EUROPE

We want pan-European politics, not a bureaucratic and undemocratic EU

Summer 2009
“Unlike many in Brussels, we respect the judgement of European voters,” says Declan Ganley, the founder of Libertas, a pan-European party that contested European Parliament seats in all 27 EU countries and was widely credited with Ireland’s ‘No’ vote on the Lisbon treaty last year
The announcement that Libertas candidates would be running for election right across the EU’s 27 member states in the European Parliament elections generated great attention among fellow pro-Europeans. For years, the many who support European integration but resent the bureaucratic and undemocratic behemoth of the EU have been faced with frustrating choices at the ballot box. There has, of course, been a plethora of parties that oppose the EU, but most have run on a nationalist and eurosceptic banner. It’s a standpoint that appals me and the many volunteers who have supported Libertas before, during and since last year's Irish ‘No’ vote. Books have been written on the many positives European integration brings, but simply reiterating the four main freedoms – of movement, goods, services and capital – which have flourished during 50 years of peace and prosperity serve to neatly summarise its attributes.

Yet it’s hard to remember these incredible freedoms when faced with the ugly response of Europe’s political elites to the Irish electorate’s rejection of the Lisbon treaty. The utter contempt shown to voters has been staggering and time and time again we saw the Irish people insulted. From Germany’s Dublin ambassador Christian Pauls and his sly insinuations about how many voters came from rural communities to the unnamed official who referred to the Irish as ‘bastards’, we saw that these unelected officials did not just view elections as a problem to be negotiated; they were quite simply bewildered as to why you would ask European voters for anything other than their taxes. The people ‘do not understand’ the Lisbon treaty, just as they did not understand the Nice Treaty, and just as the French and the Dutch did not understand the Constitution. The workings of European government are apparently too complex to be understood by mere citizens: They can only be interpreted by the experts.

 MATTERS OF OPINION


Waning trust in the EU institutions

Fewer than half of EU citizens have confidence in the EU’s institutions – the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB) – according to a Eurobarometer survey in the 27 EU member states at the start of 2009. The survey of 1,000 people per country found that the ECB is the least trusted of the three institutions, with only 39% saying that they tend to trust it and a slightly larger number, 40%, saying that they tend not to trust the bank. This lack of trust in the ECB has decreased by 10 percentage points in six months. As for the European Parliament and the Commission, more people – but still below 50% – said they trust each institution than those offering an opposite view. The European Parliament is trusted by 45% of those questioned, compared to 42% who say they tend to trust the European Commission. The drop in support for the two institutions in six months was, respectively, six and five percentage points.

Confidence in the European Parliament is lowest by far in the UK, where 59% tend not show any trust, followed by Greece and Austria (both 42%). The greatest levels of trust in the European Parliament were to be found in Belgium and Slovakia (64%), followed by Cyprus (63%).



Eurobarometer 

But who are these experts? Maybe Ireland’s EU Commissioner, Charlie McCreevy, who said, ‘no sane person would bother to read [the treaty] because of the technocratic, near incomprehensible language of every sentence, clause, paragraph and page’? Caroline Flint, the UK Minister for Europe, who claimed the ‘No’ voters had ‘misunderstood’ the treaty and who then admitted she hadn’t read it herself, but was ‘briefed by experts’? Perhaps the experts include those who couldn’t understand why the ‘ungrateful’ Irish weren’t successfully bribed ‘after all the money you got’? And perhaps they also number Martin Territt, head of the European commission’s Dublin representation, who announced not long ago that another €1.8m of EU funds is to be pumped into encouraging the Irish to vote the ‘right’ way.

There’s an analogy to be drawn here with the economic crisis. There was a similar culture of secrecy in the banks and on the trading floors as there is in the EU; the same insistence that the experts know best, and exactly the same disparity between a superficial obsession with regulation, red-tape and targets and a reality in which individuals were benefitting hugely and immorally from a lack of scrutiny. We should remember it took over 14 years for the auditors to sign off the EU accounts and that in 2007 €6bn went astray. We still don’t know how much EU money was lost in the Madoff scam, for example. All we know is that the European taxpayers will foot the bill, even though they cannot be trusted to vote on something as ‘technical’ as their own sovereignty or as ‘complicated’ as their own Constitution (which, if we’re honest is what the Lisbon treaty is). The bankers must envy the Commissioners – the latter not only get to hold on to their pensions, but their jobs too.

