The Irish No vote has left the proposed Lisbon Treaty floundering and would suggest that the Irish have gifted Lisbon more than Guinness and Alexandre O'Neill: A chance to get democracy right.
As a European Citizen, I am appreciative of the human rights this confers upon me, in addition to the historical benefits of helping to end the conveyor belt of perpeptual war in Europe. I consider myself an EU fan and this 'ever closer union' has already been the cause for much good, however, unlike the USA, Europe is far from the culturally homogenous region that the United States were in the 18th century. Thus perhaps a European Confederacy would be a better model to follow for the time being. Unfortunately, the Lisbon Treaty, as with the EU Constitution before it, is clearly problematic. This is Europe's chance to 'get it right', to take all the lessons learned, good and bad, from Italian PR, American Federalism, the British Westminster model, Scandinavian social-democracy, German/French/Dutch post-war multi-party systems and all the others, and to amalgamate the good parts of those while minimising the negatives. Perhaps Europe can have a practical, pragmatic and useful government while still posessing a truly representative political system.
But it only takes a quick examination of the Lisbon Treaty to see the problems:
Centralised Banking: The formal adoption of a European Central Bank which in the current fiscal crisis has proved not only ineffectual, but entirely absent. The ECB would presumably not be immune from the scandals which are a regular feature in the news of the World Bank and the IMF. However, that is not to say that centralised banking is an inherently bad thing: With the correct financial accumen, and when directed by truly representative government, in the best interests of not only EU citizens, but humanity as a whole, there is a place for this institution. Let us not see a carbon copy of the Federal Reserve.
Executive Branch: There will in effect be several individuals, all with conflicting powers and while im all for separation of powers among the greatest number of people, has this really been thought through, especially considering the emphasis upon the 'removal of pillars'? Would the President of Parliament report to the President of the European Council? Does the President of the Council of the European Union have similar powers? By contrast to these lofty titles, the President of the European Commision is the effective head of the European executive. "The Commission President is proposed by the European Council, who take account of the previous European Elections, before being elected by the European Parliament for a five year mandate." So should we take it as acceptable that a body consisting of the Head of State of each member state should carry equal voting rights in deciding 'based on election results' who to propose as president?
Unfair Weighting of Countries: On some occasions large countries can just force through certain Acts and on others, arguably weakly democratically elected individuals from EU Nations with tiny populations can wield enormous power due to rotation policy. Surely a system of representation should be based on the EU constituancies (which already exist!), rather than this proposed system which benefits no state? And we cannot rely simply upon the Ioannina Compromise: That smaller states with no leverage would be given a fair hearing. The proposal is that "The Council would have an 18-month rotating Presidency shared by a trio of Member States, with the purpose of providing more continuity. The exception would be the Council's Foreign Affairs configuration, which would be chaired by the newly created post of Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy." To further confound matters, this new post holds multiple offices: "The Minister would also be a Vice-President in the Commission and chair the Council of Ministers in its Foreign Affairs configuration." That covers just about every pie.
As a European Citizen, I am appreciative of the human rights this confers upon me, in addition to the historical benefits of helping to end the conveyor belt of perpeptual war in Europe. I consider myself an EU fan and this 'ever closer union' has already been the cause for much good, however, unlike the USA, Europe is far from the culturally homogenous region that the United States were in the 18th century. Thus perhaps a European Confederacy would be a better model to follow for the time being. Unfortunately, the Lisbon Treaty, as with the EU Constitution before it, is clearly problematic. This is Europe's chance to 'get it right', to take all the lessons learned, good and bad, from Italian PR, American Federalism, the British Westminster model, Scandinavian social-democracy, German/French/Dutch post-war multi-party systems and all the others, and to amalgamate the good parts of those while minimising the negatives. Perhaps Europe can have a practical, pragmatic and useful government while still posessing a truly representative political system.
But it only takes a quick examination of the Lisbon Treaty to see the problems:
Centralised Banking: The formal adoption of a European Central Bank which in the current fiscal crisis has proved not only ineffectual, but entirely absent. The ECB would presumably not be immune from the scandals which are a regular feature in the news of the World Bank and the IMF. However, that is not to say that centralised banking is an inherently bad thing: With the correct financial accumen, and when directed by truly representative government, in the best interests of not only EU citizens, but humanity as a whole, there is a place for this institution. Let us not see a carbon copy of the Federal Reserve.
Executive Branch: There will in effect be several individuals, all with conflicting powers and while im all for separation of powers among the greatest number of people, has this really been thought through, especially considering the emphasis upon the 'removal of pillars'? Would the President of Parliament report to the President of the European Council? Does the President of the Council of the European Union have similar powers? By contrast to these lofty titles, the President of the European Commision is the effective head of the European executive. "The Commission President is proposed by the European Council, who take account of the previous European Elections, before being elected by the European Parliament for a five year mandate." So should we take it as acceptable that a body consisting of the Head of State of each member state should carry equal voting rights in deciding 'based on election results' who to propose as president?
Unfair Weighting of Countries: On some occasions large countries can just force through certain Acts and on others, arguably weakly democratically elected individuals from EU Nations with tiny populations can wield enormous power due to rotation policy. Surely a system of representation should be based on the EU constituancies (which already exist!), rather than this proposed system which benefits no state? And we cannot rely simply upon the Ioannina Compromise: That smaller states with no leverage would be given a fair hearing. The proposal is that "The Council would have an 18-month rotating Presidency shared by a trio of Member States, with the purpose of providing more continuity. The exception would be the Council's Foreign Affairs configuration, which would be chaired by the newly created post of Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy." To further confound matters, this new post holds multiple offices: "The Minister would also be a Vice-President in the Commission and chair the Council of Ministers in its Foreign Affairs configuration." That covers just about every pie.
There are many more problems that will need sorting before Sinn Fein will stop their mass campaigning and vote conclusively in favour of this binding treaty. The European Constitution went for a much too Federal approach for a Europe still coming to terms with its disparate cultures: The continued Balkan crises, the disputed territories between states (Gibraltar, Rockall, Cyprus, to name but a few) and the problems of micro-state tax havens and non-contiguous land (and the Kaliningrad question). The resounding No vote in the Netherlands and France came as no surprise but while the Lisbon treaty has watered down these proposals, it is still too binding a leap from the Maastricht and Rome Treaties for some people's tastes. While the Irish may have voted No for the wrong reasons, they may have done us all a favour.
If voter turnout for EU elections is only around 50% now, then how better to reduce political apathy than by giving the European people a chance at directly electing a President? And while at the European level, a cabinet system seem necessary, Europe need look no further than its largest member state for a good example of how a President should act. Better to confer legitimacy upon a figure without massive unfettered power than to have 'smoky back-room' politicians from minority countries pushing their own agendas without checks and balances. Referenda work, especially in conjunction with Ombudsmen, simply look at how successful small nations (in terms of population) like Sweden or Finland are economically, which encourage entrepanuerialism and embrace neo-liberalism, while retaining their social policy and belief in equality of opportunity.
by Perfekt.
