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
