As I read more and more about EU politics thanks to this blogging initiative, which provides me with a good insight on the issues in the other 26 member countries I am becoming more and more enraged. Digging through the wealth of information on the EU’s official websites and after reading the Lisbon Treaty in full (find it here in your preferred language) I am more ambivalent than ever because the way to this complete overhaul of the EU’s inner workings lacks too much in terms of a truly democratic process. We the people are certainly not the ones who can influence our very own political future, being overridden by our own governments.
Governments Overriding the Will of the Sovereign
France and the Netherlands had both voted against the treaty, but the decision of some 80 million EU citizens in these 2 countries against the Lisbon Treaty was overruled by their very own governments who were elected to represent the interests and the will of the sovereign, that is the citizens. My last hopes lie with the German constitutional court who will publish his decision on the Treaty only after EU elections.
I am calling on all Irishmen and -women to clearly signal the EU that is has to become an institution that follows the will of the sovereign if it does not want to risk major social unrest in the time of the worst global economic crisis since 60 years. The arrogance of the EU not to accept the sovereign’s decision in 3 countries is unacceptable. In my country Austria the sovereign was not even asked about its stance on the Lisbon Treaty with a heavy focus on the interests of business and the warmongers, while lacking a social charta that deserves that name.
Vote Until It Is RIGHT
People are not as stupid as incompetent politicians on the supranational and national level want to believe. Sensing a more aggressive tone in the only news sector not filled with blatant lies and politicians lala-gobbledygook, the blogosphere, I would say the gloves are coming off in the discussion of our future.
Driving the Irish to the polls again in September is certainly not democratic. It is a clear sign that the EU council, which is not elected by anyone, gives a you know what about the sovereign’s will. Read these older posts at my regular blog.
Being a history buff I am also most skeptic when leaders tell their people that there is only one possible way. Hitler did it in the 1930s (reminder: he was elected before starting his tyranny that cost probably more than 25 million people in Europe and Russia their lives.) Sorry, only rookies, dictators and tyrants have no plan “B.” If you don’t like this very cynical comparison, prove me wrong in comments - without being polemic - please.
Every business, from the one-wo/man graphics design bureau to multinational corporations has to have at least 3 scenarios (best, average, worst case) on their economic future or they would be laughed out of the bank when trying to aquire new funds for an expansion of their firm.
So how come politicians think they can create an agreeing followership when they leave us only one choice? The political spectrum and with it the possibilities is much broader. Seeing tendencies to discredit the pan-European libertas party - linking them to shadowy characters - I consider a principal discussion of the EU style of democracy much more urgent than anything else.
Having read the Lisbon Treaty my 3 major crticisms focus on
EU commissioners Juan M. Barroso’s dangerous visions cannot be displayed often enough. Watch the long version of his statement of an imperialist EU that has a (negative) historical dimension.
Empires always waste the lives of a sovereign turned into cannon fodder. The American Indians may not have known the wheel, but they dissolved conflicts by having the tribal chiefs fighting each other with their communities onlooking.
When I voted yes for the EU in Austria in 1995 I voted for a European Community. Now I find myself in a union nobody has ever asked me about whether that is my will.
Can anybody help me with the question whether the EU is really democratic? In 1987 I compiled an executive briefing for the Austrian Trade Union Congress ÖGB. At that time the EEC (European Economic Community) would not have been able to join itself because of lacking democracy. Is this still the case?
Following EU politics I think it still is the same. After all the EU council still can overrule the EP so easily as they decide on political milestones at their regular meetings.
The EP certainly has an image problem stemming from the length between their decisions and the ratification in all 27 member states that can take up to 2 years. Nobody has such a long attention span.
Putting all internet assistance aside the only EP decision that made it to my ears/eyes is the limit for international roaming fees charged to mobile phone users. But how many normal people, who have 5 weeks or less time to vacation every year, are really helped with this legislation? This may be very interesting for EU officials jet-setting between Brussels, Strasbourg and their homecountry, but the rest? The internet savvy generation has long discovered that email dispatched in a cybercafe or vocal communication via Skype is much much cheaper than those new limits on roaming fees promise.
Why Zero Tolerance Policies?
This leads me to my last pricipal issue. With 27 member states there are certainly more than just one approach on issues.
Being a smoker who was turned on to cigarettes by unlimited advertising in the 1970s (gorgeous woman surrounding cool guys) I take the mad rush towards a smoke-free world as a good example that the EU would be better advised to respect the personal freedom and the sovereignty of my body.
Austria has a 300 years old history of smoke filled cafes that used to be the second living room of such prominent smokers like the author Stefan Zweig and the Russian revolutionary Leo Trotsky. We call that a “smoking culture.”
(Small anecdote: When the Russian revolution overthrew the Czar’s abusive rulership, a waiter in Cafe Central shook his head, saying, “who should make a revolution in Russia? Don’t tell me it was maybe Herr Trotsky from table 12.”)