And this is why, far from being swept aside by the financial crisis, Libertas’ messages are more important than ever. The EU was born – first from the European Coal and Steel Community and then consolidated in the Treaty of Rome – out of harrowing circumstances. Europe was shattered not just economically but also in terms of its identity after the horrors of war. From that crisis emerged what we have today: over 50 years of peace and prosperity. I’m proud that my children are part of a generation of young people who see Europe as an opportunity for travel and work, as an extension of their own world rather than as something to fear. Democracy and economic dynamism made that possible, and historically neither functions properly without the other.

So it was interesting to see that the EU spent €28m on promoting the European parliamentary elections, in an attempt to reverse the 20 year slide in turn-out and close the ‘democratic deficit’. Libertas supported this as we too wanted to see this trend reversed. Our own success in the elections hinged on mobilising more of the voters who had retreated in apathy and frustration. But our analysis and proposals to redress this clearly differ from the EP’s marketing advisors at the Berlin communications agency Scholz & Friends.

In keeping with the attitudes of the Parliament, they clearly see the problems with voter turn-out as a lack of education in the ways of Brussels. The theme of their campaign is ‘It’s your choice’, with billboards asking voters their choices on food labelling, and offering an opportunity to leave video messages saying what they think. Yet as we have seen, there is a culture of opposition to real choice in the EU. It is resentfully offered and then ignored when it does not suit.

People don’t vote because they know that their vote doesn’t count; 80% of the laws that will affect voters’ lives are passed by unelected Commissioners behind closed doors. The Parliament has little real impact on these decisions. There are 190 different parties represented, forced into watering down their views in coalitions that lead to petty squabbles and political in-fighting. Many of the parties are represented at national level, of course, and the parties tend to use their MEPs for such domestic gains as David Cameron’s decision in the UK to withdraw the Conservative Party from the EPP primarily to appease its eurosceptic wing.

Just as the EU Commissioners view the MEPs as little more than a symbolic nod towards genuine democracy, so do national politicians use the European elections for their own ends. I believe that MEPs have a vital function to play in maintaining the democratic accountability of the EU, and that they can make a difference. But first they need to be shaken out of the culture of complacency that has been fed by their generous benefit packages, and the knowledge that the details of their meetings and votes will be kept secret. Their unaccountability keeps them safe. European elected politicians, like their voters, need to be taken seriously: they need to know that their votes count.

Libertas is a pan-European party that has run candidates in all 27 member states. Our candidates are of the highest calibre who have sought to be elected with a clear mandate for reform without being governed by the agendas of national parties. They believe they will thus be in a stronger position to engage in the sort of cut-and-thrust debates with fellow MEPs which the Lisbon treaty is trying to silence.

All will represent Libertas’ core principles in creating a new, democratic and open EU. Central to this is accountability: if there is to be a Constitution – and I’m not absolutely against one in principle – there must be a referendum in all member states. If Europe’s laws are to have primacy over national sovereignty then those laws must be decided on by elected officials. Similarly, we should have fewer meetings, and those we do have should be held in the open and not behind closed doors, and we should all be allowed to know how MEPs are spending our money. Savings amounting to nearly €10bn could be made by trimming the typically bloated excesses of bureaucratic institutions.

Ours is a project unprecedented in scale. We know there are tough times ahead for Europe and the world, and we need strong leadership and solid policies to inspire people. That’s why we at Libertas have been taking our time to produce well-considered policies, ones that will channel our passion and enthusiasm for the European Union into workable strategies that can unlock the huge potential of European creativity. Like Barack Obama, we are building a grassroots campaign which makes use of the internet; we have some of the best minds in the business working on our website at www.libertas.eu where we will be unveiling our policies for the Europe ahead. Unlike many in Brussels, we respect the judgement of European voters. We know that we have to win their votes through convincing arguments rather than bribes or political chicanery. Pan-European politics is what Europe needs, and Libertas is leading the way.

