John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations under George W Bush, was speaking the other day about the recent and much criticised Lisbon treaty appointments. He said something, which struck me as both profound and untrue at the same time. See what you think.
I am quoting from memory, but the gist of his comment was: “Europe has to make up its mind whether it is a nation state under construction or is going to remain a collection of nation states.”
It was a typically blunt and forthright remark. Either this, or that. And I think that it is a comment that many people would agree with, whatever their views about the European Union. The Committee of Wise Men deliberating Europe’s future under the guidance of the former Spanish Premier Felipe Gonzalez is asking similar questions. That is why Bolton’s comment was profound.
But is it true? Europhiles tend to say that the European Union is a partnership of member states. This is written into the treaties. Politician after politician will tell you that ‘Europe’ is not a state, still less a superstate.
Equally, those of a more sceptical persuasion argue frequently that the pass has already been sold. That the EU ‘machine’ has taken over. That we are now all enslaved to an undemocratic Brussels-based tyranny. This has always seemed to me to be ludicrous – nevertheless it is a common belief, particularly in parts of the United Kingdom.
Let’s start with the ostensible and legal position – the European Union as a collection of sovereign nation states which have agreed to pool parts of their sovereignty in legal structures aimed at given them powers to achieve more than they could alone.
So far so good. But is this all there is to Europe? Surely not? If Europe is only about member states (and their representative democracies) what is the point of the European Parliament – enhanced now by the Lisbon Treaty to give it legislative power practically on a par with member states themselves?
If Europe is just about member states – why bother to write a provision into the Lisbon Treaty to allow a million citizens to trigger a legislative proposal from the Commission? Indeed, what is the point of the Commission’s role in proposing legislation at all? Cannot member states identify what is in their common interest? Why talk of ‘European citizens’ and embark upon consultation exercises across member states to find out what these ‘citizens’ expect from their European institutions?
The reason is surely that the concept of ‘Europe,’ – of the continental common interest – goes far beyond a simple partnership of member states. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. An independent European identity exists alongside that which derives from being a citizen of a member state.
Most Europeans recognise this European identity, easily and comfortably. It doesn’t replace national identity, of course, or detract from it. The fact that I consider myself European – very obvious on the other side of the Atlantic – in no way lessens my Britishness. Just as supporting one’s home team does not undermine a desire for one’s national team to win.
Indeed, the concept of ‘Europe’ comes happily to hand at European sporting and cultural events. The role of football in uniting the folk of the continent shouldn’t be underestimated. Moreover, we all recognise aspects of history, culture, politics, science, language, architecture, as distinctly European. Although our member states are each different they nevertheless possess sufficient commonality to mark them out from other parts of the world.
We Europeans hold many political beliefs in common, too – welfare, the social market, human rights, the environment, international development. We want our Continent to be a peaceful and prosperous place wherein we can travel freely, live freely, set up business freely. And we are content (in the main) for there to be institutions to manage these overarching European aims.
In short there is a European dimension to life and politics that exists in parallel to the member state dimension. Men and women are legitimately concerned about what happens to Europe directly, as opposed to viewing the European interest through some national prism.
They recognise levels of decision-making. Some, like climate change, are global in their scope. But others are continental, others national, others regional, others affect only individual cities and districts. Others again are local. All are valid.
Moreover, this feeling among the citizenry of concern, of wanting to be involved, of caring about the future direction of the continent, is growing. Europe is a collection of member states but it is also a Europe of people, of folk, of citizens; of businesses and concerned institutions seeking to express their feelings and concerns not as nationals but as Europeans. Precisely, in fact as if the European Union were indeed a ‘nation state under construction.’
So John Bolton is wrong. It is not a question of this Europe or that Europe but a Europe which embraces both aspects (member states and citizens) at the same time.
The direct interest of ordinary Europeans across the continent in the process and outcome of the Lisbon treaty appointments is therefore entirely legitimate. It is not enough to say that these matters should rest in the hands of member states alone.
When, 2000 years ago, the Emperor Caligula appointed his horse consul, it was the citizens who were outraged. The recent Lisbon appointees, Rompuy and Ashton, may well perform excellently, but in wider Europe they are even less well known than was Caligula’s horse, Inciatus. Not surprisingly folk are disappointed at yet another decision, another process, from which they have been shut out.