Austria has a very high, if not the highest percentage of sovereigns smoking within the EU. Again: First I was turned into an addict (tried to quit uncountable times with no success as I like to relax with a cigarette. Nicotine is the only drug that can both help you relaxing as well as sharpening your concentration.) Then I was forced to shell out more and more money because the state raised taxes to the point that more than 70% of a pack’o fags’ price lands in the government’s empty coffers. Now they attack my health a second time with outlawing smoking in many more places so I have to leave buildings regardless of the bad Austrian weather, risking a cold in the process.
I know enough members of the hospitality industry that complain about sharply falling revenues because smokers can no longer socialize in their former favorite venues. All this because some anti-smoking zealots drive their ruthless agenda forward.
Take a look in Paris. Isn’t it perverse that you cannot smoke in a Bar Tabac? Where would Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Serge Gainsbourg and Andre Glucksmann convene nowadays?
I see the same picture all over Europe by now. As roughly a fourth to a third of Europeans still smoke despite high taxes (just check out the well filled smokers section in the Brussels EU headquarters) I cannot understand that we need a regulation where the free market had found a working solution.
It should be left to the restaurateur/bar owner etc. to decide on this issue by her/himself. Smokers visit their smoke-filled cafe/restaurant of choice and leave the same right to non-smokers in choosing where they go out. Don’t tell me all places have to be accessible for everyone. Applying the same rigid standards the EU does with non-smoking would mean that all restaurants have to have the same menu in order not to discriminate against somebody. Well, I do not need to go to every restaurant. I prefer those where I can enjoy a meal and the cigarette/cigar afterwards.
If this were really about health politics the EU has a much more pressing problem with alcohol. Quoting from a EU press release from 2006:
If the EP is a representative cross-section of 300 million EU citizens, 1 in 6 MEPs has an alcohol problem. Talk to a politician and he will tell you that we have a “drinking culture” in Europe.
One of 55 million EU citizens with an alcohol problem called "drinking culture"
Go here for pictures of binge drinking among the younger generation that will direct the EU’s fate in the future. Please tell me more about the alcohol “culture” we have in Europe. Find a treasure chest full of information on this Euractiv.com webpage with many more links concerning this “culture” whose total social cost is estimated at 1.3% of the EU’s annual GDP (gross domestic product), equivalent to the costs of smoking. Reading that page you will arrive at the conclusion that the EU initiatives to curb drinking are quite lame and do not reach the public at the same level as the propaganda of the anti-smoking zealots (are they all abstinent by now, promoting the same zero tolerance for alcohol?)
With more than 300 million citizens - each of them an individual with his very own political interests - I consider it a very bad mistake that the EP tries to dress us with only one suit of regulations. Democracy means to tolerate different points of view.
Last but not least I think the EU should focus much more on the 3 fundamental problems that will relegate Europe to become the backwater of the world if nothing is done very soon:
Enough for today, I will come up with more examples of hypocrisy in the EU next week. And now, PLEASE comment, comment, comment!
(4 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Well, what I think we all should do, specially in my country where there seem to be no party against EU rage for power, we all should vote blank.
It would be really cool a website named: voteblank.eu to promote not voting for parties that are in favour of Lisbon Treaty passing after being denied, the lack of communication between EU institutions and it’s citizens, the lack of respect for individual liberty with so many cultures in EU.
It’s good to read also the critics’ side here on TH!NK09, although I don’t share everything said.
And although I could react to many things in this post, I will focus on the three points raised as most critical in the Lisbon Treaty:
“The establishment of a EU president (have they already decided which historical palace will be his residence and how much this will cost?)”
First of all: This will not be the President of the EU but the President of the European Council, which brings together the heads of state and governments about four times a year. Today, we already have a European Council presidency, it is just rotating every 6 month, following the rotation in the EU Council.
So the only difference this would make is that we’d get a personality that would remain in office for a longer term, making her/him a focal point for public attention - and democratic critique - which will help to get more responsibility from the European Council towards us citizens. (In fact, it’s not much different to the President of the European Parliament who is traditionally also elected for 2 1/2 years - and we neither elect him personally nor does he have a palace.
“The establishment of a EU foreign minister (the sovereign in the smaller countries has probably very different interests than those countries that partook in former US president Bush’s “coalition of the willing.”) Don’t try to tell me this is will be a peacekeeping force. We have this at the global level already, with UN soldiers and the bloody history of corruption, human trafficking and other issues that are far far away from the law I respect most, but which is trampled on by so many Western countries by now.”
The EU also already has a foreign service, in fact it has two. With two heads. One is Solana, the “CFSP man” and Secretary-General of the Council and the other is Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner responsible for External Relations of the Commission. Both have their own staff, their own agendas, both have to co-ordinate on the same issues. The new High Representative for Foreign Affairs (”Foreign Minister”) would just unite these functions (plus the one of the EU’s defence agency), making EU foreign policy more coherent, more effective, and reducing the leadership in these issues to one person instead of two.
“The foundation of a EU army (will you send your kids to die for imperial visions at the highest level of the EU or will the grown up children of EU politicians volunteer to help their parents’ visions of warmongering?)”
The provisions regarding the defence policy can be found in Article 42-46 of the consolidated TEU (based on Lisbon). All member states have the free choice to co-operate in joint structures, with the Council being responsible for co-ordination in this regard. But there is no European army envisaged. And as far as I can see, these provisions are not different to what is already the practice today, it’s just not as clearly formulated in the Treaties.
