This is mocking democracy, and a good way to develop cynicism.
It is OK if one has an instrumental view of democracy (ie, as in "democracy is good as long as the results are inn my desired direction"), but is not OK if one sees democracy as an end in itself (with all its shortcomings). Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness - Bertrand Russell
The problem with referenda on EU Treaties is that you need unanimous votes in every single country. That's not democracy by any stretch of the word.
And in order to get a Europe-wide referendum (which would be a great idea), you'd still need to get unanimous agreement in each country to do such a referendum and agree to be bound by such a vote, which again would need to follow in each case national rules. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
1 and 2 are the precise definition of how UK elections happen. Why is that anti-democratic: it's just politics.
Just because it exists in a EU country, doesn't make it a good argument. Elections should not be called at the convenience of the existing powers. And (as a side) I would not know if I would call a system based on uninominal seating a representative democracy. I would prefer to call it a non-dictatorship.
Yes it is, you are going through the fallacy of considering Europe a single voting block, it is not. Last time I checked there was no EU-nation, so you don't have a EU democracy as the fundamental piece, you still have nation-based democracies. Each nation is still (mostly) sovereign. The process was, in an accepted agreement, a consensual-based one in respecting of that sovereignty.
The rules of the game were clear. The fact that an enlargement was done to unmanageable proportions on top of a consensual schema is an argument for the incompetence of those of enlarged without first shaping the necessary management framework, it is not an argument against the existing model. It is in Ireland's right to deny the framework change.
That being said, I am far from being a fan of "nationalist isolationism", that is not my point. I am a fan of going by the rules, which is, the civilized way for nations to interact, IMO. Bullying Ireland in going from a previously accepted framework into a new one is not a civilized, proper way to advance.
And in order to get a Europe-wide referendum (which would be a great idea), you'd still need to get unanimous agreement in each country to do such a referendum and agree to be bound by such a vote, which again would need to follow in each case national rules.
Again, that is the current existing, accepted, framework. You need consensus as per previous agreements between existing nations. Silly way of proceeding? Most probably I would agree. But you cannot simply wreck existing compromises just because it is convinient Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness - Bertrand Russell
'Democratic' here really means 'One pound, one vote' - just like in other Anglo countries.
The EU is anti-democratic because it means 'one euro, one vote', which is completely different.
But I don't think it's a conincidence that as income gaps have widened, political consensus has drited towards the right.
Detailing the fiasco that was UK politics in the 70s and the double-chinned and wailing lurching thing that it vomited up in the form of the Tory rule of the 80s would take more space than there is here.
Today the street level political consensus is one of utter cynicism. None of the parties are trusted - with reason - so people hold their noses and vote for the one they think is likely to do the least damage to their personal interests and against the one they happen not to like much.
It's an almost entirely negative political culture if you'd like to see some vision and democracy, but a very positive form of pseudo-democracy if you want to minimise popular interference on policy.
Was it an accident that someone with such exotic religious tendencies (in a UK context) became PM?
I don't think anyone - apart from Blair, his financial supporters, and some of his minions - can answer that.
Only if you accept the premise that the EU is a government of Europeans and not an organization of European countries. Structurally, it's both or neither or something. You have elected MEPs but membership decided at the national level with votes on a country-by-country basis for constitutional-ish changes. But if you accept the premise that the EU is an organization of national governments, the referenda are well within reason. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
The Treaty of Lisbon establishes the concept of EU Citizenship or rights for the first time - up until now that was always defined at the level of the member states. So it is slowly moving from a purely inter-state arrangement to a supra state one. However the degree of any such movement is confined by the unanimity rule as above.
Thus calls for a single demos, or for the Irish Electorate to tell the French Government how to conduct its business - are naive or disingenuous at best. It isn't even on the radar of what the Member states will accept. notes from no w here
HENDON: Senator, could you correctly pronounce your name for me? I'm having a little trouble with it. OBAMA: Obama. HENDON: Is that Irish? OBAMA: It will be when I run countywide.
I read an interesting quote in the comments on a post on the blog of Brad Setser, from a Chinese American.
