You mustn't understand - and further musings on the European project

by talos Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 09:43:59 AM EST

This is so bizzare yet scary a statement of the Commission's disdain for democracy, coming from so legitimate a source, that it should be more widely disseminated:

I quote from the rather unradical EUobserver:

The new EU reform treaty text was deliberately made unreadable for citizens to avoid calls for referendum, one of the central figures in the treaty drafting process has said.
Speaking at a meeting of the Centre for European Reform in London on Thursday (12 July) former Italian prime minister Giuliano Amato said: "They [EU leaders] decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception".

There is an audio file (mp3) of Amato's speech and he is being very open about it.

Thus, let me get it straight: the European Commission is working hard to disguise policies that were rejected when stated, if not clearly, then in a readable if tortuous way, by making sure that they are written in such a manner that no one (among those who "don't matter") will be able to understand them at all. This removes the necessity of passing it through anything as unreasonably democratic as a referendum, making sure that the populace doesn't presume to second-guess the elites again.

When all is said and done, it seems to me that the European project is being shoved to its grave - or to its transformation into something that is not even trying to keep the appearances of being democratic.

Reasonable people, who care about democratic decision-making, can IMHO only accept two options:

- Either the EU is reconstructed in a democratic and transparent manner which includes the empowerment of the directly representative institutions (such as the EP currently) and the slow disempowerment of the Commission and all sorts of, practically, unaccountable yet powerful institutions (the European Bank is but one instance of this), possibly through the creation of a bicameral legislature;

- or we must weaken the authority of pan-European unelected bodies by restoring power to national parliaments and governments.

The alternative is the establishment of an entrenched and unaccountable technocracy, who will act in the name of the "people of Europe", in a totally democratically illegitimate way - and against which no legal or institutional challenge can be mounted.

The question is: what can we do about it? How can one push a "European" yet democratic agenda against a mechanism that is determined to subvert it by any means possible - and which currently has the upper hand.

A final note: According to the sum total of EU treaties it seems to me (and I might be wrong about this, feel free to correct me), that the preservation (and even more the construction), by any means or policies, of the european welfare state on either a national or a european basis, runs contrary to the spirit and the letter of those treaties. If a European Social Democratic model (and by the sounds of it even a Democratic model) is outside the scope of the European project as is currently carried on - what is the, not insignificant, part of European Societies who support it one way or another to do? How does one begin even to question the current direction the EU is locked in?

You mustn't understand - and further musings on the European project | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (4.00 / 4)

This should be front-paged.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 09:54:00 AM EST

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (none / 1)

I'm unaccountably unhappy with this story: something about it smells, and the involvement of Open Europe in pushing it doesn't increase my confidence in it.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 10:27:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (4.00 / 2)

It's consistent with what we know about the European Council and the European Commission, and the Commission's "communication" strategy.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 10:31:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (none / 1)

Ok, to further increase your unhappiness - the Telegraph has picked this up too - however the audio file removed all of my doubts - this was indeed said.

I further note that Valery Giscard d'Estaing, pretty much said the same thing yesterday:

"Why not have a single text?" he asked. "The only reason is that this would look too much like the constitutional treaty," he said, with French and Dutch voters rejecting the constitution in 2005 referendums.
"Making cosmetic changes would make the text more easy to swallow."

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake

by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 10:42:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (4.00 / 3)

Now I think I understand, and if I'm right I'm going to get very, very, very angry.

What they're complaining about is that the new treaty does not merge all the existing treaties into a single document. Which means that what people are complaining about is that this is not a big omnibus treaty.

What makes me angry is that one of the arguments of the anti-treaty crowd last time was that the treaty was too fucking long precisely because it rolled the other treaties in.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 10:46:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (none / 0)

Yup. I've listened to that now, and it's quite clear that what he is complaining about is that the document is be altered from an all encompassing treaty that incorporates the existing treaties to a list of amendments to existing treaties.

Which means that a lot of the anti-treaty people here will get one of their wishes.

