Europe needs an army
Posted by Owen Sanderson on February 18th, 2007
The European Union has a good deal going for it. It has the greatest GDP of any economic bloc on earth (an estimated $14 trillion). It is stable, peaceful, democratic. It encourages trade and travel. It offers an alternative model for foreign relations to that showcased by the United States.
However, significant proportions in most members states would not lift a finger to defend it- some actively seek to destroy it, or at least to withdraw from it. This is in part a legacy of the hundreds of years European countries have spent trying to conquer one another, but that cannot excuse the failure of the European Union to invigorate and enthuse it’s population, even if the advantages are at last becoming more apparent. The rational argument of ‘should we remain part of the EU?’ has largely been won, but one only has to mention the word ‘superstate’ to watch all semblance of rational argument fall down. A Europe with control over areas of British policy that we actually care about is tantamount to handing the country to the Frogs and the Krauts in some circles.
An army however, could be the answer. Not just a ‘rapid reaction force’, though that would be a sensible beginning, but full-sized conventional armed forces totalling perhaps 500’000 personnel ( under 1/3 the size of the Russian military establishment, which is drawn from a population under 1/3 the size of the EU population) would give the EU meaning in international relations. Weber defined a state as having the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, and by this measure this would make neither the EU nor the member states ‘states’. But it could certainly create pseudo-nationalist enthusiasm for the European Union, and it has the potential to do a great deal of good in the world if the word of the EU were backed by some force. A standard argument against this is ‘NATO’, but NATO forces are divided, opt-in opt-out forces, and NATO’s original purpose is obsolete, leaving it as little more than a vehicle for the creation of US alliances.
There is still an authoritarian regime in Russia, which still lays claim to parts of the Baltic states, and more generally to influence over the former Russian empire. The difference since the foundation of NATO is that the EU is strong enough to stand up to the bully, if only we had the will. Enforcing food standards and university exchange programmes is never going to win over the irrational feeling of the populations of Europe that manifests itself everywhere as patriotism. Only ‘our brave boys’ can do that (the Falklands War provides a worthy example of this effect), and if The Sun ever manages to call a mixed force of European soldiers that, then the hearts and minds of Europe will have been won for the EU.
The commentary here
is worth a look, and goes into far more depth I can here, even with the World Factbook at my fingertips.
Filed under: defence, europe, foreignpolicy on February 18th, 2007
The Non-Proliferation treaty might pose a problem, as far as I can remember there is a clause which prevents the choice to deploy nukes being placed in the hands of non-nuclear states,
This wouldn’t be a problem if there was a segregation of these different states - however of course this would go against all that the EU stands for.
I think we’d need (a) an awful lot more convergence of values and ideals in the national security/international relations sphere and (b) a good deal more confidence in the EU’s democratic institutions as democratic institutions before this could work.
Who would make the ultimate decision to commit EU troops to battle? Could anyone be satisfied that the European parliament as currently constitituted has sufficient democratic legitimacy and accountability to do so? I suppose you may be arguing that having a European army would inject a definite urgency into reforming such institutions, but that does seem a rather drastic example of putting the cart before the horse . . .
It’s a disgrace that Europe effectively had to rely on American fire power and arms to attack Serbia during the Kosovo conflict. For too long Europe has played to the divisive tunes of other super blocs, eminating not least from the U.S who happily divided Europe into “Old” and “New” for the purposes of diluting any solid European colateral resistance to U.S military aggression in Iraq. Rumsfeld was particularly good at doing this. Greater foreign and international unilatiralism by a European super bloc would ultimatly get all of us in Europe much further than the current divide and rule approach which has America effectively neutering Europe in international affairs. Dare I say it, our Prime Minister has been an active participant in allowing this to happen.
a) Isn’t hugely important- existing states hardly have homogenous views of their national interest, beyond obvious stuff like Estonians being in favour of a weakened Russia.
b) is definitely important, but the cart can precede the horse to a certain extent here. Military enthusiasm can fuel and strengthen democracy, or at least faith in institutions, but I do agree that a certain minimum is necessary. The sooner we stop being so hung up on exclusively national sovereignty the better.
(a) is hugely important if you intend the European army to replace national armies. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood. Is that the idea you’re floating?
Not to entirely replace national armed forces- expecting EU forces to clean up the post colonial mess in Sierra Leone for example would be unreasonable, and asking Czechoslovakia to contribute to a North Atlantic fleet would be almost as bad. But such a force would have to be under EU auspices, and there should be no national veto except through EU channels i.e. the force would not be a contributory force dependent upon the goodwill of member states. A fully nuclear Europe could pose problems, and comes with no real benefits.
a) and b) become less important all round if we assume an exclusively volunteer army, which Europe undoubtedly has the population to support. Provisions for a draft or conscription would certainly require stringent democratic guarantees. Deployment of a professional, voluntary army far less so. Britain currently has no democratic oversight over military activity, except that Parliament can reject the budget on an annual basis. Even the US has 90 days in which the Pres can do what he likes with the armed forces without even considering Congress. Not that these are necessarily ideal situations, but a European army could hardly have less democratic oversight than none at all.
