October 16, 2007
Column: Let Britain speak on Europe’s treaty
I lived in Brussels for several years, so it might seem odd that I want Britain to hold a referendum on the European Union’s new treaty. For the European crowd that I know well, advocating a referendum is not simply an act of political treason. It is a gross social faux pas – a bit like putting furry dice in your car. There is a range of adjectives that is readily applied to the pro-referendum camp: xenophobic, spit-flecked, swivel-eyed, Little Englander.
Put aside the abuse, and it seems to me that there are three serious arguments against having a referendum on the treaty – which is expected to be all but finalised at a European summit later this week. First, this is a relatively trivial treaty. Britain did not vote on much more far-reaching measures such as the Single European Act or the Maastricht treaty, so why vote on this? Second, the EU is a good thing – and a British No would plunge it into crisis. Finally, there is Britain’s national interest. A British No would provoke a damaging rupture in its relations with the rest of Europe.
The remainder of this column can be read here; comments can be made below.
REFERENDUM NEEDED ON NOT ONLY THE SPECIOUS EU ‘REFORM TREATY’, BUT ALSO ON THE EU’S CONTROVERSIAL EXISTING & POTENTIAL NEW STRUCTURES, IE:
- SHOULD THE EU PARLIAMENT BE DRAMATICALLY DOWN-SIZED/RESTRUCTURED??;
- SHOULD THE ‘EU PRESIDENT’ POSITION BE GOTTEN RID OF ALTOGETHER??
Whether or not there ought to be a referendum in the UK (or any other EU member nation) on the Constitution-In-Disguise EU Reform Treaty, is not as important as UK politicians/stakeholders & their counterparts across the Continent, planning ahead- cohesively- for strategies to proceed with when a member nation holding a treaty referendum votes to reject it…
Facilitating a referendum(s) with more than just 1 question being asked, ought to be attempted.
This would be so that individual member nations’ citizens were polled, albeit in a non-binding-on-the-EU manner, regarding their views about controversial aspects of the EU & its existing as well as potential future structures.
In any EU member nation which conducts a referendum, the process ought include the enabling of beforehand-dissemination of a succinct, easy to understand ‘alternative future EU structure, or structures, by political interest groups.
This could be:
- an EU without its own Parliament- or at least WITHOUT AN ELECTED ONE- which could easily be accomplished by reverting the present EU Parliament back to its 1960’s-type structure in which MP’s were appointed by EU member nations.
- & an EU in which member nations’ are guaranteed- in a codified treaty- their integrity & basic nation-state decision making apparatus, & not to be penalized for opting out of things such as the Euro, foreign policy positions, etc.
The primary “political base-unit” of the EU for its first 30 years was the EU “member nation”.
Individual country’s belonging to the EU (& its precursor, the European Economic Community (EEC) were- alone- the only enfranchised ‘bodies’ that were allowed to vote on EU legislation-like issues (laws, directives, standards, etc).
While this structure existed, it functioned however indirectly- to prohibit the establishment of an EU Super State.
The formation of an “EU Parliament” in the early 1960’s- with its MP’s APPOINTED BY EEC MEMBER NATIONS- did not displace or alter this sensible situation.
While EU member nations remained the sole primary “political base-units” of the EU, this arrangement functioned however indirectly- to prohibit the formation of an EU Super State.
But, in the early 1980’s when the EU Parliament structure was altered to allow for direct elections of its MP’s by member nations’ citizens, it created a situation of parallel “primary political base-unit” structures within the EU:
(1) member nations &;
(2) member nations’ individual voters.
This putting the EU Parliament in a fundamental conflict of interest (competing roles) with EU member nations’ governments & unavoidably opening the door to- & irrevocably encouraging the EU’s subsequent 25-year slide towards a Super State…
By its existence, an elected-by-EU-member-nation-citizenry EU Parliament is fundamentally & irrevocably in a dangerous conflict of interest (competing roles) with the other primary political unit of the EU: its member nations’ governments.
More to the point, the present EU Parliament (having authorities over & effects on member nations exercised by its MP’s ”votes” who are separated-from-their-respective-member-nations’-government’s control or direction) will (through votes) make decisions on issues that- by their nature- put the EU Parliament
into an oppositional relationship with EU member nations’ governments’ positions on issues…
The unavoidable result has for nearly 3 decades been & will continue to be the EU Parliament- & its extensions such as EU civil servants & the like- continually (bluntly, or surreptitiously or illicitly) attempting to shift the balance of power within the EU’s structures so that the EU Parliament can “win” against member nations (or their extensions, like cabinet ministers/civil servants, etc) when ever there are differences over issues between the EU Parliament & member nations’ governments…
WHY NOT GET RID OF THE POSITION OF EU PRESIDENT ALTOGETHER??
