Carlos Closa analyses the crucial unanimity rule concerning the ratification of EU treaties in an article called ‘Tras Irlanda: referendum y unanimidad’ (After Ireland: referendum and unanimity). The article (16 June 2008) is available on the web pages of the Real Instituto Elcano:
http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano/contenido?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/Elcano_es/Zonas_es/ARI62-2008
The Irish referendum result means the start of a new period of uncertainty with regard to European integration. Even more questionable than the referendum is the requirement of unanimous ratification by all member states of every treaty reform in a union as large and heterogeneous as the existing one.
Closa’s critique is founded on four reasons against unanimity:
1) It violates the equality of the parties.
2) The chances of any success diminish enormously.
3) The democratic principle is perverted.
4) The decision of one saddle the rest with the costs (externalisation).
Closa’s conclusion is that unanimity is an inadequate procedure for treaty reform. He acknowledges the taboo character of the subject, but he suggests an isolated reform of Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union.
***
Closa’s critique of the unanimity rule is well founded. Since the publication of the article, the Irish referendum has precipitated tendencies to unravel the Treaty of Lisbon, unanimously agreed by all member states’ governments as late as last December.
By now, revisionist voices have been heard in Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic and Poland, not to mention Ireland. The United Kingdom seems to have tied its ratification to ultimate approval by Ireland (and thus, all 27 member states). Further dismantling can not be excluded.
Even more than at the time of Closa’s writing, the European Union stands at a crossroads. Institutional and democratic reform is achievable only among some of the member states. A choice has to be made between the quality of integration and the quantity of participants.
A two union solution seems to be the only alternative to gridlock. The advanced, political union would be based on democratic ground rules and effective decision-making. The old union would have to be accommodated somewhere along the lines of the European Economic Area, the European Community or the EU mark Nice.
One-speed Europe is none-speed Europe.
It is time to move ahead to give “old Europe” and “new Europe” a new connotation.
Ralf Grahn
Showing posts with label none-speed Europe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label none-speed Europe. Show all posts
Friday, 27 June 2008
Monday, 23 June 2008
More on EU democracy
How long can ’Versailles’ continue oblivious of the fact that it has lost the love of the people and the respect of the intellectuals?
Roughly half of EU citizens may dream of the halcyon days of all-encompassing national level democracy, an illusion given voice and credence by anti-EU campaigners. Yes, an illusion, because the world has changed, and the European nation states are not up to the task of enhancing citizens’ security and prosperity on their own.
This, at least, should be acknowledged on the basis of the crushing pro-Lisbon votes of the ratifying parliaments after thorough deliberation.
But in addition to large segments of the populations, the European Council has managed to disillusion increasing numbers of pro-Europeans, who are free to speak their mind. Six decades of resistance against democratic legitimacy and accountability are taking their toll.
The ‘double legitimacy’ of the European Union suffers from the same flaw as other artificial qualifiers like ‘people’s democracy’, which was anything but democratic.
The only sustainable strategy to recover support and respect is to take the qualitative jump to real EU level democracy, giving the citizens the choice of changing their leaders and setting the basic course for the European Union.
***
Incidentally, if I counted correctly, this is my 27th post following and somehow related to the Irish referendum, the same as the number of member states.
I still believe that the substance of the Treaty of Lisbon would go some way towards an improved European Union, which is in the interest of the citizens of the EU.
But I now think that more fundamental values are at stake. Hardening resistance and growing disenchantment lead towards ultimate failure, if our leaders fail to heed the calls. Therefore the metaphor of 18th century Versailles.
***
The Federal Trust report by professor Vernon Bogdanor, mentioned in the preceding post, is worth careful thought. If my reading is correct, it has taken the member states and their creatures, the Council and the European Council, as inescapable, and then looked at what else can be done to improve democratic legitimacy and accountability in the European Union.
The proposed improvements would be real, although the structure of the EU would remain lopsided; perhaps not wholly unlike some early stage in Britain, when the powers of the House of Commons grew, but the Sovereign or the House of Lords remained the strong or even dominant players.
A lopsided but real democracy may be the most the citizens of the European Union can hope for in a near (or far) future, given six decades of fierce resistance from the member states' governments against any truly democratic system of European governance.
