. That’s if national governments say anything at all about EU business. (Don’t mention the popular media!).
Many voters in Ireland simply didn’t understand what the Lisbon treaty is all about - and they are not alone! (I have tried to read it and found it too dense). I suspect their government kept them as well informed about the EU and Lisbon as most others (see above). That’s why they voted No, and also why so many across Europe sighed with relief (me not included).
How the EU can “fix” that I don’t know. The problem lies with national governments, or with a complete re-think of, a “White Book” on, the future purpose of the EU.
Posted by: Derek Tunnicliffe | June 29th, 2008 at 5:34 pm | Report this comment‘Diversity’ is something that strikes me as totally appropriate for some ’soft’ support from the EU, since it is so important for mobility…
…health standards and fruit/veg standards exist in many different forms at national level, and since it is the national ministers who ask the commission to draft EU standards - presumably in the name of fair competition (incluidng in advertising) and free trade - then it doesn’t really seem like creep.
People rarely throw out governments for ‘going too far’, it’s usually more that they’ve failed solve a problem or voters are simply bored with them. The EU is not a government, it is a system of cooperation that sovereign nation states have freely entered into - this is what governments must be much more honest about…
Posted by: David | June 30th, 2008 at 9:30 am | Report this comment…but to those who describe the EU as “a system of co-operation”, it has to be asked why elected governments in member states are barred from altering the ever increasing numbers of Directives (ie orders/instructions) from the EU. MEPs do not have the powers to do this, and neither is anyone proposing to give them such. It is surely a dangerous form of co-operation where an electorate and indeed the elected representatives might overwhelmingly wish for something, but that they are prevented from taking action because they are barred from doing so by the EU. This indeed was made clear by the UK Foreign Office when it circulated a memo over 30 years ago asking for those in positions of authority to play down the fact that membership of the then European Economic Community would mean a loss of such control over lawmaking. UK Politicians still sit on TV programme panels and make election statements promising action and pretending they have control over whole areas of life where they have none. That is where honesty has been lacking - and still is, to this day.
Posted by: Damian Hockney | June 30th, 2008 at 9:50 am | Report this commentThe EU citizens do not have any intention of favouring the plan of domination of Germany and France over their Countries,they do not have any intention of favouring the plan of domination of big Banks and Multinational Enterprises over their assetts and their ordinary life.The EU citizens do not want any project of domination,of any kind,over their freedom.They do not believe that the contrary of all this is another war in Europe.They believe that this menace is pure blackmail.That’s why they say NO to this Europe and always will:it’s simple,isn’t?
Posted by: STEFANO DE SANTIS | June 30th, 2008 at 3:56 pm | Report this commentwell, then let the citizens express their preferences!
but ALL the citizens of ALL the memberstates.
on a purely european topic such as the direct election of the EU president or the main objectives to be achieved by the EU (fundamental to know what is the bases of our community).
http://www.we-change-europe.eu
Posted by: mBaf | June 30th, 2008 at 4:35 pm | Report this commentI have just read a books review by John Thornhill, FT European Editor (our FT ‘Weekend’ doesn’t arrive until mid-day Monday). I recommend the review to all and any contributer to this blog; perhaps the books too - I have two on order).
The two comments worth repeating are:
“The EU is the duck-billed platypus of the political world: a curious looking animal that defies simple categorisation”
“From its inception the EU was a fundamentally, and necessarily, undemocratic project which elevated long-term strategic interests above short-term populist pressures”.
He draws from Philippe Riès’ book the view that, whereas the founders were visionary leaders, the leaders of today have their eyes too fixed on the latest volatile opinion poll. Says it all, really.
Posted by: Derek Tunnicliffe | July 1st, 2008 at 2:52 pm | Report this commentThere is a Dictatorship in Europe but the name of the Dictator is not well known: Bantz J. Craddock, NATO SACEUR Supremme Commander of NATO-Europe. All the Western and Central European Armies have mandatory submission to the Dictator.
Bantz J. Craddock acts like a Viceroy of the British Empire in India. ONLY an American can be Supreme Commander of NATO-Europe, not a Polish, or a French, or a British or an Spaniard.
The main source of Sovereignty is Defense and European Defense is in the hands of an extra-European Power, in the hands of the Supreme Dictator Bantz J. Craddock, who at the same time is third in the chain of Command after the President of the United States (George W. Bush) and the Secretary of Defense…
So the Commander in Chief of our Army (the King of Spain here) is just fourth in the chain of command, just fourth, far away from George W. Bush (Obama next year?)
There is too little Europe in the most important reference of national Sovereignty: Defense.
Posted by: Enrique | July 1st, 2008 at 4:58 pm | Report this commentThe people of the various member counties are quite right to be suspicious and sceptical of this treaty.
It handed more power to the unelected commisioners. It handled more power to the member states (effectivly unelected representitives of those states) and did nothing to promote a more democratic europe.
The disconnect between the eurocrats in Brussels and the people they manage has never been greater. When the Irish voters who were asked stated that they “did not understand the treaty” they meant exactly and precisely that — they read it and although words were spelt correctly and the English grammer was used it made no sense to them, or anyone else who was had not had a two year immersion coarse in “brussels-speak”. Even when the eurocrats attempt to communicate with thier peasentry they no longer possess the basic language skills to do so.
And before anyone rebuts this post with the usual verbage about how “good” the EU is they should take a good look at the fish free seas that are a direct result of the EUs “management” of our fishing fleets.
Posted by: James Anderson | July 8th, 2008 at 2:59 pm | Report this comment