Popular bridge-building is needed to save the EU
Sunday 15 June 2008 at 21:42 BST
One of my favourite bloggers, Anja Müller-Wood, is unhappy with a Guardian headline which reads: “EU tries to isolate Irish after treaty rejection”. Ireland has, she says, chosen to isolate itself by rejecting the EU.
Ireland has done no such thing. Like Anja I too am disappointed that the Irish people voted against the Lisbon treaty, but the indications are that they did not do so out of euroscepticism. Ireland is a strongly europhilic nation, and I’m sure that goes for many of those citizens who voted no in last Thursday’s referendum.
As we saw with the French and Dutch rejection of the proposed EU constitution, there is a domestic political dynamic at work in Ireland. The economic boom is over, and the political establishment has almost zero credibility. Corruption is a serious problem, and the people are looking to give their political leaders an almighty kicking. I don’t blame them; politicians should be given a regular thrashing to encourage good behaviour.
As for the EU itself, these same voters are I’m sure aware that most of the power resides in the Council of Ministers, not the Commission. In the end it comes back to member state governments accountable to their electorates. But it must be said that there is at the same time a popular and in my view justified frustration with the style of governance exercised by the Commission.
The main anti-Lisbon lobby group in Ireland, “Libertas”, was dishonest in its referendum campaign rhetoric. It was also inconsistent in promoting a classical liberal, pro-enlightenment agenda, while at the same time playing to a number of social neuroses at the heart of Irish society.
If the rest of Europe tries to bulldoze the treaty through, and force the Irish to vote again until they give the right answer, then I fear that the EU’s days are numbered. The Scandinavians will not take kindly to this, and neither will some of the eastern European nations. In that case a consensus among the French and German ruling classes may not be enough to save the union.
Stumble it!
Monday 16 June 2008 at 02:51 BST
“As for the EU itself, these same voters are I’m sure aware that most of the power resides in the Council of Ministers, not the Commission.”
Rubbish and shite. What fucking planet are you on Sedgie? Irish fucking peasants can hadly fucking read never mind understand complex shite. See Jimbo’s post here:
http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/irish-referendum-a-victory-for-reaction/
The Fintan O’Toole article is more like the truth also:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/14/ireland.eu
Monday 16 June 2008 at 03:19 BST
Will, I was minded to delete your little rant that borders on racism. But then I thought, no, let’s have a look at what Finton O’Toole has to say about the Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty.
So I went and read O’Toole’s Groan article. All I can say in response is: what a condescending wanker that man is. Just as a number of the commenters on his article, Irish among them, point out. O’Toole is nothing but a Hibernian version of any number of British newspaper columnists you could mention. They are egotistical talking heads who cast their nets wide and far, but have no head for the detail and complexity of real life.
Have you been in Ireland in recent years? I have. I know the country rather well. I spent part of my childhood living there, and even speak the language to a degree, having had it beaten into my synapses by psychopathic primary school teachers. Despite that experience I have a great deal of time for Ireland and its people, peasants and all.
Since the 1970s I’ve seen how Ireland has been transformed by membership of the European Community. The economic miracle may have saved the country from ruin, but it was built on sand, and the Irish people are now paying for the complacency of their political leaders.
The “celtic tiger” was based on property price inflation and a volatile service sector employment market that is now going pear-shaped. Capital out of control. And then there is the Irish bourgeoisie - corrupt and incompetent free-staters and sell-out republicans who deserve shooting. The chickens are now coming home to roost.
I’d rather discuss matters EU with cultured Irish peasants than twatotronic Brit-trash. I’m under no illusions about the nature of Declan Ganley and “Libertas”, but I wouldn’t insult the Irish people by claiming that the Lisbon treaty rejectors were all led to tick the NO box by a bunch of capitalists with links to the American military establishment.
“Paddy, what’s the difference between a girder and a joist,” asks the English building site gaffer of the job applicant in front of him. “Well,” replies Paddy, “Girder wrote Faust, and Joist wrote Ulysses.”
Monday 16 June 2008 at 13:35 BST
Hi Francis. Obviously, over 46% of Irish voters voted in favour of the treaty, so one might wish to not blame ‘the Irish’ for what happened.
Fair enough.
On the other hand — and discounting whatever percentage of the population that is fundamentally anti-EU — a significant proportion seems to have allowed themselves to be swayed against Lisbon either by what you point out was a dishonest, scare-mongering campaign or, one must imagine, by a misguided notion that some other kind of better deal (for Ireland? For Europe?) could be achieved by voting the Lisbon treaty down.
So, this means that a significant section of the voters (at least enough to matter) allowed themselves to be deluded by others or to delude themselves.
In either case, I think that entitles them, collectively, to a few harsh words. (Not to mention that among the anti-EU camp there is in fact a number of fairly unpleasant groups and people and opinions, many of them very right wing and very religious.)
I would agree with you that the political class needs a good electoral kicking from time to time, and I also agree that (as in France and the Netherlands) this vote ended up being more about national dynamics than opinions of the EU as such.