***
My proposal is that the (willing) governments of the European Union decide to introduce a European ‘Bill of Rights’ in conjunction with but above the Treaty of Lisbon. This means a solemn undertaking to introduce real democratic reform at the EU level. The pledge would contain the core reforms and a commitment to enact them at the earliest opportunity.
(In the United States the Constitution already laid the democratic and republican foundations of government, so the first amendment package had to address concerns about citizens’ liberties. Here Europe is behind the curve, not only by two centuries, but also qualitatively.)
***
Since many EU citizens still imagine that national democracy or safeguards against the general interest are viable options, the reasons for real EU level democracy would have to be thoroughly explained as well as enacted.
Possibly, this would happen in a pan-European referendum, and it would require a double majority of population and states.
In Ireland, a second referendum is possible only if the question is different, and elsewhere the prospect of real democracy would have to be understood and embraced.
***
In my book, the fundamental reasons for the European Union are: security and prosperity.
What is more political than security?
In other words, a future European Union able to employ all the soft and hard means of international politics is needed.
(The purpose and functioning of NATO do not cover this, although NATO remains an important transatlantic alliance. Therefore, a European Union reverting to become an economic community is not a desirable outcome for EU citizens as a whole, although some governments and electorates may not be ready for a union effective on the international stage.)
Such a fundamental European interest has to find working expressions even if some state governments and populations act as if oblivious of the fact. For them suitable arrangements have to be found, such as the European Economic Area (perhaps with some policy areas added) or a second tier EU membership.
A second split looks inevitable, too. I am afraid that the ingrained hostility of some member states to a democratic European Union is such that the only way forward is to leave them behind and institute a new citizens' union based on democratic legitimacy and accountability.
***
If one or two vessels belonging to a convoy cut their engines on purpose, are the rest to do likewise?
None-speed Europe lacking popular support and democratic legitimacy is not in the interest of the EU citizens.
Standing on its own, the Treaty of Lisbon is as much a problem as a solution with regard to the real issues of Europe.
Ralf Grahn
Roughly half of EU citizens may dream of the halcyon days of all-encompassing national level democracy, an illusion given voice and credence by anti-EU campaigners. Yes, an illusion, because the world has changed, and the European nation states are not up to the task of enhancing citizens’ security and prosperity on their own.
This, at least, should be acknowledged on the basis of the crushing pro-Lisbon votes of the ratifying parliaments after thorough deliberation.
But in addition to large segments of the populations, the European Council has managed to disillusion increasing numbers of pro-Europeans, who are free to speak their mind. Six decades of resistance against democratic legitimacy and accountability are taking their toll.
The ‘double legitimacy’ of the European Union suffers from the same flaw as other artificial qualifiers like ‘people’s democracy’, which was anything but democratic.
The only sustainable strategy to recover support and respect is to take the qualitative jump to real EU level democracy, giving the citizens the choice of changing their leaders and setting the basic course for the European Union.
***
Incidentally, if I counted correctly, this is my 27th post following and somehow related to the Irish referendum, the same as the number of member states.
I still believe that the substance of the Treaty of Lisbon would go some way towards an improved European Union, which is in the interest of the citizens of the EU.
But I now think that more fundamental values are at stake. Hardening resistance and growing disenchantment lead towards ultimate failure, if our leaders fail to heed the calls. Therefore the metaphor of 18th century Versailles.
***
The Federal Trust report by professor Vernon Bogdanor, mentioned in the preceding post, is worth careful thought. If my reading is correct, it has taken the member states and their creatures, the Council and the European Council, as inescapable, and then looked at what else can be done to improve democratic legitimacy and accountability in the European Union.
The proposed improvements would be real, although the structure of the EU would remain lopsided; perhaps not wholly unlike some early stage in Britain, when the powers of the House of Commons grew, but the Sovereign or the House of Lords remained the strong or even dominant players.
A lopsided but real democracy may be the most the citizens of the European Union can hope for in a near (or far) future, given six decades of fierce resistance from the member states' governments against any truly democratic system of European governance.
