It makes the European Parliament ... normal.
Using a Daily Telegraph article to criticize anything European is like using La Croix to criticize abortion. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Remember 2005? Referendums in France and The Netherlands. The democratic vote is against Europe as presented by the political elites. Does the people's vote change anything? No.
So my conclusion that Europe doesn't stand for democracy. It stands for promoting business interests and projecting those interests internationally. Whether that's good or bad for European society is a different question altogether.
The European Union assembly's political establishment is pushing through changes that will silence dissidents by changing the rules allowing Euro-MPs to form political groupings. Richard Corbett, a British Labour MEP, is leading the charge to cut the number of party political tendencies in the Parliament next year, a move that would dissolve UKIP's pan-European Eurosceptic "Independence and Democracy" grouping. Under the rule change, the largest and msot pro-EU groups would tighten their grip on the Parliament's political agenda and keep control of lavish funding.
Richard Corbett, a British Labour MEP, is leading the charge to cut the number of party political tendencies in the Parliament next year, a move that would dissolve UKIP's pan-European Eurosceptic "Independence and Democracy" grouping.
Under the rule change, the largest and msot pro-EU groups would tighten their grip on the Parliament's political agenda and keep control of lavish funding.
It is true that with the recent increases in the total number of seats in the Parliament it makes sense to do this. What I personally have disagreed with for a long time is the fact that the non-inscrits (those MEPs who are not part of a group) face draconian limitations to their procedural rights (for instance compared with the Spanish parliament). The rules were written on purpose to encourage MEPs from different countries to form political groups.
There are eurosceptic parties already in EP parliamentary groups - for instance the one that includes the Polish Law and Justice party and the Irish Fianna Fail.
You may remember with the accession of Romania and Bulgaria the xenophobic parties managed to form a group, which later dissolved when the number of countries represented in it dropped below the threshold. The EP plenary had an ovation when this was announced. I don't fault them.
The Torygraph is presenting fascist and xenophobic parties as eurosceptic and making it look like the new rules will be ideological. We have a [Torygraph Alert] for a reason. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
Fianna Fail
It stands for promoting business interests and projecting those interests internationally
If you think the EU is bad in terms of promoting a free market agenda, you should try living in the US. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
4 Million Irish citizens blocking the expressed wishes of 27 Member Governments representing 400 Million people is not necessarily an ideal example of democracy.
Its kinda funny that the Irish political landscape (with 1 exception Sinn Fein - correct me if I am wrong) is sooo Yes, and, its people is soooo... 50/50 (or so it seems at this time).
It makes me wonder if the other 400 million are being represented in their will by their Govs (which don't want to consult the said people - funny).
Do you think that here (I am UK based) the government represents the will of the majority on this issue?
I would say that your reasoning is a bit overstretched, to be honest.
Also I don't care that much if the "European elites" are a bunch of welfare saints as they seem to be pictured (I actually don't believe that - there is a good deal of "pro unregulated market" ones). They could be god on earth, but I want the decision power to be in the hands of citizens (even if citizens make mistakes - as opposed to those oh-so-fantastic elites).
I don't have an instrumental view of democracy, but a principled one: between a wise dictator(or "elites") and a stupid people I take my chances with the stupid people.
The problem here seems to be the transfer from national (read more democratic) governments and parliaments to a center that is for a big part unaccountable. Even if the treaty EU is more democratic than the EU before-treaty, there is still a transfer of power from states (more democratic at its core) to "Brussels".
Transfer all the power to the parliament (to which I vote), or to a commission chosen by the parliament (low level of indirection from votes) and, from my part, problem solved.
For now, I hope the Irish vote no. At least they (still) can vote.
PS - I could give a few examples of neoliberal decisions by the "European elites": tax competition on VAT and IRS. Deregulation/liberalization of markets (aviation - to which I agree, but that is besides the point, future liberalization of trains...)
What we have now in the EU is the risk of paralysis where a tiny minority - in this case 1% of the EU population - can block a proposal that is supported by the vast majority. Sure - let France and the Netherlands vote against something - the weighted majority system would mean that a proposal could still pass if most of the other members supported it.
I don't see how more members - e.g. in the Balkans can be admitted into the EU until this changes. I also don't see how the EU can become a significant balancing force to prevent the US neo-con political elite treating the world as their playground - until the EU has more effective leadership and decision making processes in place.
Most people who whine about the democratic deficit in the EU are also working actively to try to stop it becoming more democratic - because they don't want the EU at all. And if that happens, the US and Global Capital will rule the world unhindered by any democratic sensibilities whatsoever.
For all it's faults, the EU is a lot better than the alternative - a lot of small and medium size countries being railroaded and ridden roughshod over by the US military industrial complex and by global capital. And that is the real alternative to the EU which is currently on offer - not some idealised democratic nirvana. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
The EU is a confused political mess, and Lisbon hasn't helped this is any way. There's no clear sense of what the EU is, of what it's trying to be, or of why it might be a good thing for countries to belong to it.
There are plenty of hints and suggestions available for the few people who take an interest in EU politics, but they're not necessarily consistent. The Commission likes to doodle neoliberal economic schemes, the ECB largely supports that, the Parliament is more liberal and open.
None of this is obvious to outsiders, who seem to believe there's a single monolith called the EU, and it wants to eat their babies. So the bottom-up reality is that from the outside, the EU political process is almost completely opaque.
I'm sure it's possible to sell the EU project, but the EU pols seem to resent the idea that they should have to.
You can't run a power bloc like this. There's no point trying to expand indefinitely if the home populations aren't solidly supportive and enthusiastic.
Then have an official explicit EU-wide referendum.
Time for me to peddle my mini treaty again?