Which is why I would prefer that the voters of Ireland (and of the Netherlands and of France for that matter) had decided to take out their frustrations on their leaders in some kind of domestic vote that didn’t affect other nations.
If we’re going to credit ‘the people’ as having some kind of collective will and being responsible for their choices, then they are certainly open to criticism when they make a bad decision.
I’m also not as convinced as you that people know that power in the EU (as it always has) lies fundamentally with the nation states.
There are undoubtedly many problems with the EU as it has been and is run. This is the great irony of the No-Vote: Lisbon would have been a serious step in the right direction in dealing with those shortcomings. (Not least in removing the necessity for unanimous decisions on every issue.)
And continuing the ratification process in other countries is something less than ‘bulldozing it through’. If it is true that the Irish were swayed by misplaced fears to vote against what (it seems we agree) were their best interests, then I’m not quite clear on how giving them a chance to rectify that mistake is being unfair to them.
Is the best ‘democratic’ solution to allow a slim majority of Irish voters to torpedo a treaty that has been agreed by the (democratically elected) governments of 26 other countries? (Should the other succeed?) I don’t quite buy that.
It’ll be interesting to see whether the “Europe of different speeds” notion now gets revived. In some ways, I don’t find this a bad idea, though it’s less than ideal.
‘Ever closer union’ is, I think, a successful model, all things considered. And I suspect that those who today say no will one day be clamouring to be let back in…
All the best, J.
Monday 16 June 2008 at 14:29 BST
There is another possible contributory factor, John. That is, the Treaty of Lisbon has serious flaws, and a significant number of Irish voters rejected it for that reason. There is reason to believe that the document has actually been read over there. I was surprised how many young Irish voters interviewed by British news media made reference to treaty specifics. My impression is that in Ireland the debate surrounding the EU is relatively mature and sophisticated.
I’ve only read bits and pieces of the treaty document. There are problems with it, in my view, but I wouldn’t have voted no. Not that I have a say. The British people were promised a referendum, and that promise was reneged upon when it became clear that the vote would be lost, despite there being a clear majority in support of continued UK membership of the union. Democracy sometimes produces undesirable results, depending on one’s own political prejudice.
As for continuing with the ratification process, I’m in two minds about this. Allowing member state parliaments to have their say is one thing, but combine this with the kind of bluster we are now seeing from politicians such as Schäuble and Juncker who talk of a two-tier Europe and you are asking for trouble. But then maybe this is intended.
The Irish voted for what they perceived to be their best interests. This is certainly inconvenient for the rest of the EU, but I wouldn’t dare call it a “mistake”. Such a charge would be interpreted by some as arrogance, at a time when humility and consensus building is called for. The politicians should be on their knees.
“Is the best ‘democratic’ solution to allow a slim majority of Irish voters to torpedo a treaty that has been agreed by the (democratically elected) governments of 26 other countries?”
The EU’s leaders cannot be allowed to make up the rules as they go along. The treaty requires the unanimous support of all 27 member states. That is the legal position, agreed to under the existing mode of EU governance. If Germany, Francis and the Benelux states don’t like this, then they should make alternative arrangements, between themselves. But whatever they come up with will not be the European Union, which belongs to all 27 of its current member states.
Monday 16 June 2008 at 15:34 BST
I am not surprised that the document has “flaws”, emerging, as it has, out of a process that has required it to be satisfactory to the governments of 27 nations.
This is going to be the nature of any treaty that emerges from this process any time in the foreseeable future. This is the reality of the situation: comparing Lisbon with some abstract ideal treaty is a dead end.
If the voters of Ireland — in all their wisdom — voted down Lisbon in the hopes of getting a better deal, then I think they indeed did make a “mistake.”
And as for consensus building, it seems a quite enormous amount of that went into creating the Lisbon treaty in the first place. Considering that the rules, as they stand, require unanimity, it should have been clear to any of Ireland’s far-sighted voters that a failure of the referendum would lead to either a stalling of the reform process entirely or some dynamic leading to a two (or three or four…) speed system. Or both.
Of course, they can go back to the drawing table and try to come up with another deal that all of the 27 accept, but then, of course, that _too_ could be de-railed by a badly run referendum in one country. Which means that we’re looking at another decade of stasis, if not worse.
I’m trying very hard to see a democratic up-side to this, Francis, but it’s just not working for me.
And I’m not sure what to make of this:
The politicians should be on their knees.
After offering various countries concessions and opt-outs galore, I’m not really sure what this means.
And having earlier on argued for a more differentiated view of the electorate, I’m not sure exactly whom they’re supposed to get down on their knees to. That necessary percent who fell for Libertas’s rubbish? The hard-core abortion foes? Nationalists? Please.