***
My proposal is that the (willing) governments of the European Union decide to introduce a European ‘Bill of Rights’ in conjunction with but above the Treaty of Lisbon. This means a solemn undertaking to introduce real democratic reform at the EU level. The pledge would contain the core reforms and a commitment to enact them at the earliest opportunity.
(In the United States the Constitution already laid the democratic and republican foundations of government, so the first amendment package had to address concerns about citizens’ liberties. Here Europe is behind the curve, not only by two centuries, but also qualitatively.)
***
Since many EU citizens still imagine that national democracy or safeguards against the general interest are viable options, the reasons for real EU level democracy would have to be thoroughly explained as well as enacted.
Possibly, this would happen in a pan-European referendum, and it would require a double majority of population and states.
In Ireland, a second referendum is possible only if the question is different, and elsewhere the prospect of real democracy would have to be understood and embraced.
***
In my book, the fundamental reasons for the European Union are: security and prosperity.
What is more political than security?
In other words, a future European Union able to employ all the soft and hard means of international politics is needed.
(The purpose and functioning of NATO do not cover this, although NATO remains an important transatlantic alliance. Therefore, a European Union reverting to become an economic community is not a desirable outcome for EU citizens as a whole, although some governments and electorates may not be ready for a union effective on the international stage.)
Such a fundamental European interest has to find working expressions even if some state governments and populations act as if oblivious of the fact. For them suitable arrangements have to be found, such as the European Economic Area (perhaps with some policy areas added) or a second tier EU membership.
A second split looks inevitable, too. I am afraid that the ingrained hostility of some member states to a democratic European Union is such that the only way forward is to leave them behind and institute a new citizens' union based on democratic legitimacy and accountability.
***
If one or two vessels belonging to a convoy cut their engines on purpose, are the rest to do likewise?
None-speed Europe lacking popular support and democratic legitimacy is not in the interest of the EU citizens.
Standing on its own, the Treaty of Lisbon is as much a problem as a solution with regard to the real issues of Europe.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 16 June 2008
None-speed Europe
In a few days the Irish rejection has turned the dull Treaty of Lisbon into explosive stuff. The treaty, as it stands, can not enter into force without 27 ratifications.
On the other hand, an end to treaty reform is a fundamental change of circumstances, since it contravenes the founding principles on which the European Union is built.
France and Germany have declared that the Lisbon Treaty is necessary to make the European Union more democratic and effective. They expect the remaining states to proceed with ratification.
In practice this means that the Lisbon Treaty would have to be suitably amended to serve initially and a new European Union would have to be established, at least if the unwilling want to make things difficult on the inside rather than to seek alternative arrangements.
If Great Britain decides to pull the plug on ratification, the group of non-ratifiers grows to at least two. This is a clear strategic shift from obstructionism to petrification. If we believe foreign minister David Miliband, Great Britain will throw its weight but also its fate into the ring.
In that case the Franco-German will have a stark choice: to accept the UK’s age old quest for a none-speed Europe or be ready to embark on the 21st century road towards an evolving European Union with less participants.
While fudge and immobility have been the traditional answers to difficult questions, France and Germany just might be resolved enough to do what it takes.
Ralf Grahn
On the other hand, an end to treaty reform is a fundamental change of circumstances, since it contravenes the founding principles on which the European Union is built.
France and Germany have declared that the Lisbon Treaty is necessary to make the European Union more democratic and effective. They expect the remaining states to proceed with ratification.
In practice this means that the Lisbon Treaty would have to be suitably amended to serve initially and a new European Union would have to be established, at least if the unwilling want to make things difficult on the inside rather than to seek alternative arrangements.
If Great Britain decides to pull the plug on ratification, the group of non-ratifiers grows to at least two. This is a clear strategic shift from obstructionism to petrification. If we believe foreign minister David Miliband, Great Britain will throw its weight but also its fate into the ring.
In that case the Franco-German will have a stark choice: to accept the UK’s age old quest for a none-speed Europe or be ready to embark on the 21st century road towards an evolving European Union with less participants.
While fudge and immobility have been the traditional answers to difficult questions, France and Germany just might be resolved enough to do what it takes.
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