The European Parliament should be representing this folk interest, but so far it has been weak: too ready to compromise; too self-regarding; too willing to accept constitutional provisions (such as where it should sit) laid down for it by member states.
It has failed to create the strong pan-European political movements to answer the people’s interest in the future of Europe; it has failed to throw up the leaders, to challenge the direction of the European project.
Thus we have a real and legitimate democratic deficit in Europe. Pace John Bolton, the Union walks on two legs. Europe has both the characteristics of a partnership of states and a partnership of peoples, without being exclusively either. But we need to see democracy in both if both are to survive.
Tags: Appointments, Ashton, democracy, European Commission, European Parliament, Felipe Gonzalez, John Bolton, Lisbon Treaty, Van Rompuy
#1 by A Voice for the EU on November 24th, 2009 - 2:24 pm
Very nice, and so sophisticated!
Maybe we should be a Europe of the regions. Break up Germany and the other big states, make a lot of regions. Then there is no conflict between big and small member states anymore and every member state can trust the other member state. Would need a really strong Commission then to hold it all in place and a strong parliament. Oh right you would solve that too: no more improportionate representation anymore. Great plan, gonna write an email to Ms. Merkel right away, I am sure Bavaria wouldn’t mind:)
#2 by Renzino l’Europeo on November 24th, 2009 - 2:24 pm
In fact here in Italy there is a political foundation/think-tank called “ItaliansEuropeans”
http://www.italianieuropei.it/
It is chaired by Massimo D’Alema, one of the candidates for the post of HR for CFSP, and originally co-chaired also by Giuliano Amato, former Prime Minister and Vice-President of the Convention that discussed teh Constitutional Treaty, chaired by Giscard.
There is nothing new, in advanced political communities like that we now hope to embrace in Europe, to look at identities this way, and try to enshrine the concept within the institutional framework. See also Switzerland.
#3 by petros on November 24th, 2009 - 3:10 pm
nice article. Makes you think about the possible futures..
#4 by Freeborn John on November 24th, 2009 - 4:41 pm
The benefits of Peter’s classical education once again provide the ‘icing on the cake’ but Peter’s blog remains the best of the pro-EU ones because he addresses issues central to the debate which others in the pro-EU commentariat prefer to ignore.
John Bolton is correct that if the goal of European federalists is to create a democratic state, then they need some strong central glue to hold it together, which in the era of free government (i.e. in the absence of USSR-style coercion) means the need for the voluntary consent of a people united by strong common European identity akin to national identity. The EU’s own polling (not to mention multiple EU referendum results) indicates European identity is not only very weak, but has been getting weaker since 1990 (i.e. Maastricht).
Despite this evidence, Peter argues that European identity exists already alongside national identity. But European identity is merely a ‘civilisational identity’, and only one of many ( e.g. “Western”, “Anglosphere”, etc). that compete with one another for our loyality. Unlike national identity, civilisational identities have never been strong enough to hold a democratic state together. The best they can do is hold a confederation of states together in the presence of some common external danger (as Switzerland was once held together). However, despite attempts at manufacturing a G2-bogeymen, no such threat exists in the world today, and when it did during the Cold War it was Western civilisation and not European which provided the common bond that faced down the USSR.
Monnet’s neo-functionalist theories assumed that the mere fact of creating self-aggrandizing institutions would automatically attract the loyality of citizens away from the nation-state towards those Brussels institutions. He was guided by the experience of the unifications of Germany and Italy (still countries with somewhat weak national identity) but no such ‘transfer of allegiance’ has occurred today to the EU leaving us with powerful political institutions in Brussels without democratic legitimacy, from which power must now be taken. In part this is because Europeans lack some of the things which Germans and Italians shared prior to the formation of their nation-states, but it is also because (unlike the 19th century) democratic nation-states already exist today in Europe such that politicians cannot defy the wills of their citizens indefinitely on a major matter like replacing their nation-states.