I think you are stuck in the 1980's and are just ignoring demographics and economics is changing the United States. As a Chinese-American, I simply cannot see China and the United States as "us" and "them" and there are a large number of Americans who have these sorts of mixed identities, and people with mixed identities found Obama very attractive because he is the ultimately embodiment of the "global American." By contrast when Palin starts talking about "real Americans" then I get a distinct feeling that I'm not what she thinks of as a "real American." The more McCain made an issue of Obama's "foreignness" the more attractive he was. The reality of America is that if you talk about "real American jobs" going over to China, India and Mexico as if this was some kind of war, you aren't going to get too many Chinese-American, Indian-American or Mexican-American votes, and it makes me feel good that now "we" are in the majority and can elect a President that reflects "our" views. It is simply impossible for me to view international trade as a battle ground between nations in which people and companies have to "choose sides" and like it or not, I think more and more Americans are in the same position I am. Part of the reason I voted for Obama is so that I could stop apologizing for who I am, and much of the reason I like working in multi-national corporations is that people just don't care what "side" you are on, as long as you are on the side of making money.
It is simply impossible for me to view international trade as a battle ground between nations in which people and companies have to "choose sides" and like it or not, I think more and more Americans are in the same position I am. Part of the reason I voted for Obama is so that I could stop apologizing for who I am, and much of the reason I like working in multi-national corporations is that people just don't care what "side" you are on, as long as you are on the side of making money.
If you expect something else than being just on the side of making money, e.g. fairness and not just national interest, which are the two choices this commenter sees, then you need a feeling of community, that should hinder countries to abuse their rights to stop the reform of the EU. Afterall we are in the situation we are, because elites ignored the people and went forward without waiting for the population before. If this projects don't deliver creating a posteriori justification of the a priori undemocratic decisions, the current EU will lose its legitimation. Gemach, gemach
Only if you accept the premise that the EU is a government of Europeans and not an organization of European countries. Structurally, it's both or neither or something.
It has always been more than a simple treaty organisation. Free movement of labour and capital, e. g., while still short of a common citizenship, is a forceful motor of integration, and was intended as such.
In German, you distinguish »Staatenbund« (confederation) from »Bundesstaat«, the former without, the latter with a common (federalistic) statehood. The EU is usually said to fall between these, a »Staatenverbund« (BVerfG), but perhaps is even more a monstrum horrendum (Pufendorf).
Any improvement, I'm afraid, can only come about by a real constitution, even if that means an act of the pouvoir constituant.
No more muddling through (yet another Anglo disease).
Ça ira !
I do believe that is has done long term damage to the legitimacy of the EU and will lead to a rise in popular Euroskepticism. The EU could do almost no wrong in Ireland up until now. Now the No side is, at the very least, competitive and a more broadly based Euroskeptic right has emerged (there always was a small Euroskeptic nationalist/left).
So a lot of thought has to be given as to how future Treaties should be ratified, and even if we should have a Treaty to modify the future ratification process on an EU wide basis to make it more democratic, transparent and accountable.
In Ireland, the Treaty was rejected almost wholly for reasons unconnected with the Treaty itself - the unpopularity of the Government, a breakdown in trust with the ruling elite, abortion, corporate tax and Neutrality. Almost the sole widespread reason for the rejection that was to do with the Treaty itself was the fact that it was so unreadable, and therefor it raised all sorts of doubts as to what it might mean. Doubts which were very effectively reinforced by the NO campaign.
The Irony is that there need have been no Referendum at that stage at all. The Irish constitution provides for Treaties to be ratified by Parliament (not by Referendum) and a referendum would only have been required if some sections of the Treaty were to be found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That would probably have happened, but probably only on some relative technical and arcane points - and it is then only those points that would be put to Referendum.
This would have the effect of structuring debate on around those aspects which actually were unconstitutional - and not around a series of artfully sown red herrings. Complex international Treaties - and this one was unnecessarily so - are not normally to subject of popular referendum in any democracy. We rely on our Governments and their legal experts to negotiate those on our behalf.
The Constitution is there to put limits on their discretion and to ensure the people are consulted where they have exceeded previously agreed briefs (as contained in the constitution). That is the proper use for popular referenda, and I would not necessarily prefer political systems were all sorts of measures - e.g. gay marriage - are put to popular vote as a matter of course.
The conflation of parliamentary democracy with popular referenda is promoted by the Right for entirely opportunistic reasons - only on those issues they think they can win on - whilst they call for "Parliamentary or Political Leadership" whenever they want actions that haven't a snowballs chance of passing by referendum - e.g. bank bail-outs.