And even if there was a European army: I prefer the reduction of military expenses by dissolving 27 national army structures and putting them them under a joint EU structure instead of keeping these 27 armies which are based on war-driven nationalistic thinking. The only condition I would have for such a joint army: The EP should have a strong word to say. But since there is no joint army but just co-ordinated forces of EU member states, this is not on the agenda now.
Julien, thx for filling in the technicals. But I consider all 3 points important enough for their own referendums. Let us also not forget that there were never more wars in the world than nowadays. Blogsearch The Prudent Investor forn an interactive map about violent conflicts/wars in the past 100 years.
I am proud to called a EU critic as opposed to the EU skeptics.
booze; it sure does tons of harm
great post toni
I enjoyed this post: especially because it’s opinioned and yes, we might not agree in all points, but it was very refreshing to read something that refers also to everyday life. I enjoyed a smoking part and I do agree that there might be no Sartre et al without smoking culture. Even though I don’t smoke and I kind of enjoy smoke free pubs, I also think that the whole situation might go to far. It’s very true that then we can eliminate etg: alcohol, cigarettes, coffee, cakes,…and there might be no social moment anymore…or we can just close everyone that “breaks the law” in this special box which was produced e.g. for smokers.
As a non smoker I agree entirely with your sentiments expressed about smoking.Some of the laws about it are absurd.
I`m neither proud nor ashamed to be a EUrosceptic,it`s the experience of it that makes me so.
Great post.
“Can anybody help me with the question whether the EU is really democratic? In 1987 I compiled an executive briefing for the Austrian Trade Union Congress ÖGB. At that time the EEC (European Economic Community) would not have been able to join itself because of lacking democracy. Is this still the case?”
Well, first of all, it wouldn’t be able to join itself since it’s not a state (which is important to keep in mind when you’re looking at the EU system). I doubt it lives up to its own criteria here, (though the EP and Council are elected), the Council is more a site of diplomacy rather than democracy (due to its intergovernmental design), and the Commission is a form of indirectly elected consociationalism. The EP is a lot more powerful than it is (and arguably it’s becoming more politically influential than the Commission now it’s the Council’s lackey under Barroso), but it still has a way to go before it becomes fully equal to the Council. The Lisbon Treaty goes some way to remedying this, but foreign policy and a few other issues are kept out of the EP’s hands.
Another point is whether some of the policies dealt with by the EU need a level of democratic control equal to that of the member states. Personally I think that the EU has taken on enough policy areas (environment, etc.) so that it needs a higher level of democracy. Still, the type of policy area should be kept in mind.
“But how many normal people, who have 5 weeks or less time to vacation every year, are really helped with this legislation? This may be very interesting for EU officials jet-setting between Brussels, Strasbourg and their homecountry, but the rest? The internet savvy generation has long discovered that email dispatched in a cybercafe or vocal communication via Skype is much much cheaper than those new limits on roaming fees promise.”
Good point. Personally, I’m someone who benefits - I live on a border so my phone is roaming practically all of the time! I’m sure that there are quite a few people in border regions who have similar problems, and judging by the sheer number of mobile phones about, I’d say that they’re used quite a bit despite Skype (which I also use frequently). Still, you’re right to point out that there are many who this won’t effect all that much.
“With more than 300 million citizens - each of them an individual with his very own political interests - I consider it a very bad mistake that the EP tries to dress us with only one suit of regulations.”
I’ve read EU laws on restricting smoking related advertising, but not on the public smoking bans. Can you direct me to them, please? (I know Ireland brought in the ban independently as it was the first country to do so, so I may have missed the EU’s role in this).
I think the smoking ban shouldn’t be an EU competence, and legislation could be better produced.
However, when it comes to the single market, common rules have to be enforced, otherwise the single market loses all meaning.
“Democracy means to tolerate different points of view.”
It does mean that, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that it means the toleration of different practises. Whether it does or not depends where the society sits on the individual-community scale, and that is reflected in the contents of the legislation which is a subject of policy debate, rather than a structural or institutional issue.
“Driving the Irish to the polls again in September is certainly not democratic. It is a clear sign that the EU council, which is not elected by anyone, gives a you know what about the sovereign’s will.”
Well, the Council is elected, since it’s made up of the member state governments, and the Council doesn’t decide to re-run referendums, the member state in question does.
If democracy is about different viewpoints, then surely it’s about trying to reconcile those viewpoints to achieve some sort of consensus. If the concerns raised by the Irish people are dealt with in the guarantees, then why shouldn’t they vote again on it? The No campaign was built on a platform of renegotiation, so why can’t these guarantees be considered that? Does it need to be written from scratch with the guarantees before it is put to the vote?
[I would prefer a system where people could elect representatives to a Congress which would decide on draft constitutional changes (along with member state governments). Then the draft could be ratified according to each country's constitutional traditions (referendum/parliamentary vote). It would get the public in the loop earlier on and give them a clearer stake in the process.]
i heard a lot about that in the last few weeks and i think it might be true. Eventhough i think everyone is responsible for himself. Just my