by TfUnQ
Is the European Union at a decisive point?
The Constitutional Treaty was savagely beaten by the Dutch and by the French. Awkwardly righting itself ike an overweight middle aged boxer, convinced that its younger and sprightlier opponent ( the citizens of each European country) will fall victim to its experience, it crafted a new treaty. The Lisbon treaty, cunningly devised to make things like flags non-binding ( and yes it was a little paired down in other areas). The leaders of the EU sent this one flying back at its citizens and this time avoided those awkward referendums by letting parliaments vote. After all, nothing says democracy like keeping out the people – not burdening their minds with issues or even giving them the chance.
This approach seemed to work until the Irish, actually did give their citizens a referendum and then it was voted down. Now, I admit the anti-EU vote was a bit ridiculous in Ireland, with a mish-mash alliance of all loading up on one ticket. The “No” group had anti-abortionists, anti-immigrations, sovereignty issues that the EU was not touching on aswell as a good old mix of domestic politics, and the pro-EU group launched a rather half-hearted campaign failed to really engage the population despite the fact the EU was a core element in making the Irisi=sh economy as successful as it has been.
Then came the European Parliamentary elections, which told us little except what we already knew. That most people, but above all the English will treat it as a vote on national politics, that some countries will neatly forget everything the EU has done for them, Austria I’m looking at you, and other countries will demonstrate just how sickeningly successful :-p their country is, by devoting large chunks of their vote to the single issue of Internet piracy laws…Sweden. However the overwhelming message, if not Euro-scepticism was “couldn’t care less-ism” with a whopping 57% of Europe just not bothering.
Since then, the a second round on the Lisbon treaty is being prepared in Ireland, with a couple more opt-outs and time for the Government to reassure the population that the EU will not be interfering on some key key issues, it appears the vote will get the yes. Then what?
Is the EU actually in a crisis? Nosemonkey reacting to a fellow blogger’s conversion to Euroscepticism had this to say:
This is a vital, fundamental problem that the EU seems repeatedly unable to address – it is excruciatingly hard to be enthusiastic about the European Union. No matter how much you try, the more you look into it, the more you see its flaws. The more you look for sensible ideas for its future purpose and reform, the more you see the tsunami of inadequates that tend to gain positions of power in the damn thing rise up and threaten to swamp the whole project in a deluge of tedium, petty squabbles, meaningless jargon and total lack of vision.
All of which is true, but where is the glimmer of light? Well about wheres it usually is. It lies with the trundling technocratic engine of the EU eventually serving up something more palatable, more people driven than they currently have. The Lisbon treaty is not the answer, it is a little closer to the answer with more power to the European Parliament, it makes the European Union a little more democratic, a little less technocratic and brings MEP’s a bit closer to being able to truthfully say that the European Union is abobut the people.
Thats the start, but that alone won’t make a huge differnece, it at best further weakens Euro-sceptics position that the EU is completely undemocratic. The more important detail probably lies int he creation of a President of the European Council, (rather than the rotating chair approach we currently have). While this could go either way, a figure-head with a larger presence on the international stage, i.e. a former Prime Minister could potentialyl bring the work, and direction of the European Union much closer to home.
At present the European Union leadership, if it can be called that it a micture of Barroso, a man who endeared himself to the British public by saying the people “that matter” in the UK are talking of joining the Euro ( making him rude, elitist and wrong), and the rotating head of the EU Presidency, that would be Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, who described the EU as a “failed and bankrupt entity”. If the E?U were to instead appoint somebody with a big name and good communication, to be leader that could give voice and shape to the EU’s role then that may prove enough to start an undoubtedly slow and gadual process of citizenry engagement, that might eventualyl turn the EU into something that people could understand and one day, even relate to.
But I wouldn’t hold your breath, not only does the Lisbon treaty still have to pass, but some of the proposed candidates for this “Presidency” are not exactly the stuff of dreams – here’s a few:
Mr Tony “Iraq Waq” Blair – actually probably a good choice in terms of Blair’s understanding of where Europe needs to be heading (CAP reform, streamlined decision making but the Iraq war still makes him a polarising figure on the continent).
Jean-Claude Juncker – Prime Minister of Luxembourg, probably a terrible choice and UKIP’s dream candidate, because he comes across as a bureacratic dull and totally lacking in wider popularity or name recognition becuase, well he’s from luxembourg.
Bertie Ahern – once suggested probably not so likely, Bertie isn’t a terrible choice at all but is he a big enough player on the European stage?
Angela Merkel – Not sure how likely this/ any of these are but I’m quite fond of Angela, proving herself a pragmatic and effective politician in Europe’s powerhouse Germany, she would have strong credentials.
All things considered however, I wouldn’t hold your breath
June 22nd, 2009 at 03:28
‘The leaders of the EU sent this one flying back at its citizens and this time avoided those awkward referendums by letting parliaments vote. After all, nothing says democracy like keeping out the people – not burdening their minds with issues or even giving them the chance.’
Oh my. I don’t know if it’s that simple, whatever the intentions of individual European politicians. Of course, it was for each European state to decide its own method of ratification. And I would argue the vast majority of treaties should NOT be left to referenda anyway; a referendum can never really do justice to the innate complexity of any treaty.
‘That most people, but above all the English will treat it as a vote on national politics…’
As a young American living in London I’ve never quite understood British Euroscepticism. Or rather, I understand (if disagree with) their arguments against the EU, and have read plenty of theories advanced as to their origins, but am generally unimpressed with their counter-proposals. (Usually: withdraw from the EU, or at least ‘de-fang’ it/make it a trading bloc only. The latter is inconceivably daft, given opinions in other European capitals.)
But let’s be fair to Britons here…they’re neither the least interested in the elections—a full 6 other Eastern European states had lower turnouts, sometimes much lower—nor are they remotely alone in treating them as national elections. (Do you think the UMP won in France on the back of European issues? What about the CDU in Germany? Can’t the same thing be said for, well, pretty much every other country?)
As for the Presidency of the European Council: I agree that most of the touted candidates are very underwhelming, save for Mr. Blair—and he’s only an ‘interesting candidate’ precisely because his selection would cause a firestorm. At least it would make the whole affair devilishly entertaining.
However, there have been recent murmurs about Felipe González, the former (Socialist) Prime Minister of Spain, getting the job. I think he would be a fantastic choice (NB Mikhail Gorbachev in the 1980s said Mr. González was his favourite European politician.) Thing is, I don’t think any choice for president, save a British one, would really attract much attention from the British press.
Let’s be honest here, a huge problem with the EU in Britain—and increasingly elsewhere in Europe—is the sheer dearth of information made available, NOT so much by the Brussels Bubble crowd, but rather from the largely parochial media across the continent. Just look at the BBC here in Britain: on a slow news day—you know, when Iran isn’t imploding—‘foreign news’ usually means ‘American news’ (the BBC doesn’t even preface Barack Obama’s title in any way with his national origin—you guys think he’s your bloody president ;-P.) The rest of Europe is utterly ignored.
Anyway, we’ll see what happens with the current sclerosis. Europe’s been here before—for a decade after, roughly starting in the late 60s—so we shouldn’t lose all hope just yet. :)