We can all cherry pick the elements of democracy that suit us at a particular point in time, but the future of any progressive EU has to be built on respecting whatever constitutional mechanisms have been built up so far. The UK, for instance, has only had referenda on EU and devolution issues whilst asserting parliamentary primacy in all other areas. Why set a higher standard for the EU? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you want more popular democracy, lets be consistent about it and write it into all of our constitutions. notes from no w here
We can all cherry pick the elements of democracy that suit us at a particular point in time, but the future of any progressive EU has to be built on respecting whatever constitutional mechanisms have been built up so far. The UK, for instance, has only had referenda on EU and devolution issues whilst asserting parliamentary primacy in all other areas. Why set a higher standard for the EU? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you want more popular democracy, lets be consistent about it and write it into all of our constitutions.
So, you are advocating that a least common democratic denominator is acceptable as long as you find a supporting example in any EU country? Who is cherry-picking now?
And trying to increase democracy at a nation level is not incompatible to, in parallel, increase it at the EU level (though calling the EU democratic is, in my view, a big stretch). More, I prefer to maintain certain powers a the nation level if they are democratically controlled than to transfer them to the EU if I feel that democratic control is loosened.
Again, I am far from being a hard-core nationalist: that is not my agenda. The fact that some in the hard right are in operational agreement with this is not something I take as a pleasure, but it is not an argument per se also (the reasons for tactic agreement are completely different at its root). Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness - Bertrand Russell
As a larger point, what exactly is the advantage of your democratic ideal with respect to actual policy outcomes, especially as regards real working people?
Why is it in this matter you put such emphasis on direct democracy? As a larger point, what exactly is the advantage of your democratic ideal with respect to actual policy outcomes, especially as regards real working people?
A proper answer would be pages long, as that is, for me one of the fundamental issues in politics.
First, just a point: I don't put an emphasis in "direct" democracy. My concern is just power. I don't like the transfer of power from nations to the EU because nations are still more democratic at its core than the EU would become with Lisbon. I see this as a transfer of power from places where there is some democratic control to places with much less democratic control. If the EU was more democratic than nation states, I would be mostly for it.
Now, to your fundamental observation, which I repeat:
You see, I don't have a direct belief that democracy gets the "best decisions" for "real working people". My philosophical standpoint is not directly based on pragmatics, but principled. Democracy is a fairly good system to disallow mass concentrations of power (1). Sometimes, nonetheless, it gets the worse possible decisions for working people.
But the reality is, that most people here who seem to live well with a democracy-light are delusional in thinking that the alternatives (a compassionate elite?) are better for "real working people". Even if sometimes that happens, any minority that appropriates power will, in the medium term start to make decisions that stem from their own view of the world and are not in line with the needs of the many (this has nothing to do with bad intentions, just with the fact that we, as a species, are quite limited in our ability to see the world outside our shell, even if we try)
(1) - OK, there have been mass failings lately, with mass concentrations of power (in the form of wealth and media-control). But I am hopeful, that when the sh.t its the fan (i.e. now) the system will self-correct some of the imbalances. Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness - Bertrand Russell
But the reality is that power in the EU is wielded by 3 main institutions:
In General the EU is far more effective at regulating global capital than any National Government could be - which is why Global Capital wants to render it toothless - in the name of a populist form of Democracy which doesn't exist in the USA or any of the member states themselves. What other country ratifies international Treaties by popular referendum? Does Britain even have any kind of a written constitution other than the Magna Carta?
There is a reason why Eurosceptics come from Authortarian nationalist and laissez faire global capitalist traditions - both see the EU as an obstacle to their ambitions to increased power. notes from no w here
EU Commission - the favourite bogeyman for Eurosceptics, but in reality only empowered to act within manadates freely given to it by the elected Governments of Member States (who like it to take the rap for unpopular decisions which they have asked it to make in the first place).
First, I would appreciate that you did not confuse me with "Eurosceptics". I am skeptic of the current arrangement. Confusing that with being against more European integration is not correct.
Yes, it is my favorite bogeyman. And you have one fact wrong: in many places (most? all?) governments are not elected. MPs or Presidents are. Governments are already an indirection. So the commission is an indirection of an indirection. It is too far away.
As a citizen I know, in my country, that when a certain configuration of parliament is elected what government I get. I can influence the final composition of the government in a very clear way (the same if the government is chosen by an elected president). There is very direct relationship.
While for the bogeyman (excuses to any bogeymen that feel offended by the comparison) it goes like this: The head is chosen by some background games. Ah, currently the head is a conservative Portuguese. Portugal as a absolute majority labour parliament/govt. Great match eh? Then, the position for each member is assigned in backstage games among countries. And while the choice of local govts are a direct result of elections, members of the commission are chosen on a completely separate cycle, which might be out of sync with the local elections at all.