The EU should have an army, eh? Maybe you’d like to volunteer to serve in it. Or perhaps you’d wait until you were conscripted, and forced to fight and maybe die for the EU.
“if we assume an exclusively volunteer army, which Europe undoubtedly has the population to support. Provisions for a draft or conscription would certainly require stringent democratic guarantees.”
And I would no more like to serve in it than I would in the British military. Protecting Poland or Latvia would seem to be more worthwhile than invading Middle Eastern countries more or less at random though.
Its clear that the EU is pretty desperate to create a “demos”.
It won’t happen. It will never happen.
And without a demos, there can be no true democracy, and without democracy there can be no EU… least of all an EU army.
Its time the EU admitted its a failed project and went home.
JO
So why should we assume an exclusively volunteer army? There are those who are actively working for the EU to become a sovereign state, just as much as a sovereign state as other sovereign federations like the US, Australia, or Nigeria. Typically a sovereign state claims the right to conscript its citizens into its armed forces.
It’s only by Parliamentary decision that the UK has volunteer forces, and even now reservists can be called up against their will - and in fact some were, just a few years ago, because not enough had responded to the call for volunteers.
See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1763026.stm
“The comments come as British military reservists are called up for compulsory active service for the first time since the Suez crisis, 45 years ago. About 140 reservists have been told to report for specialist duties, providing intelligence for regular British troops stationed in Afghanistan. Most will be based in London while 40 will be sent to Afghanistan. Mr Hoon says 74 reservists “volunteered” to join forces in Afghanistan but a “compulsory call out” was necessary to provide support for the deployment.”
Parliament could decide to re-instate complusory National Service at any time, if that was seen to be necessary, and indeed some of the other EU member states do still conscript their young citizens for military service.
So you’re relaxed about the prospect of your children getting their call-up papers from Brussels, to fight in what Jacques Delors described as “the resource wars of the 21st century”, which in his view would need the EU to have its own armed forces?
Merely as a point of information, calling up reservists is not the same as conscripting civilians. Reservists are an army reserve. They are supposed to be called up when there is a war, though as we have avoided large scale military action since Suez, they haven’t been forcibly called up. Mystery solved.
Who are actively working for the EU to become a sovereign state?
The central government of a sovereign federation is only sovereign over certain aspects of government, divided by constitution. What is so great about the idea of indivisable inalienable sovereignty of nation-states? What makes that better than sovereignty being split between supra-national bodies, national bodies and local bodies?
“Its time the EU admitted its a failed project and went home”- what has it failed at? Since 1955 it has got larger, more prosperous, and more powerful. I don’t really understand what criteria you are using here, nor why a more democratic Europe is impossible.
So you are relaxed about the ability of Britain to fight “the resource wars of the 21st century” alone? We would be entirely dependent on the goodwill of America (note ‘dependent’, not ‘independent’). I’m assuming a volunteer army because in any scenario except WWIII the EU easily has the population to support a volunteer army. Britain has a pop. of 60 million and armed forces of 200′000. Assuming a similar ratio holds elsewhere (France has armed forces of around 300′000 from a similar pop, so this is quite a generous assumption), the EU could support voluntary armed forces of around 1 million. As I explained above, there is no reason to assume ALL armed forces would be subsumed in an EU military, therefore I cut the estimate in half.
Why would call-up papers from Brussels be worse than call-up papers from Westminster?
“Europe” needs an army does it? By “Europe” are you referring to the continent of Europe, maybe the so-called “European Union”, or perhaps something else?
At any rate, I assume you are referring to the “European Union”, and no damn way should “Europe” get an army.
From the continent-which in the last century alone-has introduced to the world Communism, Socialism, and National Socialism, and whose followers have slaughtered somewhere between 150 and 200 MILLION people, you actually argue that they should create a European “demos” and then ARM it??
No madness in my family. The world has had more than enough of the continentals playing with things that go boom.
Moreover, dissolve the European Union. It’s the right thing to do.
’so-called “European Union‒
Why is it so called? That is its name.
‘dissolve the European Union. It’s the right thing to do.’
Why? None of you people seem willing to explain. Europe (the EU) has produced unbroken prosperity since it was established. There is no evidence to suggest that Europe is suddenly going to ditch democracy in favour of Fascism. And Russia introduced Communism, Socialism never had any meaningful effect on the politics of any European country, and National Socialism (apart from being a very specific product of a messed up postwar Germany) has been utterly discredited in Europe. You have just made a point with no relevance whatsoever to the debate on Europe.
