A Minority Dictatorship?
So 0.173175 % of the EU population has voted “No” to the Treaty of Lisbon and thereby the whole process is stopped, and the decisions (at least potential) of 26 democratically elected governments, accountable to their democratically elected Parliaments and representing 497 137 585 Europeans are nullified. Anyone else thinking this is somewhat peculiar?
Obviously, the results of a democratic referendum should be respected. Equally obvious is that it should have consequences only for Ireland. It is important now that the ratification process continues and that, when finished, a separate solution is found for Ireland.
Unfortunately, Swedish opposition leader Mona Sahlin already “scents thee morning air” and has stated that the Swedish Parliament ought “to apply the hand-break” to the ratification process in the hope of attracting eurosceptics from all parties at a moment when her comfortable lead in the opinion polls has begun to crumble.
Swedish EU-blogger and MEP Åsa Westlund approvingly quotes the comments to the Irish “no” from the Secretary General of the European Trade Union Confederation :”For far too long, Europe has paid too little attention to the expectations and rights of workers and others who feel threatened by globalisation and the pace of change.” Fine, I agree, but fail to understand what this has to do with the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon excepts in so far as it gives a Denkzettel to a Government whose policies you don’t like. Challenges such as those mentioned by the Secretary General of ETUC and others, for instance those connected with climate change, energy, food prices and geopolitical upheavals should make it all the more urgent to work for a strong and efficent European Union.
7 Responses to “A Minority Dictatorship?”
1 Ralf Grahn 14 June 2008 @ 1:31 pm
I agree. The Irish voters have used their power to opt out of EU treaty reform. We have to respect their decision, even if we are sad to see it happen.
But the Irish people has no democratic mandate to override the decisions of the 18 countries that already have ratified the Lisbon Treaty according to their constitutional requirements, or the ones in the process of doing so.
While the ratification processes proceed, the willing states can adapt the Treaty of Lisbon to the changed circumstances of one (or a few) non-ratifications.
In my view, the technicalities are fairly simple, if the political will is there.
2 rz 14 June 2008 @ 2:08 pm
You make a really good point here. A Treaty should primarily define how the different institutions of the the EU work and what there powers are. All details, the fight against global warming, protection agains globalisation will then be decided by this instiutions and Unions and others can apply pressure there. Instead all types of groups want to have there personal pet issue fixed in already in the treaty. Well and then they complain that it is to long and nobody can understand it! It is madness.
By the way: Does the Swedish parliament need only a simple majority to ratify the treaty or do they need a super majority of some kind? So, can the opposition block the treaty?
3 MNM Dublin 14 June 2008 @ 9:50 pm
The fundamental right of each sovereign country, including Sweden, to accept or reject key treaties has long since been agreed by all. If the German or French electorate had rejected the treaty then that is OK because they represent a greater % of the population of Europe? Is this your argument?
The Treaty needs the ratification of all member states to operate. That is a fact. To change the rules now because you do not like the result is a perilious road to take. There is a great fear lurking in the minds of many people in the smaller states that the EU belongs to the major states and that they are just “accommodated”. If you want to unify the various Euro Sceptics Groups in every EU state then roll over Ireland and quarantine then, ignore them but don’t come crying when it is you turn to be ignored.
There are 60 million citizens just across the Irish Sea in the UK who would be more than happy to join that campaign. The Conservative Party are poised to retake power in Westminster and they are opposed to this treaty.
We have already seen the previous version of this rejected by the French electorate. Why was this treaty not put to a referendum there?
For the record I voted for the treaty.
4 lunovis 15 June 2008 @ 12:50 am
MNM Dublin,
“The Treaty needs the ratification of all member states to operate. That is a fact. To change the rules now because you do not like the result is a perilious road to take.”
That’s just a question of vocabulary. Yes, the Treaty requires ratification by all member states in its current form. And if it cannot be ratified by all of them, then it cannot operate. But this does not mean that we have to put our hand into our pockets from that point on. There’s nothing wrong with agreeing on a modified treaty. So, would it be OK with you if we said “ratification of a modified treaty” instead if “the Treaty”?
I totally agree that “There is a great fear lurking in the minds of many people in the smaller states that the EU belongs to the major states and that they are just “accommodated”.” But this is a general european problem, which just manifests in this form in the smaller states. From my point of view the voters have been informed about the EU politics too little everywhere. This whole construct has been built by their governments over their heads and the national government missed to transport the importance of this process and their vision for their nation as part of the EU to the people.
EU politics doesn’t play a big role in national politics (well, at least in my experience) and it is the fault of the national election campaigns that it doesn’t. How can somebody explain to the people why he or she should be an adequate national leader without telling them whant his or her plans on a european level are? Doesn’t make much sense if you look at where the lobbyists are today, does it?
The people of Ireland voted “No” to something they don’t know (because their government failed to inform them properly about what all this stuff is about), something that they don’t understand (because the text is like 10.000 pages long and requires translation by a lawyer) and something that they have been missinformed about (because due to the lack of information from the government the No-campaign found some good soil to grow its fears from). And they did a smart move by doing so, because why would anybody want to jump into dark water?