& in its place have the EU Commission’s EU-member-nation-appointed President- in an ex-officio capacity- carry out the ‘EU President’s’ duties (chair Council of Ministers meetings, etc), along with continuing his/her already existing ones?
The new ‘combined 2-presidents position’ could be called a ‘Secretary’ or similar, in order to move away from terms associated with or with the pretensions of
‘elected-by-populace’ positions.
If the current 6-month long President of the EU (President of the Council of Ministers) position is increased to a 2.5 year long tenure-> it can only be a matter of time before it’s further lengthened to 4 or 5 years, & then suggestions will be made to have the position elected by an EU-wide election process… with the predictable specious diatribes from bureaucrats/politicians about the EU ‘needing to be closer to its peoples’, & ‘the EU needs to be more democratic’;
…… After a few years, once this unjustifiable, hugely dis-empowering-to-member-nations’ EU structural change has been assimilated by EU nations peoples, ‘migrating’ the now ‘elected EU President” position from the Council of Ministers to the EU Parliament (while scrapping or neutering the Council), will be easy for the usual gang of surreptitious bureaucrats/politicians to falsely justify- again in the name of the EU ‘needing to be closer to its peoples’ & ‘the EU needs to be more democratic’.
Once the Council of Ministers, the only remaining venue where EU member nations have retained any legitimate ability to participate- with vetoes- in policy/law decision making, has been reduced to an irrelevance… compared to a super empowered EU Parliament… the EU would be a Super-state…
…. would leaving be an option of ‘member nations’??
EU ‘HIGH-LEVEL REPRESENTATIVE’ (FOREIGN MINISTER POSITION): A TIME-DELAYED SURRENDER OF MEMBER NATIONS’ INTEGRITY!!
This position is not needed for the EU or its member nations to govern themselves; work-together; or to implement existing or new laws, standards or
policies-> as related to member nations’ or internal EU issues.
EU member nations losing their ability to opt out of EU foreign policy positions/actions- as the creation of an EU Foreign Minister type position would- eventually- mandate, will serve to destroy the check & balance system that member nations can & do play against each other, under the present EU model.
Aligning member nations’ foreign policies ought to be possible. But forced-aligning/participation of member nations’ is not required by an EU that is not a super-state, or has zero pretensions to become one.
Sufficient structures exist world-wide (Nato, UN, etc) to enable the effective aligning of EU member nations’ foreign & related types of policies- without forcing all member nations to adopt & provide their resources for the same positions, always.
MEMBERSHIP OF NATO OUGHT TO BE COMPULSORY FOR EU MEMBERSHIP:
The ‘new’ “European Union Military Staff (EUMS)” structure ought to be:
- answerable-to Nato;
- under the command-of Nato;
- unable to make decisions without them being, legally, Nato’s;
- & unable to carry out actions without them being, legally, Nato actions.
EU MONETARY POLICIES:
Mandatory adoption of a single currency, & with it: monetary policy- by all EU member nations is counter to basic business principles-> due to the unavoidable variability’s & differences between the conditions within & state of member nations’ economies.
An EU without pretensions of becoming a fully amalgamated super-state would have no use & no need for un-opt-out-able policies/laws ‘forcing’ all of its member nations- or new ones- to adopt a single currency, monetary policy, etc.
Shifting the power balance in the EU Parliament’s favour is unequivocally represented, in time-bomb-like fashion- by the much debated for suitability-for-a-referendum, mis-named EU Reform Treaty.
If member nations don’t like the EU heading in the Super State direction, there are constructive alternatives to leaving.
Moving to get rid of the very structure that most threatens to facilitate the creation of a Super State and to dis-empower member nations- the “elected” EU Parliament- is one of them…
Another is reverting the EU Parliament’s structure to its 1960’s- 1980’s model so that EU MP’s weren’t elected, & were instead APPOINTED BY THEIR MEMBER NATIONS’ GOVERNMENTS. If this occurred, ALL EU member nations’ ought to be allocated EQUAL NUMBERS of EU MP’s- perhaps (10) or so…
While it is important that ALL EU member nations conduct referendums on the hugely consequential mis-named Reform Treaty, such referendums ought to be asking member nations’ citizens more than a simple “do you accept or reject the Reform Treaty?”.