Please try to make an argument when you comment here. Then I can reply with something worthwhile. Your point seems to be, Europe exists, and some Europeans have done bad things in the past, therefore Europe shouldn’t have an army. Do clarify.
Owen wrote
” The central gvernment of a sovereign federation ( by which I asume you mean the EU) is only sovereign in certain aspects of government”
Perhaps you’d like to list which aspects of British law the EU currently has no control over. I think you’ll struggle.
Furthermore, with the proposed introduction of qmv across the board within the Council, what integrity “national independence” then?
It would cover the vast majority of domestic policy and foreign policy.
In the classic example of a federation, namely the United States, the federal government is able to ‘regulate interstate commerce’. The EU has control over aspects of domestic policy affecting trade between EU countries, and some control over British foreign policy in relation to other EU states (though arguably the EU itself can be considered foreign policy). Other than that, nothing. Go ahead, prove me wrong.
‘proposed introduction of qmv across the board within the Council, what integrity “national independence†then?’
No integrity, precisely, on matters of trade between member states. Otherwise why bother? The point of the EU as a trading union is to break down trade barriers and ensure the European playing field is level. The EU will never be able to do that if we can just opt out of anything we don’t like.
owensanderson wrote
” The vast amount of domestic policy and foreign policy”
You are wrong
But it would be much quicker to list the “competences” which currently remain with national governments.
The only policies which the EU keeps its nose out of altogether are:-
The National Cirriculum ( though there have been calls only this week for a common EU sylabus)
Housing
NHS ( though it will go as the EU demands more and more privatisation of national monopolies)
Corporate tax rates.
Thats it.
In every other policy the EU has either “exclusive” or “shared” competency. ( And shared competency is not really “shared” in the acknowledged sense. It means that the member states have to ask permission to legislate in those fields. . The EU can always refuse.
Sorry.. I have to make a correction to the above posting.
The call has been for a common EU history to be taught in schools, not the complete sylabus, as I stated above. But as Orwell said ” He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”
JO
No. You have the wrong end of the stick. The EU has exclusive competence in these areas:
a) customs union
b) competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market
c) common commercial policy
d) monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro
e) conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy
Shared competence, as you say, extends much further, but is governed by the principle of subsidiarity,
“Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.”
Meaning any unwelcome encroachments can be challenged in the ECJ, if the government so desire. The unwelcome truth is that national governments often implement directives from the EU that national governments would have liked to introduce, knowing that if they prove unpopular the EU takes the blame.
Which treaty says that member states have to ask permission to legislate? The text above is from the proposed constitution rather than anywhere else, it is a lousy job hunting through multiple treaties and protocols. Which is why we need a constitution, but that is another story. Still, it is widely considered to have extended the powers of the EU, so I thought it would suffice.
“Subsidiarity” was supposed to be a way to REVERSE over-centralisation. In reality it has had the opposite effect. Major thought it would be a way to claw powers back from Brussels, in fact it meant LESS power for national governments because although the concept of subsidiarity is as you explained above - ” that every task should be fulfilled by the smallest social unit capable of carrying it out beginning with family, up through larger social units. Only when a task could not be fulfilled on a lower level, should a higher unit step in and take over” ..(The Great Deception. by Christopher Booker & Richard North”)
..what WASN’T understood at the time is that. ” It was up to the higher authorities to decide when subsidiarity should apply!” . ergo, the EU Commission. This gave them almost carte blanche to interfere in national affairs. To date not one “competence” has been returned “downward” to member states. Not one.
To quote Bill Cash, during the Maastricht debate. ( May 1992)
“The principle of subsidiarity is a con trick. It is said there will be a devolution downwards of functions… However, the critical fact is that the main functions will be transferred upwards. One only has to look at the main provisions of the Treaty that are taken to the upper tier - economic and monetary union and matters of that kind - to realise that is where the real power would lie. Apart from the fact that many distinguished jurists have completely rubbished the concept of subsidiarity.. the fact remains that this is a concept which in my judgment, is centralising rather than de-centralising. Yet we are being told the opposite”
Cash was right. Its a con!
JO
Described by Ken Clarke as ‘the most Euro-sceptic MP’? Although I believe the prefered nomenclature is ‘Euro-realist’. We could play a game here, where you quote a Eurosceptic, and I’ll quote a pro-European, until we both get throughly bored of the whole thing.
Decision on subsidiarity is is up to the ECJ, not the Commission. The ECJ is the supreme arbiter of EU treaty provisions. The Commission could be a party in any case brought.
I really don’t understand how you can honestly feel the EU is involved in every area of government. I don’t know your business or life patterns, but I’ll give you a quick run down of how it affects me, leaving aside very subtle effects like attempting to keep our economy in broad harmony with certain other EU countries.
1) I can go study abroad if I like. I have several friends from Estonia, Latvia, France, Germany, and the Netherlands who are taking advantage of this provision in reverse.
2) I went to Estonia without a visa, on an obscenely cheap flight
3) I used my spare change from a booze cruise to Calais in Amsterdam.
4) My food is subject to constant standards, and I can depend on the same when I travel to Europe
My education thusfar, with the exception of having foreign students around, has been completely free of EU involvement. My dealings with the health service, likewise. My financial transactions in Britain and my employment has also been unaffected by the EU, with the exception of some health and safety provisions, which are enforced by the British HSE. If I drove this would be nothing to do with the EU (except that buying a Renault or VW would be more expensive without it ). If I paid tax I’d pay it to HM government. If I claimed benefits I’d claim them from HM government.
I can’t think of anyone, except a farmer or a fisherman, that has regular interference from Brussels without some choice in the matter.
Quite clearly the EU should not have an army because in its present form it is neither a Nation state nor is its government democratically accountable.
There are no trans-EU political parties to offer a platform of policies for the voters, thus there is no way the people can choose to remove the government of the EU. We do not elect the Commission, the Council of Ministers is not as a body accountable. Each Commision member is appointed by the member state but once appointed they owe a duty and take an oath of allegiance to the EU. When the Commision changes it follows on the policies and the work of the previous commision, the same it true of the parliament and replacing a member of the council also has no affect on the policies.
The ECJ is not an independent body but owes a duty of responsibility to the EU Commision.
LA Laws says: Now, as is well known, the Commission is a frequent litigant before the Court of Justice. How can it be right for the Court to be placed under an express duty of “full mutual co-operation†with a party over which it is bound to exercise, in the course of sometimes hotly disputed litigation, an impartial and dispassionate judgment?
Subsidiarity is a con trick invented by Altiero Spinelli
At a seminar just before the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, European jurists, including the former president of the Court of Justice, affirmed that subsidiarity is “political in essence”, not judicial. The Treaty says that subsidiarity only applies to areas which do not fall within the “exclusive competence” of the Community.
Further the Article is not saying that action will be taken at the lowest level, but rather that the Community shall act if it judges it necessary to do so.
“The application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality shall respect the general provisions and objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance; it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between national and Community law, and it should take into account Article F (4) of the Treaty on European Union, according to which ” the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies”
Section 3 of the Protocol complements and reinforces Section 2. It states:
“The principle of subsidiarity does not call into question the powers conferred on the European Community by the Treaty, as interpreted by the Court of Justice…The principle of subsidiarity provides a guide as to how those powers are to be exercised at the Community level.”
Perhaps owensanderson would now care to list those areas of government policy in which the EU has no influence, and perhaps at the same time he would like to demonstrate the beneficial affects of Subsidiarity by indicating those areas where its application has been used by the British government to prevent EU advancement. Preferable without the simplistic gloss about booze cruses and foreign friends.
‘Treaty says that subsidiarity only applies to areas which do not fall within the “exclusive competence†of the Community.’
I know. Read my post. Your quotes are interesting insofar as they affirm that subsidiarity applies in some situations and not in others.
‘affirmed that subsidiarity is “political in essenceâ€, not judicial’
Yes, that is blindingly obvious. It is about distribution of political power, so it is political.
‘the simplistic gloss about booze cruses and foreign friends’
It seems very difficult to get across the simple point that whatever theoretical powers the EU might be able claim in the unlikely event of all the bureaucrats of the Continent combining in a systematic assault on the entire system of British government, the practical areas in which it intrudes on British life are roughly those listed above, and are overwhelmingly positive.
To ask for all of the areas of competence in which the EU has no influence is like asking for areas of competence in which the House of Lords has no influence. Influence , even when this actually takes practical form, is a long way from control. Triumphantly parading the fact that the EU has influence in many areas of government doesn’t really show anything about the ’sinister increase of EU power’ while its exclusive powers remain so limited.
With regard to the democracy of the European Union, I agree that it needs reform. Passing the constitution would be a good start. But democracy is somewhat irrelevant to military deployment, as discussed above. What would be the problem if the EU funded an army of volunteers from across the member states? Scrapping CAP could pay for armed forces of 250′000 or so. Furthermore this would do a great deal to invigorate the institutions of the EU- the Commission might stop being a dumping ground for washed up politicians, and populations might begin to take more of an interest in EU politics. Force remains the supreme arbiter of international politics.
‘Quite clearly the EU should not have an army because in its present form it is neither a Nation state nor is its government democratically accountable.’
This is absurd reasoning for saying that it should not have an army. Army deployment isn’t even slightly democratically accountable here or in most other ‘democracies’. And why the excitement about nation-states? What is so brilliant about them?
So as it is about the distribution of political power would you like to indicate when it has been used by the British government to prevent an advancement of EU political power.
If you cannot do so then I will assume that Subsidiarity has no meaning other than the original intended by Altiero Spinelli.
What we have in subsidiarity is a form that allows the EU to decide at what level something will be decided backed by the ECJ.
What we have is something which is totally meaningless as a means to prevent the EU taking power we have not agreed in a treaty.
The system of the EU is an assault on the on the entire system of British government, as something approaching 80% of our laws originate within the EU. The EU system undermines our Parliament and our parliamentary system by placing power into the hands of the executive which has the effect of removing parliamentary oversight of the government.
With the EU theoretical powers soon begin to grow into real powers, theoretical John Major did not agree to the social chapter, theoretical it was on the basis that the social chapter would not apply to Britian that UK Parliament finally ratified the Maastricht Treaty. The EU then introduces the working time directive under its heath and safety rules and the British government have no power to resist. Conservative Government opposed legislation, and after agreement by qualified majority, challenged treaty base in European Court - lost Nov. 1996.
Sorry you are the one who is claiming that the EU has no relevance and no affect in most areas of government competence please be so kind as to clarify that position with proof.
Why on earth would anyone wish to present an undemocratic non state with a fully armed military force. The only way we can control our government is by the ballot box, they know they have to face the people every 5 years that has is very strong incentive to keep in line, what the EU has done is to remove that imperative by moving the decisions beyond the reach of the normal voter.
If there is a problem with the Nation State then perhaps you would like to consider why the EU is basing its development along the lines of a nation state. It own Constitution, high court, parliament executive, police force, Laws, borders, citizens Ect. Ect. The only difference is that the EU is not yet fully formed it is a nation state in the making.
‘we can control our government is by the ballot box, they know they have to face the people every 5 years that has is very strong incentive to keep in line’
Not with deployment of the armed forces. The people aren’t entitled to know anything whatsoever about military operations, and there is no democratic limit at all on using them. The PM has the power (theoretically, since those are apparently the terms of debate) to send any number of troops anywhere in the world, without facing Parliament, explaining himself, or telling the public at any stage. Only if it significantly exceeds normal military expenditure is there the slightest limitation on this power.
The problem with the nation-state is not the institutions of the nation-state, it is the fetishisation of one level of power, national government, when in an increasingly global age, supra-national bodies can have an important role to play.
“something approaching 80% of our laws originate within the EU”
“please be so kind as to clarify that position with proof.”
If you would?
Consider all your dealings with government bodies of any kind throughout the year. How much of it involves the EU? Ask your friends and relations. Stop random people in the street and ask them ‘when was the last time you were forced to obey a European directive?’.
Why is a limit on working hours better achieved at national level? On the contrary, if British firms are allowed to force their workers to work longer hours (without a minimum wage at this time) then it is distinctly unfair for the other countries that have decided to improve conditions. This sounds like a victory for the principle to me.
‘when it has been used by the British government to prevent an advancement of EU political power.’
When has it tried in earnest to do so? With the exception of the Working Time Directive, which seems to me to be in accordance with the principle, I can’t think of a single occasion.
If we can go back to the armed force business, I see three paths for Britain in international relations
1) Admit we are of no consequence
2) Continue to kid ourselves we are of some consequence by acquiescing in American foreign policy
3) Be a major player in a Europe that is effectively a superpower.
If you can think of an alternative, please do. I can only presume you propose the second option.
Is an alternative to pursue foreign policy through the United Nations? I think the vast majority of people would accept that it has severe flaws - which I won’t go into now - but as it stands almost every state in the world officially recognises its authority. The UK is clearly of some consequence in the United Nations as it possesses one of only five vetoes in the Security Council.
Many have said the Iraq War showed that it was irrelevant, but the US and the UK both claim that the invasion was legitimate based on Resolution 1441 (even though Kofi Annan and the UN rejected this), and it would at least have been much harder for the US to invade without a further resolution if they hadn’t had British support.
I’m a natural Europhile, and in a future situation like the run-up to the Iraq War, I think British involvement in a European policy would be preferable to an ‘Atlanticist’ policy and have great political and economic weight behind it; however, I would want to see that policy pursued from the outset through the UN. It would be nice to see reform of the UN be regarded as a serious priority, rather than it being disregarded as, in practice, an irrelevance.
It might enhance this debate if you perhaps did not selectively quote in order to attempt another point. (The only way we can control our government is by the ballot box, they know they have to face the people every 5 years that has is (a) very strong incentive to keep (them) in line, what the EU has done is to remove that imperative by moving the decisions beyond the reach of the normal voter.
However the short answer is as of course we cannot prevent our government sending troops into battle, however we can punish them at the next election. This is not possible at the EU level because the EU system is designed to impervious to the voters wishes, it is not democratically accountable, which is why is should not have the power of an armed military force.
I ask again: (If there is a problem with the Nation State then perhaps you would like to consider why the EU is basing its development along the lines of a nation state.) To clarify if there is an inherent problem with the nation state, then why is the EU developing as a nation state, the only difference will one of scale, the basic nation state problem will exist in the EU.
If Nationalism is bad then it does not improve by becoming EU Nationalism.
Former German constitutional judge and ex-president Roman Herzog pointed out that between 1999 and 2004, 84 percent of the legal acts in Germany stemmed from Brussels.
http://www.nejtillemu.com/herzog.htm
Herzog: EU threatens parliamentary democracy
Date2007/01/18 23:01 by: Marcel
Former German president Roman Herzog: EU threatens parliamentary democracy
welt.de/data/2007/01/13/1176142.html
Roman Herzog, former judge and German president between 1994 and 1999, says in the newspaper Welt am Sonntag, “EU policies suffer to an alarming degree from a lack of democracy and a de facto suspension of the separation of powers.”
What is more, Herzog has a co-author, the director of the Centre for European Policy (CEP) in Freiburg, who goes by the name of Lueder Gerken. And among their criticisms is that the German parliament was not involved in European Union legislation as required by the German constitution.
They also say the European Union is undergoing “creeping centralization” and acquiring further powers, “often without due justification”. The EU constitution comes in for criticism as well, as reinforcing the centralising tendency.
http://www.pes.org/component/option,com_simpleboard/Itemid,20/func,view/id,2226/catid,5/lang,en/
http://www.welt.de/data/2007/01/21/1184192.html
Even the British Cabinet Office estimates that around 50 per cent of all ‘significant’ legislation enacted in the UK every year originates in Brussels.
http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/node/view/454
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many regulations originating from the EU have been implemented by the Department over each of the last five years. [120845]
Mr. MacShane: Regulations are, in general, directly applicable in the member states, without the need for implementation in national law. This has been a fundamental requirement of our membership of the EU since we joined in 1973.
The total number of EC, ECSC and Euratom regulations made over each of the last five years is estimated to be:
1998, 2,852
1999, 2,802
2000, 2,882
2001, 2,600
2002, 2,125
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030630/text/30630w16.htm
That is between 4and 5 regulations a day originating from the EU
“Summaries of EU legislation†in thirty two different policy areas varing from Employment and Social Policy Agriculture CultureEducation, Training, Youth Economic and Monetary Affairs Food Safety Foreign and Security PolicyHumanitarian Aid Justice, freedom and security Regional Policy Taxation TransportResearch and Innovation Human rights
http://europa.eu/scadplus/scad_en.htm
I do not think your argument should rest on what the man in the street understands about the EU involvement in our day to day life, what the general publics understanding is neither here nor there when considering the facts. Let me just point out some areas where there is EU involvement in our day to day life, every time you buy something in a shop, drive your car, use public transport, go to work, employ someone, visit your doctor, visit the hospital, go to a restaurant, go to the local pub, your rubbish collection, use the telephone, spray weed killer in your garden.
I have not even scratched the surface.
Why is a limit on working hours better achieved at national level?
Why not, as this is a political decision why should we not have the choice at the ballot box. What exactly is wrong with gaining an advantage in trade, if the French for instance wish to have certain labour laws why should they demand that we must mirror their choices. That is what elections are all about is it not, the cut and thrust of political ideas.
So you agree that Subsidiarity has no practical use in prevent further EU advancement.
I’ll answer the rest properly when I have a minute. Could you deal with my last point please?
1) Admit we are of no consequence
2) Continue to kid ourselves we are of some consequence by acquiescing in American foreign policy
3) Be a major player in a Europe that is effectively a superpower.
If you can think of an alternative, please do. I can only presume you propose the second option.
I don’t recall ever saying that Europe shouldn’t become more democratic.
“However the short answer is as of course we cannot prevent our government sending troops into battle, however we can punish them at the next election.”
They don’t have to tell us. If they don’t tell us, we can’t punish them. No oversight. Perhaps the long answer will deal with this point?
Regulations are clarifications or provisions under existing legislation, directives are new legislation. It is somewhat misleading to present regulations as primary legislation.
“if the French for instance wish to have certain labour laws why should they demand that we must mirror their choices. That is what elections are all about is it not, the cut and thrust of political ideas.”
To prevent a race to the bottom i.e. a constant struggle to increase working hours.
“visit your doctor, visit the hospital”- how? Even JO, who appears to be no friend of the EU, admits above it has no involvement in the NHS. If that is true, it doesn’t exactly reinforce your case for the rest of that list.
A proper reply will be forthcoming, these are just the first points that occur.
I feel quite sure that were the British government to send our troops into a battle zone we would soon become aware of the situation.
The fact remains that the EU is not democratic, I would have thought that it should be made to be democratic before beginning any debate about giving the present undemocratic system military power.
That is always assuming that is can become democratic for this to happen would require a root and branch reorganisation of the whole system it would require EU wide political parties an EU wide demos and votes that could actually replace the EU government, democracy presupposes choice.
I ignored the choices you offer under the heading “armed force business†because I do not see it in the way your questions imply. It is all about control or rather who is in control; the British armed force should only be used to enhance or to protect British interests, to me this means that only the British government can have the control of those forces, this in no way prevents our government using our forces in conjunction with other states at any particular time or for any particular reason. For this to be effective means we must retain an independent capability both militarily and politically.
Effectively the EU is not about retaining British independence in any form, the whole ethos behind the European project was to make war impossible between the member states by combining their war making capabilities, originally this was coal and steel, we have moved on from that position and military technologies have advanced but the basic philosophy remains. So in order to be a major player in the EU we would have to destroy our independent capabilities and merge our force with other states under the EU umbrella. We are perhaps holding this debate several years too late, because Britian is already set on the path of merging our military forces with the other EU states. We are already massively contributing to the building of an EU military force, the greatest military expenditure is going towards redesigning and re-equipping our forces so they may take their place in the embryo EU armed force the Rapid Reaction Force. This in effect means that very soon will no longer have an independent military capability, even looking back to the Falklands war we could see some evidence of the effect of this move, I belive it was the Dutch government, who refused to release British owned ammunition for our troops to use in that conflict.
In order to short circuit this debate please check out: European defence procurement, Future Combat Systems Mounted Combat System, Future Rapid Effect System.
Primary legislation is used as a means to give power to introduce secondary legislation, I belive your contention is that the EU has very little effect on our lives, I belive you are wrong, because whether it is primary or secondary it really make no difference to the people who have to comply with the law.
Really the only race to the bottom is world wide trade and it has ever been the case; the only way it is possible to achieve the so called equality is to introduce world wide wages and conditions, failing that there will always be inequality of production costs. We are in any case already experiencing a race to the bottom within the EU as the citizens of the new entrants are undercutting the local wages and conditions.
“the citizens of the new entrants are undercutting the local wages and conditions.”
Surely a way to prevent this would be the enforceable equality of conditions across the EU? Worldwide trade is also a race to the bottom, granted, but approximate equality of conditions with the third world would be far harder to achieve, and equality of conditions in comparable countries with which we conduct most of our trade would surely be a step in the right direction.
I’d agree the EU requires considerable reform to be properly democratic. The problem with that though is the tension between intergovernmental and supra-national bodies. The European Parliament for example was given hardly any power, because member states feared the loss of sovereignty that a truly democratic EU would bring. The Council of Ministers is supposed to have a great deal of power, as this builds squarely on national governments. In practice, the Commission has a good deal of political latitude. But we won’t have a democratic EU unless we can commit to it properly. If national governments will not tolerate a layer of government above them with democratic legitimacy, then it will not happen.
“the British armed force should only be used to enhance or to protect British interests, to me this means that only the British government can have the control of those forces”
But that lacks the conceptual leap. Why should an armed force be BRITISH? Why, in fact, should Scottish troops be used to protect English interests? What is special about that particular level of government? Also, this misunderstands my original post to some extent. Although I’d support a substantial reform of the EU, an EU military establishment would actually promote this.
One point of circumstantial evidence, but quite a strong one I think. If the European Commission determines 80%, or 50% of our legislation, and presumably the Cabinet determines the other 50%, why does no ambitious politician ever want to go to the European Commission? It is so far the preserve of those whose career is at an end. It seems unlikely that politicians would not seek power, and equally unlikely that the whole of Westminster would be unaware if the European Commission had the power you speak of. Is there any explanation for this in your world-view?
Why as we have already agreed that is would very difficult if not impossible to create approximate equality of conditions with the third world, do we need to create those conditions within the EU, when we are involved in world wide trade.
And do we really conduct most of our trade within the EU?
Most of our trade and most of the goods we produce are consumed in this country only some 50% of our export goes to EU member States and that equates to only 10% of our total trade.
We do not ‘trade with the EU’. We trade with the individual countries of the EU, and do more trade with the USA than we do with France and Germany combined.
Germany recovery after the war was not based on French social policies! and as I have already stated our working conditions and social policies are a matter for political debate and should not be removed from the power of the voters.
We have according to our politicians been trying to reform the EU ever since we joined, we initially did not join because we did not like what the European Project was offering. So what evidence is there that the EU can be reformed?
There is also the added point that a democratically based EU state; the United States of Europe if you wish, would require the consent of the peoples of the individual states to exchange their power from their present nation state to the EU and invest sovereignty in the EU. This important point that seems to missed, do not forget that the British people voted to remain a member of the Common Market a trading block, at that time they were assured that there would be no loss of essential sovereignty and that each and every policy would be under the control of our own parliament. Since then there have been several revisions of the treaties each one extending the power of the central union at the cost of the member state, do you really belive that had the British people been offered the choice in 1975 that they would have voted to become a sub state in the USE?