——————
“The cases in which the greatest practical obstacles exist to the blending of nationalities are when the nationalities which have been bound together are nearly equal in numbers and in the other elements of power. In such cases, each, confiding in its strength, and feeling itself capable of maintaining an equal struggle with any of the others, is unwilling to be merged in it: each cultivates with party obstinacy its distinctive peculiarities; obsolete customs, and even declining languages, are revived to deepen the separation; each deems itself tyrannised over if any authority is exercised within itself by functionaries of a rival race; and whatever is given to one of the conflicting nationalities is considered to be taken from all the rest. When nations, thus divided, are under a despotic government which is a stranger to all of them, or which, though sprung from one, yet feeling greater interest in its own power than in any sympathies of nationality, assigns no privilege to either nation, and chooses its instruments indifferently from all; in the course of a few generations, identity of situation often produces harmony of feeling, and the different races come to feel towards each other as fellow-countrymen; particularly if they are dispersed over the same tract of country. But if the era of aspiration to free government arrives before this fusion has been effected, the opportunity has gone by for effecting it.” (J.S Mill ‘On Representative Government’, 1861).
#5 by Daniel on November 24th, 2009 - 6:55 pm
I completely agree with Bolton on this one. As a citizen I want to vote for the highest posts with power to decide. If these post are on a national or on a European level is not so important – the crucial thing is that my vote should have a direct influence on the politics where I live.
As it is now, the situation is too vague. It is difficult for a citizen to see where the powe actually lies… in the EU parliament, the national parliament, the commission, the lobbyists?
But I would prefer a Europe of regions rather than a Europe of nations.
#6 by Patrick on November 24th, 2009 - 6:59 pm
@ Freeborn John
As a keen student of European integration, you would know that founding father Robert Schuman said that Europe would not be “made all at once”, but little by little “to create a de facto solidarity.” This takes time, if you were to have asked Americans in 1827, they would no doubt have had similar sentiments about American identity. Indeed, the Civil War was fought precisely because a group of states wanted to secede.
#7 by DOCM on November 24th, 2009 - 7:12 pm
The question posed by John Bolton is a false dichotomy. It is not a question of either/or and there is no need for Europe to fight a civil war, as the Americans did, in giving an answer to it.
There is one major error in the middle of an otherwise excellent commentary. The European Parliament has no legislative powers. It has the power to adopt legislation in co-decision with the Council which is quite a different matter. In other words, it has a power to ultimately say no. If it does not agree, the proposal fails.
The arrangement neatly encompasses the unique idea underpinning the EU, an association of both states (the Council) and peoples (the European Parliament).
The Czech Constitutional Court, in its second judgement on the Lisbon Treaty, dealt with the issues posed. The judgement can be consulted on their website. (It is a pity that Germany did not have jurists of an equal quality).
To take just one point:
“The petitioners are by the way mistaken if they contend that ‘representative democracy can only exist inside states, inside sovereign subjects’. The principle of representative democracy is one of the common principles of organisation of greater entities of an interstate type as well as non-governmental organisations”.
The Court could have gone further. The point is so obvious as to be hardly worth discussing. I wonder if John Bolton has ever read the Constitution of his local tennis club (assuming that he plays tennis).
#8 by Renzino l’Europeo on November 24th, 2009 - 8:34 pm
No, it has also the power to amend the draft legislation, for those matters of its competence. And this has happened often, if not always.
Since the Council has the same prerogatives as well (in the matters of “ordinary procedures” that after Lisbon will be the majority), we can say the Council and Parliament are the 2 Legislative Chambers. The fact that the initiative of drafting legislation rests with the Commission is only positive.
#9 by DOCM on November 24th, 2009 - 9:15 pm
Sorry Renzino. You are not correct. I suggest that you read Articles 289 and 294 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which will become law on 1 December 2009.
Article 289.1 reads: “The ordinary legislative procedure (OLP) shall consist in the joint adoption by the European Parliament and the Council of a regulation, directive or decision on a proposal from the Commission”.
Article 294 sets out the procedure (co-decision) to be followed. As you will see, there are three parties to the decision-making, Commission, Council and European Parliament. The good old ‘Community method’, institutional triangle or whatever one chooses to call it.
As the old adage has it, “when all else fails, read the instructions”.
In the new EU legal and institutional landscape that will exist after 1 December, it seems to me to be good advice, especially as the OLP becomes the default procedure for most actions by the EU.
#10 by DOCM on November 24th, 2009 - 9:21 pm
Apologies Renzino. I see that the word ‘independent’ is missing ahead of ‘legislative powers’ in my original post.