UK politicians/stakeholders would be serving their constituents as well as their interests well by ensuring that any referendum on the Reform Treaty also asks voters for views on specific- existing or potential new- central EU structures, in the context of “what is the preferred future EU Model?”….
________________
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | October 16th, 2007 at 8:35 pm | Report this commentRoderick V. Louis,
(near) Vancouver, BC,
Canada,
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
As someone seduced in my youth by the concept of an integrated Europe as the champion of prosperity and harmony. I find the reality somewhat disappointing.
I have reflected for some time on what might be the source of my disillusionment (apart from becoming a grumpy old man). Finally, I am able to put a name to it - Democracy!
Or rather, the lack of it
How can it be that our Euro politicians think it is morally acceptable to keep on presenting us with the same set of questions i.e. treaty come constitution and ignore our responses until they get the answer that they want to hear.
It is not democratic and it is not acceptable.
I found myself agreeing (perhaps for the first time) with the comments of Tony Benn on the radio this morning, when he said that he had been against the UK joining the then Common Market on the principle that it was undemocratic for laws to be passed by an unelected commission as this could lead to an abuse of power - QED.
Posted by: Jon Pavitt | October 16th, 2007 at 10:00 pm | Report this commentThanks Gideon,
Liberalism assumes that everyone has the faculties to make decisions for themselves. To make someone take something against their will or without their consent because it is supposedly good for them is antithetical to liberalism. Those who work to improve transparency and democracy within European institutions and yet deny people’s opportunity or right to vote over their proposals make a mockery out of any liberal pretension. That, the in-crowd’s elitism, is what fundamentally undermines European political integration.
Posted by: Felix Drost | October 16th, 2007 at 10:43 pm | Report this commentWhy is it undemocratic and “elitist” to pass the (actually rather modest) EU treaty through the UK’s democratically elected parliament? Standing up for Parliament is not to take the rosy view that it never passes bad laws–we do not live in a utopia- but simply that for questions that are not of constitutional significance, parliament is superiour to holding a referendum.
I agree with GR’s point about the questionable opt out on the charter of fundamental rights, which really is in the hands of the judges. But the significance of many other issues has been overblown. Richard Corbett, a Labour MEP, makes a convincing case of this - see
http://www.economist.com/blogs/certainideasofeurope/2007/09/a_debate_on_britain_and_the_eu_4.cfm
It would be good for Britain to have some sort of reckoning about the EU. But I don’t think holding a referedum on the treaty is the right way to do this. Why not make the issue clear cut: is Britain in or out? This would be more honest and maybe then, finally, Britain’s politicians would face down the Daily Mail/Telegraph. Maybe it sounds wildly optimistic. But if UK politicians made the case of why being in the EU is good for Britain, I think people would agree.
Posted by: Louise | October 17th, 2007 at 11:24 am | Report this commentThere is a fourth serious argument:
The UK has no constitutional role for referrendums. They are only ever promised by parties who want to postpone a decision until after an election. They are completely ad hoc and based on contingency and political cowardice. Partly as a result of this, and the rarity of referrendums (there’s not been a national one in 30 years) it is unlikely that voters would vote on this highly technical treaty, but rather on ill-informed gut reactions to alarmist rhetoric and a general feeling of wanting to punish the government. In fact there is good evidence that this happens in other countries too - the French, Dutch and previous Irish votes were all influenced by the unpopularity of their governments (and off-topic concerns like the euro) at least as much as the treaties being voted on.
“How can it be that our Euro politicians think it is morally acceptable to keep on presenting us with the same set of questions i.e. treaty come constitution and ignore our responses until they get the answer that they want to hear.”
Think about it. Just the fact that this works indicates that electorates do not vote on the question put to them in referrendums - otherwise they would return the same answer each time.
Having said all this, I am also concerned by the widespread feeling of powerlessness regarding the EU - but the answer is to strengthen democratic control through the Parliament and more elected officials, while improving the UK’s constitutional set-up at home. Ad hoc referrendums don’t really settle the issue.
The only really binding reason to hold one is that it was promised in a manifesto, but promises are broken when circumstances (and treaties) change. The alternative is the rigidity observable in NHS targets and Sarkozy’s monomania.
