EU: What part of ‘no’ don’t they understand?

[Praetorian]

What part of ‘no’ don’t they understand?
By Serge Halimi

Some of the 27 member states of the European Union may soon find themselves subject to institutions their people have rejected: 1 January 2009 is the final date for ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, signed by the heads of state and government in December 2007 and already ratified by Hungary, Malta, Slovenia, Romania and France.

Nicolas Sarkozy once said that no true European and responsible politician could carry on as if nothing had happened after the French said no to the European constitution, that it was a message from the French people and must be heeded. But that was back in June 2006. Once he was president, he felt entitled to disregard this expression of the people’s will. He has just persuaded more than 75% of French MPs to adopt a treaty that is almost identical to the Constitutional Treaty that 54.68% of French voters rejected on 29 May 2005. The Socialist Party could have demanded another referendum; it had undertaken to do so, but abandoned the idea.

In an attempt to outmanoeuvre the many British eurosceptics before the 2004 European elections, Tony Blair also promised that the people would have an opportunity to vote directly on the new basic law for the EU. But his successor as prime minister, Gordon Brown, preferred to leave it to parliament to ratify the Lisbon Treaty (1) .

The Constitutional Treaty was rejected by 62% of the Netherlands electorate in June 2005. Here too the task of ratifying the treaty approved by the European Council in December is to be entrusted to parliament, to avoid the danger of consulting voters who may not come up with the right answer. In Portugal, the Socialist Party announced during the parliamentary elections in February 2005 that the people would have a chance to vote on the draft Constitutional Treaty. But the prime minister, José Socrates, has now changed tack, on the pretext that circumstances have changed. This is a different treaty. A simplified one (2).

This casual brush-off is surprising when, in France, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing admits that the Lisbon Treaty is based entirely on the draft Constitutional Treaty rejected in 2005: “The tools are largely the same. Only the order in which they are arranged in the tool-box has been changed” (3). A view confirmed in Britain where the Labour-dominated Foreign Affairs Committee noted that “there is no material difference between the two texts”. Only the Irish will be allowed a referendum, in May or June.

François Mitterrand said in 1983 that he had two ambitions, the construction of Europe and social justice. Is democracy preventing us from achieving the first ambition? The members of parliament who voted against the decision taken by universal suffrage are drawn more and more from privileged social classes, but the message from ordinary voters in France and the Netherlands was a resounding no. Is this significant? Jack Lang, former minister and expert in public law, may have the answer. In his view, there is no point in getting agitated about legal provisions that even the lawyers don’t understand. After all, he said, a treaty is only a treaty.

Translated by Barbara Wilson

(1) The House of Commons voted on ratification on 21 January 2008 and the motion was carried by 362 votes to 224. The House of Lords has not yet taken a position.

(2) Sarkozy used the term “simplified” five times in his speech on 10 February. But the treaty is 287 pages long, contains 356 amendments of earlier treaties, and is accompanied by 13 protocols, 65 declarations and an annexe.

(3) Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, “The EU Treaty is the same as the Constitution”, The Independent, London, 30 October 2007.

http://mondediplo.com/2008/03/01europe

Hopen dat Ierland neen zegt.

[Sjaax]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Praetorian

http://mondediplo.com/2008/03/01europe

Hopen dat Ierland neen zegt.

In dat geval: tant pis pour l'Irlande.

Democratie is een complexe onderneming. In principe moeten de burgers ergens mee kunnen instemmen. Maar soms moeten de bestuurders doorzetten. Als de bestuurders niet hadden doorgezet, dan was de euro er nog niet gekomen. De burger kijkt in het algemeen niet ver vooruit: als het goed is wat we nu hebben, zal het in de toekomst ook goed zijn. De bestuurder echter is verplicht wat verder in de toekomst te kijken, daarvoor wordt hij gekozen, en wordt er bijvoorbeeld niet geloot, omdat dat de eerlijkste representatie van het volk zou opleveren.

Mijn kinderen kennen niet anders dan de euro. Ze kijken soms naar de verschillende oude munten van Europa en vragen zich af waarom mensen zo ingewikkeld deden met allerlei verschillende munten. Ze vinden die verschillende munten wel leuk, maar ook praktisch stom.

Het verdrag van Lissabon is niet best. Daar kunnen we het makkelijk over eens worden. Maar het is het hoogst bereikbare wat blijkbaar mogelijk was. Laten we het verdrag zien als een stapje op weg. Op weg naar een democratische samenleving, waar we niet alleen in naam invloed hebben, maar ook in de praktijk. Met alleen in naam bedoel ik, dat er wel formeel democratie bestaat, maar dat we in de praktijk worden geregeerd door de wetten van grotere landen. Net zoals nu in Zwitserland gebeurt, dat in theorie onafhankelijk is, maar in de praktijk 80% van zijn wetgeving heeft geconformeerd aan de EU-standaarden. Zwitserland heeft zijn bankgeheim nog. Maar dat bankgeheim komt hoe langer hoe meer onder vuur te liggen. En als het aan mij ligt, wordt het liever vandaag dan morgen afgeschaft. In het topic over Liechtenstein heb ik over het bankgeheim al het één en ander over geschreven

[Jonas Elossov]

Vond het ook interessante tekst, had hem een tijdje geleden gelezen...