#11 by Renzino l’Europeo on November 24th, 2009 - 9:50 pm
We know the Parliament has not the power to initiate legislation, but neither the Council does. This does not mean that they are not legislators, as amendments and adoption are essential steps in the procedure. The EU decided this on purpose, because it is the Commission that is reasonably “upon national interests” and resourced enough with officials to start the process for the good. It is mandated to do this.
In any European countries, I daresay that 90% of the legislation is actually a Governmental proposal, which parallels what the Commission does. The remaining 10% is typically to make happy some MPs or their constituencies – not the general interest.
#12 by JL on November 24th, 2009 - 11:28 pm
@ Renzino. I think that we are in agreement. The essential point I am making is that the choice being posed by Peter is a false one because it is based on a misunderstanding. The European Parliament cannot be compared to national parliaments. It is part of system of decision-making which is not comparable to that of a state nor does need to be. It is no less democratically legitimate for all that. As the Czech court points out, it draws its legitimacy from other sources, principally the treaties on which its activities are based and the responsibility which it shares with other actors.
Cf. also parallel and excellent commentary by Merchant in Venice.
Many of the other points that he makes are, however, entirely valid and very eloquently expressed.
#13 by Kazimierz on November 25th, 2009 - 2:10 am
Daniel, #5, wrote:
“As it is now, the situation is too vague. It is difficult for a citizen to see where the powe actually lies… in the EU parliament, the national parliament, the commission, the lobbyists?”
—————–
None of the above. Today, power belongs to those who have money and media. For Millenniums power belonged to those who had swords. Whoever controlled swords he had power. Today those who control MMM have power. MMM stands for Military – Money – Media. One of that trio is not enough, even two is deficient, only all three give the real power.
#14 by Kazimierz on November 25th, 2009 - 2:15 am
addition to #13: Elected representatives control only military. Money and media are controlled by others.
#15 by David Ben-Ariel on November 25th, 2009 - 4:03 am
Germany will dominate and France will be put into its place; Europe’s imminent top ten leaders will submit to their “king of kings” and world war will be just a crisis away!
Some might scoff at secular Europe being seduced by Roman Catholic wiles, intoxicated by visions of reviving the “Holy Roman Empire,” failing to grasp how they’ll work together to further their own agendas (and ultimately betray each other).
#16 by Marcel on November 25th, 2009 - 6:13 pm
The federalists only have 1 goal. Full federalism and nothing less. This has been their goal from day 1. Federalism for the sake of it. There is no doubt about this at all, not the least bit.
And the only reason (or rather, the main reason) it hasn’t happened yet was Charles de Gaulle, the man who stopped the federalist idea dead in its tracks.
Since then, the federalists reverted to the ‘covert’ strategy.
There is a significant discrepancy between what the EU is on paper (which gives it its deniability) and what it could do in reality.
For example, the unelected Politburo (Commission) can combine with government ministers to make laws (directives, regulations) which cannot in most cases be blocked by any parliament, not even the EU’s own faux-parliament. Thus, government ministers are encouraged by the ’system’ to not bother with their national democratically elected parliaments, but instead go through ‘Brussels’ where they can bypass the national parliaments altogether?
Is this democratic? OF COURSE NOT.
Daniels question (post #5) can be easily answered. The real power lies with the executive-legislative hybrid combination of Politburo (Commission) and Council, upon which full democratic parliamentary control is not possible at all. And no, its not a covert conspiracy, its all out in the open, there to see for anyone who bothers to see past the typical pro-EU propaganda.
Peter, something doesn’t need to have a secret police or prison camps in order to be a dictatorship. Because the Politburo (Commission) and Council combination can make legislation on many policy areas, and no parliament can either seriously alter or block those legislations, it can be said that the aforementioned combination rules by diktat. Hence: dictatorship.
Tell me, if I, 100% of my countrymen and 100% of my national parliament in the Netherlands do not agree with an EU law, how do we stop it? My answer: we cannot, and that’s not democratic.
#17 by Kazimierz on November 25th, 2009 - 7:16 pm
@ Marcel,
Tell me, if I, 100% of people in my city and 100% of my city council in Amsterdam do not agree with a national law, how do we stop it? My answer: we cannot, and that IS democratic to the people of Netherlands.
#18 by Slartibartfas on November 25th, 2009 - 9:49 pm
“Article 14 TEU
1. The European Parliament shall, jointly with the Council, exercise legislative and budgetary
functions. It shall exercise functions of political control and consultation as laid down in the
Treaties. It shall elect the President of the Commission.”