1. The EU bill of rights (Title II of the current treaty). 2. Union membership rules (Title IX of the current treaty, including Article I-60 on Voluntary withdrawal from the Union) 3. The 2009 European Parliament will be a constitutional assembly 4. Referendum rules: The treaty shall be put to a vote by referendum simultaneously in all EU members states. The result of the referendum will be binding if at least 50% of all EU citizens cast a valid vote in it. The treaty shall come into force only if at least 50% of valid votes in a binding referendum support the treaty. In that case, An EU member state shall be considered to have approved the treaty if it is supported by at least 50% of valid votes in that member state, and the number of valid votes in that member state is at least 50% of the eligible voters. An EU member state where the treaty is not approved shall hold a second referendum within 5 years, with the choices being approval of the treaty or withdrawal from the EU according to the provisions of the treaty. A transitory institutional regime shall apply as long as there are any remaining EU Member States which have not approved the treaty and have not yet held a second referendum.
The result of the referendum will be binding if at least 50% of all EU citizens cast a valid vote in it.
The treaty shall come into force only if at least 50% of valid votes in a binding referendum support the treaty. In that case,
The problem is that all 27 countries would have to unanimously agree to this as there is no constitutional basis for holding such a referendum at the moment. And in a purely EU wide referendum the smaller countries would be swamped, and therefor wouldn't agree to it. That is why we have a slow moving fudge - from unanimity to qualifies majority voting in more and more areas - the "qualified" majority being designed to ensure that larger countries can't railroad smaller ones, and that large majorities are required for changes. This is an improvement on unanimity, but even that small change has now been rejected and vetoed by 1% of the EU population. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
You can't have (our usual kind of) democracy without the appearance of an explicit mandate. People really don't like it if you try to take that away from them, no matter how irrelevant it is in practice.
So given that Lisbon has been crafted to avoid the need for a formal popular mandate, it was never going to be acceptable.
The silliness about chipping babies and drafting them into the EU Child Zombie Flesh-Eating Radioactive Army would have been background noise if Lisbon had had a solid populist foundation.
(Not that I think that would help bringing such a referendum about. No doubt it would still be hard to achieve unanimous agreement amongst the 27 nations. But an EU-wide referendum does not have to mean straight up or down majority popular vote. However, such a plan would run into trouble with the German constitution, which I believe disallows referenda.)
such democracy, the better. My problem is with the unanimity rule which requires that something major can only happen if it is unanimously supported by all members - which gets patently absurd the larger the EU grows.
I agree with you totally. But this solution is far from optimal even in that respect. "Bullying" a country will only create resentment. I actually think that a "multispeed" EU would be a better approach in that respect. So the UK wants to opt out of almost everything? Go ahead, but let others integrate more deeply if they want to.
I don't see how more members - e.g. in the Balkans can be admitted into the EU until this changes.
I would suggest that your beloved EU bureaucracy made a major blunder in expanding to 25 before changing the rules.
I also don't see how the EU can become a significant balancing force to prevent the US neo-con political elite treating the world as their playground - until the EU has more effective leadership and decision making processes in place.
The neocons have currently enough problems inside the US. And again, that idea that our beloved EU bureaucrats are a bunch of social democratic saints is something that I do take for granted. Actually the current EU commission president is the biggest neocon lap dog I could think off (I still remember of pictures of him, as prime minister of Portugal, in the Azores summit where the Iraq invasion was "legitimized").
I respect your opinion, but I actually think it is the other way around: political power detached from the vote will more easy to be corrupted by money/media power. Direct voter accountability, (near) proportional parliament systems and control of campaign financing are cornerstones of assuring that political power will not be hijacked.
For all it's faults, the EU is a lot better than the alternative - a lot of small and medium size countries
Your argument that there are only 2 alternatives is flawed: Lisbon is not the only way to conceive the EU. Their are other alternatives to Lisbon. Had we had decent leadership, more sensible alternatives could have been purposed.
not some idealised democratic nirvana.
The "idealized democratic nirvana" that some of us are talking about is not idealized (it exists, see most of the EU nation states) and is not a nirvana (it has many flaws, but at least it is still reasonably democratic).
beloved EU bureaucrats are a bunch of social democratic saints is something that I do take for granted. Actually the current EU commission president is the biggest neocon lap dog I could
Sorry, I meant: "I do NOT take for granted"
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
I always find it remarkable how much the hard left take their "facts" and language from the Tory Eurosceptic right.
Although I am far from being "hard left" (and thus cannot give an answer from that perspective), I have no problems in using Tory (or whatever) words if they seem to be an accurate description of reality.
I would actually invert the argument altogether: do you have any problems in using other people's keywords just because those people are "far away" from you? So casual agreement with the "other side" is a substantial (negative) argument for you?
But, from an intellectual perspective, I would argue that people sometimes refuse an argument just because it is made from the "other side". That doesn't seem healthy.
From a media/narrative perspective I see your point.
Far from being the representative of big business, the "EU elite" are actually bitterly opposed by US neo-cons, Liberal economic business interests and a plethora of xenophobic, nationalist and religious groups.
That American biznizmen are opposed to the EU does not in and of itself mean that the EU does not pander to bizniz. Just not the same bizniz as the US panders to.
Class solidarity has its limits, even for fatcats.
Now, if you want to argue that the EU is better at opposing oligarchic bizniz - whether in the forms of local robber barons or trans-national robber barons - than the individual member states, be my guest. I think that there is such a case to be made. But you haven't been making it lately.
The election results are in now. Can we snap out of campaign mode, please?
Very true. And countries can do it, too. Just the other day, we had the strange situation that Sarko and Merkel beat out a 'compromise' on car CO2 emission levels that is rather generous to (and was greeted by) carmakers, while the EU Commission wasn't amused. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
