Is the EU a Democratic Entity ?

In Ireland, the People are sovereign. I would find it difficult to accept as democratic any entity wherein this was not the case. Despite its soi-disant committment to democratic values, however, the people who consider themselves (and are widely regarded by others) to speak for "the EU" impress me with their anti-democratic approach.

Typical is this response by "Waldo" to something I said on a Hungarian website:

Fergus, the European constitution was the EU's attempt to get the European citizens involved through an open and very understandable text.

Note the dichotomy between the EU and its citizens. In my view, the EU is its citizens; otherwise, it is not a democracy.

Waldo goes on:

I am for a more transparent, democratic and open working of the Union, however, this may not come in the way of the decent functioning of it's institutions.

I understand this to mean that he believes that the efficient functioning of the Union is more important than compliance with democratic criteria. This seems to be an accurate summary of the consensus view of the Euro-fanatics, and is one of the main reasons that I expect to be voting against the Lisbon Treaty. Although Ruairi Quinn would have us believe that this is not so, Waldo and his ilk clearly think that we are stupid, you see:

So to say it crudely: I am for a unreadable treaty so it may pass !

Comments

[Keith]

The Lisbon Treaty will make the EU more open and democratic. It transfers powers from the Commission and Council to the Parliament, introduces the citizens' initiative and brings the National Parliaments into the decision making process. It also forces the Council to meet in public, rather than in private as currently is the case. It could certainly go further in democratising, but small steps in the right direction are still steps in the right direction.

[William Humbold]

Centralism is centralism, even when it is democratic. A better alternative is Free Europe Constitution. Vote YES or NO to it at www.FreeEurope.info

[Tomaltach]

Anyone who advocates an unreadable treaty in such an arrogant way as Waldo, is not worthy of democratic debate.

Here is the dilemma for architects of the Union. The Union began as a necessary agreement between big states ruined by war. Their governments agreed to it, there was no democracy - nor no cry for democracy. The people of Europe were simply glad to see an emerging harmony between their states in place of horrendous ruin. As the Union grew and evolved however, and as it was granted powers above and beyong a simple formula between states, it was clear it needed to become more democratic. And it set out on a slow but steady evolution towards more accountability. The European Parliament was first made an elected body in 1979. Before that it was an appointed assembly. Still it had very limited power. In recent decades its power has grown considerably - a move seen as attempting to address the so called democratic deficit. Lisbon pushes this forward considerably. Also in Lisbon, as you mentioned, the national parliaments have a role. All welcome.

A friend said to me about the proposed President of the European Council "but the president will not be elected". To which I replied "thank God for that". Think about it. If 51% of the population could elect a President, what voice would Ireland have with 0.8% of the population. As it is, the name will in all probability be agreed by consensus or at worst by QMV where there are safeguards for small states and where Ireland's considerable diplomatic skill can be brought to bear. The fact remains, citizens of members states do not (yet, or perhaps never) identify with the European institutions. So they could not connect with any potential candidate for president.

The other thing is that so far, the role of the said President is fairly weak. If that person were elected by plebiscite across Europe it would give their post a de facto ligitimacy as "president of Europe" far and above the intended powers for the current role. That is not a direction most people want to go. Let's have our President to co-ordinate and manage - and let our elected representatives, and our experienced servants in the foreign and diplomatic service, do the job of negotiating the best deal for us.

I think people are both confused and conflicted about their notion of European democracy. Confused in that they don't appreciate how democratic legitimacy must grow organically, and cannot be imposed in one fell swoop. And conflicting, by often arguing against our loss of veto yet for a more democratic Europe. But the veto is the most undemocratic of instruments.

The truth is that in the vast bulk of cases the EU adopts measures that will help, not hinder Ireland. We are very skillful in operating its machinery. With Lisbon, democratic oversight is considerably improved, yet in key areas we retain the most undemocratic device I mentioned, the veto. It's a good deal, and we should seize it now.

[adaniel]

The EU is not a democracy, it is a federation of democracies. I wish there were clear entry and exit criteria in the treaties, which are not signed by the citizens but their states. Maybe in the next one. That would be a good result of the Irish veto.