I'm afraid this diary seems to have bought the Open Europe spin on the matter.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 11:03:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (none / 0)

Let me be clear: I think its a bad idea to not do a consolidated treaty, though it gave massive scope for the anti-treaty crowd to present stuff from earlier treaties as new, terrible encroachments on sovereignty or whatever and people whined about how hard it all was to understand.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 11:07:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (none / 1)

The fact is, the EU has consolidated all the treaties into one already. I use this version a lot.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 11:09:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (none / 1)

But that's not a single treaty is it? It's what a single treaty would look like?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 11:10:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (none / 1)

Yes, but what it means is that the individual treaties are simply amendments to the consolidated treaty. So, in order to understand the amendment treaty one only has to read the two in parallel. The consolidated treaty helps a lot in understanding what's already there. It is, in fact, easier to understand an amending treaty than to go through the existing consolidated treaty and the proposed constitution picking out similarities and differences, because in that case there are no cross-references.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 11:16:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (none / 1)

That's true, for experts. On the other hand there is something to be said for having the whole thing in one legal document.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 11:18:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (none / 1)

Well, Jerome had a point that many people who opposed the EU Constitution did so because of things that were already in the treaties, while they favoured the amendments.

So it cuts both ways.

Anyway, like I said, when the draft treaty comes out we can pick it apart line by line. We know where the existing consilidated treaty is, and what it means (mostly).

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 11:21:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (none / 1)

Well, the claim that the treaty will be obscure can be easily addressed by, when the draft is published, picking it apart. I think after a couple of years on this site we have the expertise to do a good job of that, article by article.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 11:07:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (4.00 / 2)

We could (and should), and others too surely. But the issue is a. whether the tactic of having it seem like something innocuous might prevent a strong public demand for referenda and b. whether the intention of the Commission to hide the content of its proposals is something that ought to worry us - regardless of whether they succeed or not.

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake

by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 12:14:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (none / 1)

Just a question here, and I have no position (nor should you care if I did, I suppose) Why would you want to avoid public referenda. It seems that would make it more authentic, which might not be the right word, maybe legitimate would me more the concept, if it was approved by the citizens of the nations.

"I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, You know I'm a peaceful man...'" Robbie Robertson

by NearlyNormal on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 03:50:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (4.00 / 5)

Because it is extremely easy for populists to derail referenda, and the EU political elite has basically given up on their ability to win a public debate on the EU. It's quite sad, actually, considering a majority of the people are Europeist. What the people are not is neoliberal, and I think that is the "problem".

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 04:05:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (none / 1)

Actually he explicitly states that this sort of approach was chosen so that most citizens would not be able to parse the document. He obviously speaks of a document that would be even more unreadable than the original constitution. Thus the substance remains the same, but now its much more difficult to understand and it can be more easily sold as an "inoccuous" treaty. Whatever Open Europe's motives were on this one. There is no doubt that there is a major issue of accountability involved.

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake

by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 12:03:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (4.00 / 2)

Well, Giscard is largely responsible for the fiasco because he wanted the European Constitution to be the end of his career. He came up with the idea of making the next treaty a "constitution" rather than an ordinary amending treaty. Ultimately, it was about his ego.

So I tend not to pay a lot of attention when he says "they're not doing what I wanted".

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 11:33:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (4.00 / 4)

About the alternatives:

How powerful really is the Commission, relative to the Council? Would it not be better to make the Commission more answerable to the EP? (Or was that what you meant by disempowering?)
The Council consists of the national governments, and they approved everything. So how does reverting back to them solve the overall problem of turning the back on the welfare state?

How does one begin even to question the current direction the EU is locked in?

Electing off all the idotic neo-lib light governments, and the EPP+liberal majority in the EP, would be a definitely good start.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 10:46:27 AM EST

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (4.00 / 2)

I think the idea of a bicameral legislature would basically make the Council in its current or very similar configuration to a "Federal Council" (Bundesrat).

Transferring legislative initiative from the Commission to the European Parliament would go a long way towards making the EU mode democratic.

However, the EU remains, at its core, an intergovernmental organisation. To take treaty reform out of the hands of the European Council would be nothing short of revolutionary and that, and nothing else, is the key of State sovereignty vs. EU sovereignty.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 10:51:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (4.00 / 3)

I think the idea of a bicameral legislature would basically make the Council in its current or very similar configuration to a "Federal Council"

Actually that's the main thrust of the argument: the only way for the EU to be democratic (as democratic or more than the individual states) is for it to become some sort of (loose?) confederation (whether or not its called by that name) with all or most of the trappings of a federal structure. Otherwise the ability of an intergovernmental organisation to preserve a truly democratic assembly of states while carrying decisive powers over the policies of these states is quite uncertain.

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake

by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 12:14:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mustn't understand - and further musings o (4.00 / 4)

Would it not be better to make the Commission more answerable to the EP? (Or was that what you meant by disempowering?)

That would be one of the ways, yes.

The Council consists of the national governments, and they approved everything. So how does reverting back to them solve the overall problem of turning the back on the welfare state?

There is a rather vicious circle here. It seems the same governments who approve various policies in the Council use the Council's decisions as an excuse for passing unpopular policies. Although this is an obvious ploy, it works - and up to a point its a safe bet: it seems to me that most EU governments are not taken accountable on their share of the Council's decisions. That the Council's deliberations are far from transparent is another big issue. This is from a Statewatch report from 2003, and I don't think that much has changed on the issue:

This conclusion is made by the International Federation of Journalists, who asked Danish and Swedish researchers to look into the effects of the new European rules on openness, which came into force in 2001. In order to test the usefulness of the new rules, access was requested to three different kinds of documents in three different policy areas. Documents indicating the position taken by a Member State were not released, since it is assumed that this would make decision-making in the Council more difficult.

Thus, while things have improved slightly, the voters in all EU countries still do not have access to the positions taken by their governments in the EC (btw according to the linked document some of the EC's deliberations should be available already - does anyone have an idea whether they can be found, the council's website doesn't have much that I could find). That is a big problem. When the EC is fully transparent - that would be a major step forward.

Then again, the nexus of existing treaties sort of guarantees that no major steps in augmenting an existing welfare system without endangering some sort of reprimand at least. This is not the case in individual countries.

Electing off all the idotic neo-lib light governments, and the EPP+liberal majority in the EP, would be a definitely good start.

Yes but all is a rather gigantic task, isn't it? The way the thing works is that you can't rescind, say, the Nice treaty without all of the EU governments acquiescing.

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake

by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 11:43:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Mosr decisions in the Council (none / 1)

do not get decided by a vote, but by the horse trading that takes place before and ends up with "consensus" compromises.

Transparency of the Council is a pointless requirement.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 01:11:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mosr decisions in the Council (4.00 / 4)

I disagree: if the Council members had to acknowledge their votes - or even their acquiesence it would make it more difficult for governments to avoid their responsibility for decisions when they got home.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 01:17:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mosr decisions in the Council (none / 1)

Yes but shouldn't the horse trading and the compromises be on public record? Otherwise how can individual governments are to be held accountable?

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake

by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 01:18:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mosr decisions in the Council (4.00 / 3)

You're never going to get the informal part of the decision making process on the record, but you need to get the formal part recorded at least - when the council is acting as a legislature. When it's acting as an executive the issues are different.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 18th, 2007 at 01:23:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You mustn't understand - and further musings on the European project | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

You mustn't understand - and further musings on the European project

Top Diaries

What's Next, After the Slam?

Shock Election Loss Rutte IV In Senate Race

Honduras Establishes Close Ties with China

A Return to Normalcy?

A Grand Slam for Ireland?

NI Protocol: It's all over bar the shouting?

Chinese peace principles for the war in Ukraine

The Windsor Framework

Recent Diaries

Neo-Nazi Marches Across Europe

Fascism Unites America, Israel and EU Neo-Nazis

What's Next, After the Slam?

Settler Extremism Blessed by Jerusalem Leaders

US Interference In Lebanon-Syria-Ira
q

City Agriculture - March 17, 2023

Shock Election Loss Rutte IV In Senate Race

Stalemate Endures, Pessimism Grows, Deaths Mount

Honduras Establishes Close Ties with China

A Grand Slam for Ireland?

Living In Spain and Social-Democracy

USA Censorship Act to Kill Disinformation

Flying Fortresses and Nuclear Threat

Universal Criticism Asylum Threshold EU Fortress

China Trade and Relations

SBU As a Terror Network

A Return to Normalcy?

Georgia and Foreign Agents or Spy Law

Nord Stream Blasts Timeline of Denial

Crimea As Endgame Before Going M.A.D.