Toger Seidenfaden makes a number of good points in his long list of reasons why Europe should avoid “the tyranny of referendums”. I would add at least one more; it is that we need to counteract the irresponsibility of those European politicians who in the name of democratic legitimacy call indiscriminately for referendums. The latest example is the amendment to the French constitution promising to hold a plebiscite every time the EU is due to be enlarged. Our politicians seem to forget that through the electoral process they already possess the voters’ mandate to take whatever decisions they believe necessary for the betterment of the citizens’ lives. Members of national parliaments and governments should not seek a greater legitimisation of instruments such as the treaty reforming the European Union, as they already have the mandate they need to make binding decisions.

 

In any case, European referendums in their present form are not the right answer to the problems involved in constructing “an ever closer Union”. In fact, they do not constitute a European referendum at all, but merely a sequence of national referendums on a similar question, yet with different wordings. A much better concept of a “European referendum” would be that of holding a single referendum in all 25 EU member states on the same day and in the same conditions. There should be no room for national choices between binding and consultative referendums; so it should be either binding or consultative for all voters in the EU. It should be organised under the auspices of the European Parliament, and could usefully include the golden rule that for any given treaty to enter into force, it would need to be adopted in every single country. Should one or more countries reject if, that treaty would be gone for good. Voting for a second time should be forbidden as it only creates suspicion and thus a form of tyranny. So far, European leaders seem to have been saying to their electorates: “You have a mandate, so you take the decision. But if you decide differently from what I think, I will make you vote as many times as need be until you get it right”. How hypocritical is that?

 

Having said all that, I am not entirely convinced the Seidenfaden’s solution for overcoming the tyranny of referendums and at the same time bridging the democratic deficit is the right one. Wouldn’t nationally-elected members of future Inter-governmental Conferences (ICGs) have an overlapping mandate with that of government? Until now, the EU’s national governments have been responsible for both the strengths and weaknesses of a given treaty. So if rather than governments being responsible for negotiating a treaty it were to be an elected group, might there be a situation where the government-in-office found itself in opposition to the negotiated text?

 

This ongoing discussion on decision-making in Europe during the post-referendum period of reflection is creating many new ideas which may, at some point prove useful in helping us to find the “exit” sign in the dark corridor of the next EU crisis.