 


You need to be logged in to rate and comment on articles.
Click the log in or register button in the top right corner of this page.
Average rating:
Add rating
3 COMMENT(S)
  • What could be done to make nationalist parties in Europe less attractive?

In the European Parliament there are 190 different parties represented of which many are represented at national level, of course, and the parties tend to use their MEPs also for domestic gains. Many European citizens think that their vote doesn’t count. So they either did not vote or supported parties that oppose the EU and in most cases have run on a nationalist and eurosceptic banner. What could be done to make nationalist parties in Europe less attractive?

Please leave your thoughts and suggestions below.

By Europe's World - Vox Pop on 7/23/2009 12:20
Report inappropriate content
  • Re:We want pan-European politics, not a bureaucratic and undemocratic EU

Who trust the "Council" as "european" institution?

By Claudio d'Aloya on 7/31/2009 17:30
Report inappropriate content
  • Re:We want pan-European politics, not a bureaucratic and undemocratic EU

[Disclosure: I'm retired from EU/EEC and Maastricht Treaty was done during our time].

First, I consider your sentiments and comparison with Obama with a pinch of salt. Principally because there is no de jure federation of state system (supranationality) inside EU. Consider German Constitutional Court decision on Lisbon Treaty as indicator of political limits of power under Lisbon Treaty, and copycats will mushroom.

Second, recent EP election was conducted under Nice Treaty (Chirac's doomsday machine!). I do not consider your public opinion tables reflecting the political sentiments of +500M Europeans, as it eventually develops, under Lisbon Treaty. Current opinions continue to reflect, on the aggregate, national as compared to EU sentiments. Actual EU public opinion will then prevail when voters are franchised to vote across national boarders on a candidate of their choice - irrespective of national peculiarities - and including EU President. And that will take, may be, a generation or more, methinks.

Third, Lisbon Treaty will NOT resolve and/or lessen current bottlenecks inside EU institutions - unless EP is able and willing to set aside its peculiar penchant for demogauguery and finally begins to address the fundamental policy issues of EU governance and its future political legitimacy. German Constitutional Court decision on Lisbon Treaty and its (potential) derogation from concept of national sovereign parliamentary power may not only distort legislation passed by (future) EP but also challenge the legal integrity of such legislation.

In conclusion, lets be frank and admit that Lisbon Treaty is not the *be all and end all* of EU - going forward.
It ain't. It's a political compromise and full of loopholes created by British mandarins and other sentimental anti-EU zealots. From a political perspective, it's foolhardy - at best - to belief that Opt Out clauses are going to unite Europe of the future! EU under Lisbon Treaty will be forced - ultimately - to deal with socalled *opt out* members who don't trust Schengen, tax policy, single IMF/IBRD representation and a common foreign and strategic policy for the continent.

Methinks under Lisbon Treaty there should not be permitted any opt out clauses going forward...and those granted (for whatever political reason) should cease to exist at a fixed timeline. EP political parties should also be forced to achieve a fixed EU threshold of voting percentage to qualify - otherwise be prepared for permanent irrelevance.

By Hari Naidu on 8/1/2009 17:30
Report inappropriate content

 
You are not logged in.
Please log in or register to submit
comments or rate articles.
 
 
EC_Sustainable_Energy_Week_March2010

The fourteenth edition of Europe's World is out. We feel it's fair to say that few if any publications in the field of international relations and policy debate have grown as fast or widened their scope so remarkably as Europe's WorldTable of contents of Issue 14.

The search is on for 'global governance' solutions to the world's economic and political problems. The trouble is, of course, that there's not much agreement across Europe or around the world on what sort of policy instruments, institutions and rules would open the way to a fairer international system serving the needs of North and South, East and West while avoiding the pitfalls that led to the global crisis.  Read more

 
Forum Europe - Financing Europe's Energy needs and Climate action in the 21st Century

 

DID THE EU
MISHANDLE
ITS NEGOTIATIONS
IN THE COP15 COPENHAGEN SUMMIT?
 

 
What do YOU think?