I have a strong feeling that on Sunday night as election results, dominated by low turnout, come into Brussels there will be the old complaint that the European Union simply does not have the voters that it deserves.
EU types see public indifference and hostility to what goes on in elevated bodies such as the European Parliament as communication problem - we simply don’t get it.
“Why, oh why,” is the constant complaint I hear from MEPs and EU officials, “is it that the media and voters do not understand all the good things that we do for them.”
This is why the EU spends so much time trying to communicate (see here for dumb and dumber), to break through our ignorance and to transmit enlightened information about the good works delivered to us by our rulers.
There is an interesting piece, here in the Australian, by Prof. Frank Furedi that unpicks some the underlying politics behind the euro elections and elite unease when people are wheeled onto the EU stage – even as extras.
I have written at some length on this blog about how the EU has become an important form, held in common by all European national administrations, for the conduct of politics in a public free zone.
The more politicians cut themselves off from the public – I chart the institutions and process in some detail here – the less able they are to lead, motivate or inspire publics across Europe.
“The EU’s hostile response to recent referendums in France, the Netherlands and more recently in Ireland, reveals that it is a Union of rulers united in mistrust of the people, not a Union of leaders prepared to make a case and to take their people with them,” I wrote in this essay for the Manifesto Club last year.
“Political structures, both at national and EU level, have increasingly become a machine for transmitting decisions taken by enlightened bodies down to voters. This development comes at a moment when the political classes and establishments across Europe are unable take voters with them.”
The EU, as with some many other governmental structures and practices in Whitehall, is not really made for us and shows our rulers (as we have seen with Westminster MPs) to have the mentality of bureaucrats not political leaders.
As Prof Furedi puts it institutions such as the EU and events such as the European elections tend to confirm “people’s cynicism towards conventional political life”.
“Worse still, the insulation of decision-making directly contributes to the hollowing out of public life, which far too many people see as pointless and irrelevant,” he writes.
“In such circumstances movements that are able to politicise people’s anger and dissatisfaction are able to make significant headway. So it is not surprising that right-wing nationalist parties have succeeded in gaining momentum.”
Apart from the eurosceptic Ukip (whose desire to return to a 1970s little England is not my cup of tea), the political mainstream has essentially campaigned negatively, raising the spectre of a triumph for BNP extremists unless people get out to vote.
Vote for us or else the fascists win – it ain’t much of a pro-European or any other kind of argument.
Many commentators have observed a “paradox” that as the European Parliament is about to be consulted on more legislation (it is not a body that makes laws) under the Lisbon Treaty, yet more voters are uninterested.
“The EU will in all likelihood face an enormous and embarrassing paradox. At the heart of its operations will be a multinational parliament with more powers to affect people’s lives than at any stage in the continent’s post-1945 story of integration. But if elected by only a shrunken minority of citizens, it would represent a sorry state of affairs for those who care about the EU and democracy,” the FT noted last week.
The real paradox, however, as Prof Furedi puts it, “is that the culture of insulated decision-making has created an environment that is hospitable to the growth of political frustration and bitterness”.
Low turnout and gains for nationalists or extremists will inevitably be seen as “our fault” based on the public’s perceived inability to know what is good for them.
It will be used to confirm the “we know best” outlook of our rulers, to reinforce the cynicism and the low expectations in which the public’s capacities are held.
#1 by David H on June 4th, 2009 - 4:52 pm
As a Brit I’ve given up trying to get people excited about European elections. Perhaps surprisingly I’ve had little obvious hostility; just overwhelming boredom with the topic – or, worse still, blank uncomprehending looks.
I’ve heard someone argue we should have European parties (not national parties) but this seems a certain recipe for even lower turnouts. At least you know something about national parties, why bother turning out for people and parties you’ve never heard of – sending them to place you’ve never been to – and to institutions you know nothing about?
We all need to get our thinking caps on or the turnout will get lower and lower.
#2 by Alfred on June 4th, 2009 - 8:39 pm
It is rather stupid I suppose after reading such a brilliantly written and comprehensive piece to make the statement that it is all really very simple. But actually I do feel that problems politicians and their craft encounter today is simply lack of truth. The different interests and lobbying congregations are totally blown out of proportion and have taken on the obese volumes of judicial encyclopedias. The same way as a handshake today is by no means sufficient to close a deal, because thousands of legal precedents have to be considered, a myriade of conflicting interests stand in the way of simple and straight forward pursuit of truth. It is easy to pray on this political constipation by those parties who are not in charge of the decision making process. Our leaders can only solve this problem if they start to get to the bottom of truth again. We need to change our direction and navigate towards the ‘handshake’.
#3 by Lawrence on June 4th, 2009 - 11:43 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8084281.stm
Dutch far-right ‘gain’ in EU poll
…..Polls show that Euroscepticism among Dutch voters has increased since the last European elections, with EU enlargement and integration the most unpopular issues, our correspondent adds…..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8083094.stm
Warning on eurozone economy dip
The eurozone economy could shrink by more than 5% in 2009, the European Central Bank has said, worse than previously forecast. The bank said it expected the eurozone economy to contract by between 4.1% and 5.1% this year…..
#4 by al on June 7th, 2009 - 7:21 am
So what Commissioners do we get to vote for…? That pretty much bottom-lines it. If law-making cannot be vested solely in the elected officials (look at what kind of overt power stuff like “co-decision” gives the executive), then you simply do not have a democracy, but an oligarchy with the MEPs serving as mere advisors and courtiers.
#5 by Lawrence on June 7th, 2009 - 1:25 pm
Just announced on the media.
Gonzi’s goovernment bites the dust.
Sampling of all the ballot boxes in Malta’s EP elections give PL an absolute majority.
The people have spoken and they have used the EP elections to send the message to Gonzi that he and his incompetent and arrogant government are NO longer wanted.
The only honourable way is for Gonzi to resign and hold general elections right now.
But is Gonzi honorable?
#6 by Anne Palmer on June 10th, 2009 - 11:20 am
Our National Health Service is crumbling along with many other services we would like to keep. Why? Because we simply cannot afford to keep paying £4 million a day to this \Club\ and the extra costs through EU legislation. We cannot afford TWO Governments, Two Parliaments, 12 Regions, ect, here in the United Kingdom. We certainly will not and never could be loyal to any foreigner or those foreigners that want to govern us.
We fought for FREEDOM and many died fighting for that FREEDOM, and we have come too close to losing it by those that have no idea what being bombed to Hell meant here in the UK. The people are at last waking up to the fact that they have been voting for a Government and Parliament that cannot govern and has to obey the same orders as the rest of us. No wonder the people are angry. They have been made fools of for over thirty-five years. Not only that, they now realise that the people they voted for have \made many mistakes\ for haven’t they said?
“I made a mistake, I claimed more than I should,
But I’ve paid it back now, surely you knew that I would?”
Those are the words that roll off the tongues
From those that knew what they did was wrong,
Yet t’was not just one person that made ‘a mistake’,
There’s quite a long list of those ‘on the take’.
#7 by Voltaire on June 12th, 2009 - 9:38 pm
“Our National Health Service is crumbling along with many other services we would like to keep. Why? Because we simply cannot afford to keep paying £4 million a day to this \Club\ and the extra costs through EU legislation. We cannot afford TWO Governments, Two Parliaments, 12 Regions, ect, here in the United Kingdom. We certainly will not and never could be loyal to any foreigner or those foreigners that want to govern us.
We fought for FREEDOM and many died fighting for that FREEDOM, …”
In your own place and in your own Parliament you may elect a government with the aim of taking the UK out of the European Union.
There is nobody reading this website who has any interest in such things so your postings here are a waste of your time.
Take your campaign to your own local arena where it may help you achieve your ends, and please do leave us to discuss here inter-state European matters.
Voltaire
#8 by Anne Palmer on June 13th, 2009 - 3:28 pm
Oh Dear Voltaire, have I upset you? Have you taken over Bruno’s ’spot’ then. I really think that HE should be the only one to decide who may write-or not- on his blog, but most certainly not you. If it was my rhyme that upset you, here is another one for all to read.
Divided Loyalty.
How easily fickle man doth embrace
That flag with twelve stars on blue,
To dislodge a flag that over time
Won the loyalty of those that knew
The brave that fought and paid the price
To keep their flag flying high.
That flag of St George for England
And those that survived know why.
To prevent a tyrant who would rule the world
And his swastika from flying above,
No two flags can have pride of place
For it is only their own flag they love.
Yet another flag now wants pride of place
In our hearts as well as minds,
But will it become a symbol of hate
If forced, and in the fullness of time?
Loyalty and allegiance comes with national flags,
Those too play an important part,
We cannot shed either so easily,
One flag will have to depart.
Is there a choice, a chance to decide
Twixt Country, or the State of EU?
For WE will never embrace that flag
What YOU do, is up to you.
#9 by al on June 15th, 2009 - 7:17 pm
Withdrawal from the EU on legitimate grounds is an interstate EU matter.
Do you fear reprisals from the EU’s anti-blasphemy law or something? By fearing the EU, you grant it legitimacy, even more than defending it by rhetoric.
You can’t be the real Voltaire, who defends to the death the people’s right to say what they want, despite not agreeing with it. Perhaps you should do what you do “in your own place and on your own time”?
#10 by Anne Palmer on June 20th, 2009 - 8:39 am
“There is nobody reading this website who has any interest in such things so your postings here are a waste of your time. Take your campaign to your own local arena where it may help you achieve your ends, and please do leave us to discuss here inter-state European matters. Voltaire”
Mmmmmm! Two of you have obviously read it!
#11 by Yogi Bear on June 24th, 2009 - 6:21 am
“Mmmmmm! Two of you have obviously read it!”
I read it between picnic basket feasts and to save you any unnecessary illusions I don’t give a rotten sandwich for UK internal politics, especially a campaign in the UK to get the government to take you out of the EU. In fact that sort of thing is seriously irrelevant on this playing field. What we hammer at here is inter-state commerce and such things. For example, uniform cell phone rates across the Union. Others, hopefully, such as rationalization of foreign affairs will save tax payers a hefty burden. Were we to go through all the different departments of state making savings everywhere the Common Market grow by large fractions of its current worth.
As is being suggested, this is not a good place to run a program such as yours. It suggests, to be honest, to an intelligent reader that you are one brick short of a load.
No offense intended and none taken!
“Hey Booboo where’s my napkin? “
#12 by Svetoslav Apostolov on June 29th, 2009 - 10:09 am
The European Union – non-existent?
Dear Sirs,
The European Union (EU) is said to have been established by the Treaty on European Union signed in 1992. However, taking advantage of your neutrality, I would like to question the EU’s existence based on the following considerations:
First, the Treaty on European Union explicitly states that the EU “shall be founded on the European Communities” (Article A of the Treaty on European Union, renamed to Article 1); however, the EU does not replace, substitute or succeed the existing European Communities. A careful look into the Treaty on EU shows two most interesting facts: (i) the newly “established” union does not have legal personality, and (ii) it does not have any own institutions – in spite of the common misperception, the European institutions (e.g. European Commission, European Parliament, European Court of Justice, etc.) are in fact institutions serving the European Communities (clearly stated in the respective legal name of most of these, e.g. Commission of the European Communities, Court of Justice of the European Communities, etc.). Further, the copyright holder for all official publications by the European institutions in no one else but the European Community (or the European Communities) as clearly demonstrated by the copyright notice of official documents released by the European institutions.
Second, the Treaty of Lisbon is the first legal act to grant the EU legal personality by amending the existing Treaty on European Union and Treaty Establishing the European Community and renaming the latter to Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The amended Treaty on European Union for the first time reads that the EU “shall replace and succeed the European Community” (Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon) and that it “shall have legal personality” (Article 47 of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon). However, the Treaty of Lisbon is still not in force and, hence, its provisions have no legal power.
In view of the above I would like to raise the question “Does the European Union exist at all?”
Sincerely,
Svetoslav Apostolov
#13 by Cellphone Forum on July 14th, 2009 - 12:22 am
Yes EU will in all likelihood face an enormous and embarrassing paradox. At the heart of its operations will be a multinational parliament with more powers to affect people’s lives than at any stage in the continent’s post-1945 story of integration.
#14 by Peter on August 3rd, 2009 - 2:14 pm
This is precisely it, isn’t it. The democratic crisis equals the maturation of the democratic elites: i.e. their increasing array of means to withdraw from the public arena and the subsequent hollowing out of public debate. And I don’t think this is just the EU.
The question is, is this a “natural” “evolution” of liberal democracy to liberal oligarchy through the rational choices of the governing actors, or is it, say, the result of increased media scrutiny that curtails the politicians freedom to maneuver in plain view? Or is it the result of increased income gaps, that leave an increasing number of citizen poor and marginalized and erodes social capital and the grass roots of democratic movements?
#15 by Freeborn John on August 4th, 2009 - 3:20 pm
Hi Bruno,
Its been a while since your last post and i remember reading on your Telegraph blog that your wife had been ill. Hope all is fine with her and you too.
FBJ