why I would probably vote no
So in Ireland we are quickly approaching the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. A fierce campaign at least in terms of posters is going on - wherever you look in Dublin, you see posters in favour or against the treaty. Far more NO posters than YES posters, and the NO posters are generally about risks - either realistic or demagogic - of voting in favour of the treaty, while YES posters are usually big pictures of politicians advertising themselves, with in small font in the corner of the poster a sort of “Oh, yes, and also vote YES”. In other words, not half as convincing.
The posters really make me think, actually, and even though I know most of the NO posters are nonsense and based on scaring people for no clear reason, I think think that if I would have to vote right now, I would vote NO. Now, admittedly, I have not actually read the treaty - it’s 272 pages! - and am by no means an expert in the area. Furthermore, I should state quite clearly that I consider myself close to a European federalist - in other words, I’m very much in favour of European integration and want more rather than less of it. So why would I consider voting no?
- Although the treaty definitely makes good progress towards a more democratic Europe - more power to the European Parliament and somewhat more power to national parliaments - it certainly does not go far enough yet. The European Council (the collection of ministerial representatives from each member state) is still very powerful, even though they are only in a very indirect manner responsible to the voter (you do not vote for a member of the Council, but in most countries you vote for a party, which selects leaders, which negotiate on a coalition, which appoints ministers, which then go to the Council). There will be a new President of the Council, which could at least symbolically be a very important role, but he will be elected by the Council itself - no voters need to get involved. So, a step in the right direction, but by far not far enough.
- The implementation of the treaty itself is even more blatantly at odds with everything democratic. So Europe is the place where democracy was born. We’re proud of our democratic credentials and look down on any dictatorial regime. We believe in self-determination of peoples. Yet, when we implement what looks very much like a constitution for Europe, we don’t get any voters involved! We had referendums in the Netherlands and France and they lost - so we just do not ask them again. Only Ireland votes, because by constitutional law they have to vote on every treaty. Hence, because only one small group of European citizens are asked to voice an opinion, and because the reason that others are not asked is because we know they vote no (!), that small group should send a clear signal and vote NO. We need to make a stand and make clear that this is not how you implement major constitutional changes in the EU.
- How can someone be asked to vote on a treaty of 272 pages? Or on something as cryptic as this? And it is not that “vote YES because it’s good for Ireland” is going to be very convincing when nobody understands what they are voting yes for. Of course Ireland has hugely benefitted from European membership in the last decades and it should be grateful and help build a strong Europe. But it should vote NO now and follow the poster that says “we can get a better deal”. The poster refers to Irish self-interests, of course, but even as European citizens as a whole, “we can get a better deal”. When the referendum took place in the Netherlands I was also tempted to vote NO - I must admit I did not vote at all - and exactly for this reason, that one cannot be asked to vote on a text that nobody understands. Why can they not write a proper constitution of only a few pages that is clear and democratic and which will then be voted upon by all citizens of the EU? Is that not how you create a European identity - something they want so badly?
That summarizes my arguments. The core point is that although I’m much for further integration of the EU (and further expansion), more signalling is necessary that when the EU says it wants to generate a “European identity” and says it wants to “fix the democratic gap”, that we should start to take ourselves seriously and do things that are actually democratic. A constitution without vote, a remaining strong role for the Council (perhaps even stronger with the establishment of the Council presidency), and very little relation between Commission appointments and elections are absolutely not signs of democracy.
On a more dreamy level: the Obama - Clinton campaign, which I followed quite closely and with enthousiasm, makes me jealous. Why do we not have a proper president of the EU, elected by popular vote, so that people actually need to campaign my making themselves known? Sell their ideas? Travel around Europe? Gather in town halls and make speeches? No, instead we have a President of the Council, who visits prime ministers in all countries to lobby behind closed doors for an appointment, and in the end it is as much based on which country gets what as it is on political campaigns. Even a Europe that would not integrate any further than the current version - and for the next decade or so this is quite integrated enough already, I’d say - could be run by a much more democratically elected leadership, based on voter opinions and not based on backroom lobbying by government representatives.
1 comment June 10th, 2008