“Article 293 TFEU
1. Where reference is made in the Treaties to the ordinary legislative procedure for the adoption
of an act, the following procedure shall apply.
2. The Commission shall submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council.
First reading
3. The European Parliament shall adopt its position at first reading and communicate it to the
Council.
4. If the Council approves the European Parliament’s position, the act concerned shall be
adopted in the wording which corresponds to the position of the European Parliament.
…”
The treaties are pretty clear about the European Parliament being a legislative institution. Its hilarious to claim that the Parliament has in the areas of the ordinary legislative procedure no power to amend or change but only to veto. This is not only clearly wrong according to the treaties, but also if you look at common practice.
#19 by DOCM on November 25th, 2009 - 10:10 pm
@Slartibartfas
Why not give the entire text of Article 293 all the way to the sentence, post conciliation, in Article 293.13: “If they [Council and Parliament] fail to do so [i.e reach agreement], the proposed act shall be deemed not to have been adopted”.
My point is a simple one. Legislatively speaking, the European Parliament has no independent powers to adopt legislation, a power which would be reserved in Member States to their parliaments. I have not maintained that the European Parliamentt cannot participate in a process, and negotiate to amend draft legislation, but it cannot adopt it on its own.
Its ultimate power is to veto legislation. It has done so only on one or two occasions as far as I know.
This is a vitally important point as the error in Peter Sain ley Berry’s contribution relates to it. And it has much wider implications as it leads to the much more serious error of equating the European Parliament to national parliaments and, even worse, usurping the latter’s powers when it does nothing of the sort.
#20 by Renzino l’Europeo on November 26th, 2009 - 1:22 am
The “equation” must be started between national parliaments AND the pair made up the Council and the European Parliament. It is a bi-cameral system.
The fact that neither the EP nor the Council can initiate legislation is only positive. It was set up on purpose. We cannot get drowned by tons of bills put forward bt MEPs and by National States just to make them show appealing to their constituencies, but whose rationale is not the Union’s purpose or interest.
#21 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on November 26th, 2009 - 10:29 am
By the way, I’d like to answer to the people who accuse Fedralists (like myself) to have a hidden agenda. We don’t. Our agenda is very open and clear and because the EU is recognizing the right of free speech (at least most of the time), we are allowed to propose our ideas in the open, just like nationalists, confederalists and so on are. Accepting the difference of opinions is a fundament of democracy.
#22 by JL on November 26th, 2009 - 10:52 am
@Renzino. It is not a bi-cameral system that can be compared to legislative procedures in a parliamentary democracy, where two houses may well exist but in some democracies e.g. Sweden, do not.
It is this mistaken seeking for comparisons with national systems that leads commentators astray. The EU is not a state but a unique organisation constituted under the treaties as an association of states and peoples.
The Lisbon Treaty could not be clearer. Article 10 TEU, “Citizens are directly represented at the Union level in the European Parliament. Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government and in the Council by their governments, themselves democratically accountable either to their national Parliaments, or to their citizens”.
The last sentence is crucial. National parliaments control – or should do so – what Ministers do in the Council and the Lisbon Treaty, in fact, strengthens their capacity to do so.
The role of the Commission in the context of the EU’s new default decision-making procedure, the ordinary legislative procedure, is, as you point out, a positive one and an essential element in the ‘Community method’. This method is what has underpinned the construction of Europe from the European Coal and Steel Community onwards and its role is copper-fastened in the Lisbon Treaty.
It is time that this was generally recognised. (John Bolton is almost certainly unaware of its existence),
#23 by JL on November 26th, 2009 - 10:58 am
@ JB Perrin. My comments apply with equal validity to comparisons made to federal systems. Indeed, the word federal needs to be dropped from the EU vocabulary. I
#24 by Renzino l’Europeo on November 26th, 2009 - 9:12 pm
@JL
I think we are in agreement. It is those who don’t event recognize the architecture, as it is defined, that keep on making confusion.
#25 by DOCM on November 26th, 2009 - 9:43 pm
@ Renzino. I have added to it myself, the confusion that is, by blogging inadvertently under two different pseudonyms JL and DOCM. I stopped using the first as it is used by another blogger.
#26 by Desmond O’Toole on November 27th, 2009 - 11:32 am
@JL … This is a really important point. If national parliaments and the governments that control their legislative schedules took this part of their responsiblities seriously we would have less nonsense about the EU being an “undemocratic” “politburo” filled with “federalist elites” and “eurocrats” and all the other vocabulary of narrow-minded nationalists. Not for the first time we see that the more profound democratic deficit actually exists at the national level.
Desmond O’Toole
PSE activists Dublin
(personal capacity)
#27 by Freeborn John on November 27th, 2009 - 12:11 pm
The comments by JL and Desmond O’Toole show a complete lack of understanding of the functioning of parliamentary democracy. The government is the government in a parliamentary democracy because it commands the majority in parliament. When it can no longer command that majority it stops being the government, and the person who can takes over. To expect a parliament to ‘control’ what members of the government say in the EU Council of Ministers is a fantasy. It is like expecting it to vote against a treaty negotiated by the head of government that commands its majority. It is never going to happen by the very nature of the thing.
The Lisbon treaty is full of such fantasy scenarios intended to disguise the undemocratic nature of the thing. Like votes in the EU Parliament before giving it co-decision powers in new policy areas (will they vote against an increase in their own power?). Or the EU Commission deciding if it’s legislative proposals violate the ‘subsidiarity’ principle and usurp the power of national parliaments. Will they decide against themselves?
One might expect politicians to use such slights of hand to insulate themselves from voters, but one would hope that journalists would spot it and report on it. Instead we have them meekly repeat the politician’s propaganda that these Lisbon fantasy scenarios make the EU more democratic!
#28 by Desmond O’Toole on November 27th, 2009 - 12:32 pm
I think that it is you, John, who are demosntrating a very narrow understanding of how parliamentary democracy works.
The Committee system that many (all?) parliaments operate affords significant opportunities for parliamentarians to hold ministers accountable for the decisions they make in the European Councils of Ministers. Similarly, in Ireland there is a strong push to have Seanad Éireann (the upper house of our parliament) take on the primary role provided for in the Lisbon Treaty for national parliamentary oversight of legislative proposals made by the European Commission.
The EU is the first time that anyone has ever tried to build an inernational democracy and we are still learning how to do it, step by difficult step. To successfully achieve the sort of democracy we want to see in the EU we will require a little more than europhobic carping and a narrow, restrictive view of the possiblities of representative democracy to adapt to this emerging reality.
Desmond O’Toole
PES activists Dublin
(personal capacity)
#29 by Freeborn John on November 27th, 2009 - 12:58 pm
The Committees in national parliaments also have a built-in government majority.
Strange that you rail against the House of Lords in one thread, and then suggest the rather similar Seanad Éireann, with its membership selected from candidates chosen largely by the Taoiseach and TDs, to be the answer to the EU democracy problem.
The Irish state itself was created to assert that the Irish nation would not live under a parliament in Westminster that could overrule the preferences of the majority of Irishmen. The Stormont parliament allowed one community to dominate another for 50 years in the name of one-man-one-vote democracy. So there is no international democracy based on majority voting. Only the preservation of democratic legitimacy in international organsations through decision-making by unanimity. The EU has got it wrong because its supporters do not know what democracy is, live in a fantasy world where parliaments vote against their governments, and cannot provide any explanation for why all the so-called EU democratic improvements they have been trying for 30 years have resulted in the break-down of EU legitimacy instead.
#30 by Desmond O’Toole on November 27th, 2009 - 1:50 pm
John, I’m afraid you’re quite wrong about the democratic structure of Seanad Éireann. An Seanad is quite unlike the British House of Lords as you claim. It has sixty members, eleven of whom are appointed by An Taoiseach (like the British PM does), but the remaining forty-nine, the overwhelming majority, are elected members. Forty-three are elected by TDs (members of the Lower House), outgoing Senators and councillors … very similar to the way that many European upper houses are formed, i.e. by indirect election, and a further six are elected by an open vote of the graduates of Trinity College and the National University of Ireland.
Your inaccuracy and unfamiliarity with Irish democracy puts a question mark over the accuracy of your assertions about the European democratic deficit.
My strong advice would be to keep to subjects on which you are better informed, Irish democracy not being one of them.