This then should also answer your last question, why there’s no referendum in France: you cannot have a referendum about such a text. That’s what a the elected parliament is good for in a parliamentary democracy. But indeed, in Ireland, and I guess everywhere else in the EU, the members of the national parliaments and the national governments failed to explain where the EU and the specific nation as a member of the EU is heading.
To accuse the EU of dictatorship is a valid thing to do, but it is not so much the question whether it is going to be a dictatorship of the few (if the ratification process stops) or a dictatorship of the many (if it goes on). It is rather a dictatorship of the elected governments who did not take their people with them on their way to Brussels - the EU will have to fight that dictatorship image in the national level -soon.
And it is a fundamental right of each souvereign (i.e. the people) to be properly informed about the stuff their elected government is doing on a level and in a language people without a background in law can understand.
Just for psychological reasons the ratification process has to go on: if we stop now the EU will only fuel all those fears that it is an bureaucratic monstrum, deadlocked by the diametral goals and differences of the member states. Just in order to show the people that the majority of members believes in getting that whole thing running we need to go on. (At the same time huge information campaigns explaining what the EU does, what it is, where it is headed to and how the single nations would like to see themselves as a part of this union, have to run on national levels.)
5 Bengt O. 15 June 2008 @ 9:31 pm
Many thanks for your comments. I find in particular the comment by “lunovis” well argued and almost in full accordance with my own views. Let me just add to “NMN Dublin” that, whereas I can understand his feelings, we must also try to maintain some sense of proportions. According to the “Irish Independent” the number of no-voters amounted to 862 415. This can in no way be enough to nullify decisions of parliamentary responsible governments representing almost 500 million people. I would like to underline that in the 18 countries that have ratified so far, this has in most cases been done with an overwhelming majority in the respective parliaments.
It is not the question of ignoring the opinion of the Irish no-voters but a special solution must be found for them. It is therefore important that the ratification process continues as planned. I note -and I hope this is correct- that also the UK government is of this opinion which, if accurate, probably would remove the biggest obstacle.
To rz: As far as I know a simple majority would be enough for a Swedish ratification. However, it is not likely that the opposition would actually block a ratification. But there is still a cumbersome parliamentary process to go through which may offer opportunities to delay or even prevent the proposal to go to a vote in the plenary.
I hope readers understand that the “dictatorship” in the heading is a stylistic exaggeration in a desperate attempt to attract readers
6 MNM 16 June 2008 @ 11:46 pm
A few points in response to replies to my contribution.
There are two issues now where previously there was one. A) How to get the Irish electorate to accept that the Lisbon Treaty is the next step in the development of the EU, and B) How to ensure that the democratic vote is respected and that through the ballot box the matter is resolved. The comments of the French and the German Ministers over the weekend were to say the least not helpful. The comments of Czech and Finnish Governments are really a rebuff to them saying there will be no bullying small nations, i.e all other nations except France and Germany. The French Foreign Minister was particularly arrogant.
Bengt you are in danger of making the same mistake of getting caught up in the numbers. Whatever demographic number you look at in Ireland they are small relative to most other EU states. There was a very high turnout and there was a 7% margin in the defeat. Bengt, the 18 ratifications to date are achieved by ruling parties in national parliaments none of whom were elected on there support or views for the Lisbon Treaty. Ratification was a foregone conclusion by virtue of their parliamentary majority. None of these Governments put it to their people in a referendum. Maybe we are too democratic?
I agree that information is the issue and the need for national governments to bring there electorate with them. In Ireland the no campaign was led by Libertas who kicked of their campaign last November. The Government started six weeks before polling day. The No side had set the seeds of doubt in the minds of the electorate and the Government failed to dislodge it. There was a whole host of unrelated local and EU issues and some that were blatantly untrue. Had this referendum been held two years ago, when the economic climate was more positive, it would have passed at a canter.
Lunovis, I have no doubt that some modifications will be made and that it will go before the electorate again. Ireland has always been very pro EU. The EU needs to be more democratic and be seen to be so. I think that there is ample evidence that most policy we see at European level originates in the Commission. Where are the Politicians? They are more than capable of developing creative policies nationally but this same creativity seems to be absent at European level.
7 Bengt O. 17 June 2008 @ 4:18 pm
NMN: Thanks for your new comment. I am afraid, however, that we have to accept that we have diverging views on this issue. Let me just try to make one point: in most (all?) cases the ratification has not been achieved by “the ruling party” or through their “parliamentary majority” but with overwhelming support from most democratically elected representatives from all parties. Even attempts to take the Treaty hostage for internal political reasons have failed.
I agree fully, however, with what you say about the lack of creativity in European issues by the politicians. It is ironical, then, that when national politicians for once show a bit of political leadership this should be looked at with such disdain.
Comments: