By Donna Edmunds

No, not the name of my new band (tempting, though).

Christian May has written an enlightening piece over on TYC on the lack of democracy in Westminster. Coincidentally, I was asked yesterday to put together a short brief on arguments against the Lisbon Treaty. It’s not really a brief topic, but if I had to sum up in one sentence why the Lisbon Treaty is a horrible, horrible idea, it would be this: you think we lack democracy now? Just you wait!

Here’s the longer version…

What is the purpose of the Lisbon Treaty?

The Lisbon Treaty is a set of amendments designed to work alongside existing Treaties, strengthening the role of the EU institutions by giving them new powers. It seeks to streamline decision making processes, allowing European nations to tackle cross border issues such as environmental concerns, terrorism and energy security in a unified way.
The Europa website cites the three fundamental reasons for the Treaty as: “more efficiency in the decision-making process; more democracy through a greater role for the European Parliament and national parliaments; and increased coherence externally.”

So why isn’t everyone in favour?

Firstly, many proponents of the Treaty assert that enlargement from 15 to 27 member states has hindered the Union in its ability to legislate. They favour the Treaty as a method to modernise the EU and the way in which it operates. The Open Europe website refutes this assertion [see page 12]:

Some argue that unless the rules are changed to make it easier to pass legislation then the EU will “grind to a halt.” However, there is no evidence to support this assertion. In fact, the EU of 27 member states has proved to be a more nimble legislative machine than the EU of 15.

A study of legislation by academics at Paris-based university Sciences-Po found that the EU has in fact been adopting new rules and regulations some 25% faster since the EU’s enlargement to 10 new member states in 2004, and that “old” member states are in fact twice as likely to block measures as “new” countries. A more recent study by Professor Helen Wallace from the LSE confirmed that the notion that the EU has become “gridlocked” since enlargement and that it needs the EU Constitution to function properly again is wrong. She said, “The evidence of practice since May 2004 suggests that the EU’s institutional processes and practice have stood up rather robustly to the impact of enlargement.”

Others are simply uneasy regarding the level of power that this Treaty hands to Europe, or, conversely, removes from member states.

It is this question of democracy that is most alarming when considering the Treaty. Time and again the mantra that the Treaty will make the EU ‘more efficient and more democratic’ is repeated vociferously by the pro-Lisbonites, as if the one necessarily went hand in hand with the other. But, as Gideon Rachman, writing for the FT observes:

“There is a case for enabling the EU to act in a more efficient fashion. There
are plenty of pressing subjects – from climate change to energy to Russia – that
might benefit from a more united European response. The trouble is that all
these efficiency gains would come at the expense of democracy.”

The method in which the Treaty is being forced through illuminates perfectly the level of regard for democracy those responsible for the Treaty truly have. In 2008 the Irish voted ‘No’ on ratification. In response, Wolfgang Schäuble, the German interior minister, said “a few million Irish cannot decide on behalf of 495m Europeans”. The obvious answer is to allow the other 492m European citizens a chance to vote on the Treaty, but this won’t happen whilst polling suggests that referenda on the Treaty would return the same result elsewhere.

In fact, politicians have gone out of their way to avoid informing the public about the content of the Treaty, even going so far as to ensure that the average person is not able to understand the text:

Giscard d’Estaing

“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly” … “All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
(Le Monde, 14 June 2007 and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007)

Jean Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg

“Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be
intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?”
(Telegraph, 3 July 2007)

Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister

“The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable… The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”
(Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007)

Clearly transparency and the will of the people are not high on the list of concerns of those involved in creating the Treaty. (It also makes the common refrain that ‘the Irish voted no because they didn’t know what they were voting for’ rather laughable).

Consider, then, the fact that the Treaty:

• creates powerful new EU institutions including a European Diplomatic Service;
• allows for a European military force;
• reduces nations’ abilities to block legislation;
• scraps national vetoes in 61 areas, including veto on employment law for self-employed workers;
• grants new EU powers to harmonise civil and criminal laws and legal procedures;
• grants extensive new EU powers over asylum systems;
• grants EU powers to define criminal offences and set minimum sentences;
• enables EU bodies to initiate criminal investigations of EU citizens;
• allows the Charter of Fundamental Rights to become legally binding, granting the European Court of Justice greater powers;
• grants new EU powers over health and social security;
• grants more EU power over economic coordination and public spending;
• grants powers over EU trade policy in public services and inward investment;
• grants new powers over energy;
• provides EU institutions with the means to incrementally build on existing powers and to expandinto new areas;

and one can understand why many people have reservations.

A major shortcoming of the Lisbon Treaty is simply its failure to recognise that the people of Europe are not, and do not think of themselves as ‘European citizens’. The website for the political party Libertas, whose aim is to stand against further EU integration, sums up the argument against the Lisbon Treaty in five key points:

1. It is self amending. The European Council can change the way the EU operates
   without the need for further treaties (or a referendum in Ireland) provided there is a majority vote.
2. A new role of President of Europe is created. The President would represent you on the world stage, yet would not be elected by you. The President’s exact powers are unknown – they have not yet been drawn up.
3. The national parliament that you elected becomes devalued. If a national parliament believes that a proposal is outside of the remit of the EU, the unelected European Commission can decide to maintain, amend or reject the proposal.
4. EU law will take primacy over a member state’s law if there is a difference between the two.
5. You will have a common EU citizenship. You will have a duty of obedience to the European Union’s laws and loyalty to its institutions. Members of the European Parliament no longer represent “peoples of the member states” but will represent “citizens of the Union”.

The second most popular reason for a ‘no’ vote in the Irish referendum was ‘to keep Ireland’s power and identity’ (the first was that they didn’t understand it). In a Europe where people feel much more closely attached to their home nation that the European project, democracy at a pan-European level ultimately fails to gain legitimacy. Put simply, an otherwise autonomous country being overruled on a policy issue at the European level is unlikely to regard that act as a triumph of democracy.

So on many counts, then: transparency, the ability of nation states to manage their own affairs, the level to which the people identify with their leaders, the Lisbon treaty erodes democracy across Europe.

The (predominantly left wing) Irish Campaign Against the EU Constitution sums up it’s position against the Treaty thusly:

The key question for our campaign is: “What values do we want to see reflected
in Europe in the 21st century?”

We want health, education and water supplies provided equally to all. We will not watch the deterioration of essential public services along with increasing private provision where those who can pay get a better quality service while the rest make do.

We want a foreign policy that seeks to resolve conflicts without military action or support for despotic regimes. There is no need for increased military spending, to send Irish soldiers into EU battle groups and to be party to US foreign and military policy abroad.

We want economic policies geared to full employment, decent wages and sustainable development, here and elsewhere. We do not want a policy of “price stability” prioritised above all else where restrictions on state borrowing or public spending determine everything, even if the outcome is unemployment and cuts in public services.

We want an end to an increasingly remote way of law making and acting at a European level. We do not want more decisions affecting our lives to be made in a way over which we have little or no control, by people who are unaccountable, and enshrined in laws we cannot revise. Remember, over 80 per cent of domestic law already comes from EU decisions. [My highlight]

The Lisbon Treaty – the same in substance as the previous EU Constitution – will take us in the direction of more privatisation, more right-wing economic policy, more militarisation, less neutrality and less democratic control. This is why French and Dutch voters rejected it in 2005 and that’s why we should reject it here in Ireland when the referendum is called.

Interestingly, the right-wing position on many of the specific concerns is likely to be the polar opposite, but all those against the Treaty agree that, whatever the decisions taken, they would like them to be taken closer to home.

photo: Wikipedia

Related posts:

1. The future of politics