Desmond O’Toole
PES activists Dublin
(personal capacity)
#31 by Freeborn John on November 27th, 2009 - 3:13 pm
Thanks for confirming that my description of Seanad Éireann, with “its membership selected from candidates chosen largely by the Taoiseach and TDs” was correct.
#32 by Desmond O’Toole on November 27th, 2009 - 3:41 pm
I did not. Please re-read my post. There are 11 senators chosen by An Taoiseach out of 60. Of the indirectly elected senators, local councillors representing all parties and none constitute by far the largest element of the electorate for the Seanad, not TDs as you are claiming. As you can see it is not at all “rather similar” to the British House of Lords as you claimed.
Just a piece of friendly advice … it’s worth accepting a factual correction when it is offered.
Desmond O’Toole
PES activists Dublin
(personal capacity)
#33 by Mar on November 30th, 2009 - 12:01 am
****Updated Nov 25**
Suppressed Medical Records (File 5100-13465/001)
With copies of letters from Privacy Commissioner of Canada and an audio.
St. Catharines, Ontario
- Privacy Commissioner of Canada (Sect. 25,26,28)
- C.M.H.A / C.A.M.H. – Brock University
Further details Google:
Medicine Gone Bad
or
http://medicine-gone-bad.blogspot.com/
#34 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on November 30th, 2009 - 11:07 am
Answering to Desmond and Freeborn John conversation, if I may: the point, I believe is not that the current EU institutional system is fully democratic. It is clearly not. This is beside the point. No institutional system is perfectly democratic, because perfection does not exist. I laugh indeed at criticism from UK posters, who have an hereditary Queen and an unelected House of Lords… But if the bad news is that the EU is not (really) democratic, the good news is that it is now a lot more than it used to be. The whole idea of Federalists is to make it precisely more democratic. We are aware that it is going to take a lot of time. First because the member states political “elite” are putting the break on anything which restricts their personal power (a very human reaction). But mainly because of people like Freeborn John (this is not a personal attack, I have much respect for your arguments), who believe that there should simply be no European level of citizenship and legitimacy all together. Does that mean the whole process is corrupted, because the institutions are not perfect. I don’t think so. Of course, I’d prefer to have it another way, but I am also a pragmatist. I prefer an imperfect process than no process at all. Returning to the era of nationalisms is simply not an acceptable option: it would make all of our delegation of power (the basis of citizenship) completely irrelevant.
#35 by Desmond O’Toole on November 30th, 2009 - 1:30 pm
I agree with you Jean-Baptiste and this is indeed the paradox of further democratisation of the EU’s institutions. The more they are democratised the greater their popular legitimacy and hence the greater the power and influence they will inevitably attract.
It reminds me of the old saying that might apply to europhobes in this context, “Be careful what you wish for, you might get it!”
Desmond O’Toole
PES activists Dublin
(personal capacity)
#36 by bikey on December 2nd, 2009 - 11:19 am
For yet another take, and some rarely mentioned provisions on this Treaty, see http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/12/lisbon-treaty-who-is-europe-still.php
#37 by Desmond O’Toole on December 3rd, 2009 - 3:31 pm
I’m afraid you’re mistaken, Bikey, in claiming that the issues raised by this article have been “rarely mentioned”. On the contrary, these issues have been exhaustively debated already over several years, especialy in Ireland during the treaty referenda, where these claims (of mandatory privatisation of public services, anti-democracy, the emasculation of national parliaments and the prioritising of militarisation) were comprehensively demonstrated to be false.
The quoted article is a polemical and transparently partisan attack on the entire basis of the Lisbon Treaty and the functioning of the EU. The author relies on assertions and heightened rhetoric rather than reasoned argument.
The author’s standing in the academic community, i.e. her teaching responsibilities at Istanbul University, are adduced to add weight to her assertions. That is interesting because she adopts the writing style and political positions of another “academic” europhobe, Susan George, with whom contributors might already be familiar.
Desmond O’Toole
PES activists Dublin
(personal capacity)
#38 by Marcel on December 4th, 2009 - 7:02 pm
@18
the treaties can say all they want, but the DE FACTO fact is that the socalled EU Parliament is NOT a real parliament.
All legislative powers must be returned from unelected Politburo (Commission) to the NATIONAL parliaments. At the level of the nation, that is where democracy is. The EU is not and never has been and can never be democratic because the peoples never approved it.