Ah... and I help choose whole govt. Not just a single member that might get an irrelevant post.
Do you really think it is a fair comparison that of the democratic relationship between local govts and the bogeyman?
I have nothing against the European Parliament. That is a good start. Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness - Bertrand Russell
How can you call that democratic? For a lot of people, "the EU is not democratic enough" means "we don't get as much opportunities to block things as we'd like".
That's a very negative view of things. It would imply that any change is for the worse and that we must stay as we are or, better, were. Not very consistent with "an ever closer union". "The womb that spawned that thing is fertile yet"
With the agreement of the citizens of each member state, some (but by no means all) sovereignty has been ceded and pooled in EU institutions - subject to certain constraints on the degree to which "vital national interests" within one member state can be overturned by a majority of other states.
Suppose other EU member states decided that France had an unhealthy monopoly of the quality wine market, and a majority decided to impose strict quotas on its production and sale. Or they decided that smelly French cheeses were an abomination and should be banned? Would France not object? Should France not have a right to object?
The reason all Member States retain sovereignty over a lot of issues is that it is right and proper that those issues should be decided at a national level "the principle of subsidiarity" and with the consent of the governed.
You wouldn't want those scheming Irish, in cahoots with the UK and Eastern European friends to have Guinness declared the national drink of France, now would you? notes from no w here
Monetary policy is a similar thing, as is most of the working of diplomacy, interpretation of civil and commercial law, establishment of the law itself, the proper management of an economy, and so on.
The reason why the EU cannot be as Democratic as the sum of its parts is precisely because of the federal nature of the institution, zhich others have pointed out. The EU is a federation of nation states, not a country of 500 million citizens. As such, you cannot have proper Democracy of any direct sort. But the irony is this: if you want for the EU to continue to integrate and move ever closer toward a more democratic ideal of 500 million citizens, you have to do with a democratic deficit, at least initially.
Why? Because left to their own, the nation states which comprise the EU do not have, by and large, the leadership and the natural domestic constituencies for greater integration. That's not how organizations work - they tend to self-perpetuate, they do not tend to work towards outcomes which diminish their organizational power, and increased power in Brussels and Strasbourg and Frankfurt is very much a decrease in the power of national institutions. As for constituencies at the national level, it is equally more likely that there be institutional hostility to increased power in Brussels, Strasbourg and Frankfurt. This is normal - people's bread tends to get buttered at the local or national level, less at the EU level, and so those who are getting the butter and wanting to keep it that way want to make sure the mountain of butter is where it has always been (though the criticisms of Ireland often are tinged with commentary alluding to the fact that, at least in Ireland over the past few decades, plenty of money has come from the EU, thus theoretically minimizing that dynamic).
Put it another way, if it weren't for elites deciding rather than the people, there would be no gay rights in many places (witness California's Prop 8, in the US, today), women's rights pretty much anywhere (unsurprisngly, one of the most directly democratic places in Europe, Switzerland, was also the last place to universally grant women suffrage - 1990). There would be no national currencies, no financial stability, peace would be fleeting and left to happenstance. There would be periodic episodes of repression of minorities, as unfettered popular democracy tends to occasionally degenerate into tyrannies of the majority. There would be no United States. There would be no EU.
If that's the world you're looking for, fortunately, you are in the minority, though it is true that elements of your position here are often used by demogogues for the precise purpose - accumulation and/or maintenance of power - that you decry.
But I for one, and I think this is in fact a general sentiment of the majority here, think our better European future lies in a stronger, more integrated EU. The nation of 500 million citizens will be the Europe of my children or grand children, but we don't get there without starting.
If the US didn't have the rest of the world to feed on, how democratic would it be?
There are also many things about federalisation which don't work. The advantage the US has isn't so much because of its peculiar federal model, but because of its mythologies of manifest destiny and the American Dream.
The EU will shamble along in a divided way without an equivalent. There's some consensus on what the European Dream is within the core, but much less so at the periphery, especially in those countries which have a strong competing Anglo or Anglo-affiliated mythology of their own.
It gets more complicated and awkward if an existing member appears to veer from a democratic path - e.g. when Austria included what many regarded as neo Nazis in the Government.
It certainly isn't prescriptive as to precisely what form democracy should take - or indeed the balance between parliamentary and direct democracy - this remains within the competence of individual members and their respective constitutions and courts. notes from no w here