It may be that we have a somewhat different opinion of the electorate and their views toward Europe. I know several Euro-skeptic (at the least) Germans. Funny thing is, they’re almost all quite reactionary when it comes to the poor, foreigners, the environment and (at least some of) their European neighbours. Maybe it’s different in Ireland, where a significant portion of the no-vote was composed of sophisticated pro-European policy wonks who wanted to provoke a better Europe and a new round of thoughtful political analysis. Because, yes, that’s precisely what this victory for the anti-EU parties is certainly going to bring about. [/irony]
I can’t see this as anything but a mistake. Call it ‘arrogant,’ if you will, but I have no problem pointing out bad decisions when I see them. Even (or maybe even especially) if they are made by ‘the people’.
In friendship, J.
Monday 16 June 2008 at 16:43 BST
If the voters of Ireland — in all their wisdom — voted down Lisbon in the hopes of getting a better deal, then I think they indeed did make a “mistake.”
If it was a mistake, I think it impolitic to say so. Though I grant that saying so on an unread blog won’t do much damage. ;-)
And as for consensus building, it seems a quite enormous amount of that went into creating the Lisbon treaty in the first place
That was a consensus among technocratic politicians sitting in closed session. The consensus-building that is required now must involve the people of Europe, many of whom feel thoroughly alienated from the political process.
After offering various countries concessions and opt-outs galore, I’m not really sure what this means.
Opt-outs, etc. are well beyond the scope of this discussion. You would have to consider how some EU member states sign up to stuff and then simply ignore it. Others - the UK included - rigourously implement EC directives, sometimes over-intepreting their provisions.
I agree with you that we are in for interesting times in the months ahead. And again I stress that if I were given a say on the Lisbon treaty, I would vote yes, despite my reservations. But I honestly don’t see how sourness from pro-treaty politicians is going to help.
The politicians would help by launching a massive public consultation exercise to determine what kind of Europe the people would like to see. Part of this could include multinational focus groups in which citizens can thrash out the issues among themselves.
My own dealings with the EU bureaucracy have left a negative impression, I must admit. In my work as a journalist I have often had cause to interview EC officials. A few have been cooperative, until told by their masters that they were not allowed to speak with the press. Others with haughty disdain refuse to answer perfectly legitimate questions about EU-managed research projects. I don’t appreciate being told that my responsibility as a journalist is to reword press releases.
Monday 16 June 2008 at 17:46 BST
I would also like to see EU-wide referendums to test public opinion in the union as a whole. In that sense I agree with Daniel Cohn-Bendit:
The EU needs a constitution, but it should be short and to the point, and focus on issues such as human rights and the governance of the union in broad aspect. And, just as importantly, it should reclaim that vision – or “soul” – to which Cohn-Bendit refers.
Monday 16 June 2008 at 18:02 BST
Worth reading are the comments following Mark Mardell’s BBC blog.
Monday 16 June 2008 at 20:12 BST
Oh, man, if you’re gonna throw Danny Boy at me, I suppose I have to give in…. :-)
I certainly think that some European governments have contributed to the problem by trying to blame Brussels for everything except possibly bad weather, and even then trying to sneak that through if they can.
At the same time…well, you might be fed up with haughty elitist technocrats, but I’ve about had my fill with knee-jerk populist anti-politics.
There is (sometimes) a certain amount of justification in criticism of the political classes. At other times, though, it shows up as a rather unhinged hatred of politics itself, and all of the compromises and demands that go along with it.
Alternatively, it shows up as an incoherent form of political griping.
Here in Germany, it comes out in a recognisable form when demands are made that ‘Die da oben‘ (’those up on top’, i.e., the guv’ment) should both do more for der kleine Mann (’the little man’, i.e., Joe Bloggs) while also, of course, reducing his taxes and giving him as much cheap petrol as can be produced.
I’m not so sure that that particular beast needs feeding.
But then again, I may be too technocrat-friendly….
I might get around to reading the comments on Mardell’s blog. On the other hand, the value of the political opinion you find on most comments is questionable, eh? :-)
Looking forward to meeting up in July.
Monday 16 June 2008 at 20:46 BST
At other times, though, it shows up as a rather unhinged hatred of politics itself.
Well, you can hardly accuse me of that. :-)
Mardell’s blog is worth a read. The commenters are well-behaved, and while you get the odd anti-politics populist commenting, there is nothing there that could be described as “spEak You’re bRanes Twat-o-Tron”.
As for the feeding of beasts, I agree. But the beast exists, and has a vote that counts every bit as much as ours. We have to live with and deal with this.
Monday 16 June 2008 at 23:11 BST
From (the song) Danny Boy…
“If I am dead, as dead I well may be.”
And…
“It’s you, It’s you must go and I must bide.”
Tuesday 17 June 2008 at 12:29 BST
Will wasn’t being rude about the Irish, he was being rude about peasants.
Tuesday 17 June 2008 at 12:50 BST
OK, I’m prepared to accept that it wasn’t a racist comment, but Will did invoke the stereotype of the thick paddy, and that was out of order. By doing so he insulted the Irish as a whole.
Tuesday 17 June 2008 at 13:12 BST
Irish peasants can hardly read? Has he never heard of the hedge schools?