Posted by: David | October 17th, 2007 at 11:39 am | Report this commentThe European Community was a political project right from the start - Mr Rachman is surely a little naive to suggest that this was not the case when Britain last voted in a referendum on the issue in the 1970s. It is worth remembering that plans for economic and monetary integration were first hatched in that decade. In general, some more honesty is called for: although I disagree with the use of a referendum in general, it’s maybe time to vote on whether to continue being a member of the EU. There is nothing in the Treaty which is of such great significance that it cannot be decided upon by our representatives in Parliament.
Posted by: Simon | October 17th, 2007 at 12:21 pm | Report this commentWith all due respect, it is disappointing that so many leading members of the British intelligentsia have become so despondent and so arrogant about “Europe”.
Europe did not need Britain for Schengen, or for the Euro, or for the Eurocorps… What did Britain need Europe for lately: to ensure a better transatlantic relationship… to build a meaningful relationship with the Middle East or, for that matter, with Russia? What is Britain’s vision for Europe, besides of securing Turkey’s accession?
The only policy line that Britain has consistently defended vis-à-vis Europe over the past 20 years, is to OPT OUT… from whatever is on the table… and to sneer at other EU members for wishing to live in an “ever closer union”. As if the latter implied ipso facto a centralised super-state! Let me assure you that we are many on the Continent to be weary of the state. This does not prevent us from acknowledging that we are living in 2007 in a “closer union” between France and Germany, between Western Europe and former Communist Central Europe, perhaps even between Britain and the Continent, etc. than was the case 50 years ago, and that this “closer union” has turned out for the better for all of us!
While it is becoming ever more evident that Europe doesn’t need Britain at all costs, Britain may indeed have to ask itself if it needs Europe (the kind of Europe that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Benelux and indeed the large majority of the new member states - if one is prepared to make abstraction of the Kaczynski brothers - are collectively supporting). If the answer is no, Britain should draw the consequences and take all necessary steps to seek its luck outside of the EU. If the answer is that Britain is only interested in the Common Market, it does not need to be part of the EU. A bilateral Agreement with the EU will secure it all economic and commercial advantages of a free trading zone.
Ultimately, I agree that a referendum on “Europe” with a single “in or out” question is overdue in Britain. It will finally force the British intelligentsia to decide on which side it comes down.
We have successfully abolished many mental and physical borders in Europe that were responsible for so many collective disasters in our recent and less recent history. We do not need Britain to reintroduce new unilateral “opt-outs” and “red lines” and pride itself of it!
Posted by: Philippe | October 17th, 2007 at 6:19 pm | Report this commentWelcome to Rachmania
Posted by: Anonymous | October 18th, 2007 at 8:07 am | Report this commentLouise, it is undemocratic to not hold a referendum when it was an election promise (as is the case in the UK) or previously granted (as is the case in the NL and France) when in essence many of the constitutional proposals are still present in the new treaty. As for elitist: when a parliament of a democratic nation would approve of legislation for which a referendum has shown there is no majority support, against the will of the people they represent, then that is elitist. I myself voted in favour of the constitution in the Netherlands and despite numerous misgivings still support the bulk of it; the EU is as important as NATO in maintaining peace and security in Europe. Yet the way this has been handled has left a bad taste, not just for me. Now an FT poll http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1445317e-7cd3-11dc-aee2-0000779fd2ac.html shows that an “overwhelming majority” (70%) in the larger European nations (including Germany and the UK) would like to have a referendum over it all, and they’re not going to get it; it’s going to be decided for them. The genie of the referendum is out of the bottle and the flippant and arrogant way in which it is being forced back in and in which this whole process is and was handled is no recommendation for our leadership.
Posted by: Felix Drost | October 19th, 2007 at 1:06 pm | Report this commentBeing only a temporary resident of the EU, I do not have strong feelings on the matter.
However, as an impartial observer, I think that in the present climate of opinion in the UK, holding a referendum is tantamount to giving a veto on the matter to Rupert Murdoch and his ilk.
The constant xenophobic propaganda and mental conditioning that gushes through the sewers that are the Murdoch press, has left little space for truly informed debate within the lower echelons of the British society.
The Sun readers will say “We are England” (as GR mentions in his latest missive from Moscow) and will march to ballot box to express their hatred of the Johnny Foreigner / Wop / / Frog Kraut or whatever other moniker that people have been conditioned to call their neighbours.
Therefore, yes to democracy and ballot box but an even firmer YES to a serious attempt at education and outreach to the football / celebrity / alcohol intoxiated masses, before that referendum takes place.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | October 19th, 2007 at 2:37 pm | Report this comment