The EU Constitution actually does assume the consent of the people, in the preamble it says
Grateful to the members of the European Convention for having prepared this Constitution on behalf of the citizens and States of Europe, [Who, having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:]
Thus without showing a clear majority of the people in favour we should not introduce such legislation into this country.
My idea on the British armed forces actually rejects the conceptual leap, what is special about our particular level of government is that it is the one over which we individually have control.
The British system of government is specifically designed to be accountable to the people in the final analysis, our basic human rights are protection from an interfering and overbearing state. This is why it is the basic form of government in very large parts of the globe. The Government is the servant of the people and the people have the final say.
The EU System differs which is why we were promised that our membership of the Common Market would not include the introduction of Corpus Juris and the destruction of English Common Law.
You are right about the membership of the EU Commision, but this only applies in Britian, in the other member states membership of the EU Commission is seen as part and parcel of a political career, see for instance Mr Prodi who was in the EU Commission but returned to his own country to stand for the leadership, I belive Margot Wallström was also requested to return home to stand for the leadership but decided to remain in the Commission.
Of course you make a very good point, I belive that the British political parties, government and to a large extent the media, all play a part in downplaying the effects of our membership. The general public outside of the political bubble tend to pour scorn our own EU commissioners, as people who have committed something approaching treason, which is not too far of the mark as Tony Blair admitted last year.
I assumed as we were talking about worldwide/EU trade, then ‘international’ was assumed. If we are to be pedantic about it, then we don’t trade with other member states either, companies and individuals transfer goods and services across borders.
“do more trade with the USA than we do with France and Germany combined.”
No. That is wrong.
Exports: US 15.1%, Germany 10.5%, France 8.9%
Imports: Germany 12.8%, US 8.7%, France 7.1%
CIA World Factbook
“what is special about our particular level of government is that it is the one over which we individually have control.”
Yes, but does that mean that no other level of government can ever be similarly democratic? I’m quite aware that the British people would reject a USE, but I think they would be incorrect to do so. A majority of the British people believe a lot of things that I disagree with.
“we initially did not join because we did not like what the European Project was offering.”
Partly true of the initial project, though an imperial Britain at the height of the Cold War surely had more justification for a global/Atlantic outlook than we do today. We were rejected 3 times during the 1960s before eventually being accepted.
A federation or confederation does not require the complete abdication of sovereignty, it divides sovereignty. Are you fundamentally against all division of Parliamentary sovereignty, or merely the form of the transfer of some sovereignty to present day Brussels? What is your angle on Scottish devolution- they have a Parliament, what theoretical justification is there for subjecting Scottish troops to the command of a majority English Parliament?
Perhaps I was using out of date figures this article in the Independent suggests there have recently been some changes:
The geographical breakdown showed that exports to countries outside the European Union fell sharply during the second half of last year. Analysts said this could suggest the US slowdown is starting to hit Britain’s economy. It is also likely to be a reflection of sterling’s strength against the dollar, which recently saw the pound hit 14-year highs within striking distance of $2.
Trade with the EU showed exports to Germany surging, but those to France have stagnated and those to Spain have fallen.
As always, yesterday’s figures came with a health warning. In recent months, the trade data have been heavily distorted by the effects of VAT carousel fraud. The scam, also known as missing trader fraud, affects the trade figures because the Office for National Statistics uses VAT receipts to measure imports into the UK.
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2255728.ece
The same article also states that the latest figures show our overall trade deficit is worse-than-expected December export performance pushed the deficit on the trade in goods and services account to £55.8bn in 2006, up from £44.6bn in 2005 and the biggest shortfall since records began in 1697.
To attempt to put our trade with EU States into perspective:
HM Government, Central Statistics Office - The Pink Book 2005,
the value of exports of goods and services to the European Union accounts for approximately 16% of UK gross domestic product.
Furthermore, our balance of trade with EU countries is massively in deficit. In 2003, Britain’s current account deficit with the European Union reached a record £22.7 billion. This compares with a deficit of £3.1 billion in trade with Japan, and a healthy record surplus, of £18.6 billion, in Britain’s trade with the United States.
In the 23 years up to 1995 Britain accumulated a trade deficit with the EU in manufactures of £116,600 million (about £220,000 million in today’s money)
Of course I agree that it does not mean that no other level of government can be as democratic, it is that quite simply the EU is not democratic, neither do I see any evidence that it is pursuing a line that would make democratic, just the opposite.
You have every right to propose a fully integrated European Union and argue for your proposal, it cannot however be claimed to be democratic to deny the British people the chance to decide the outcome of such a very basic change to their nation state and its constitution.
We were rejected for very good reasons it was not perhaps so much French intransigence simply the French realised Britian was different to the other member nation states and would not fit in with the European norm. This is perhaps why there is such a strong EUsceptic feeling in the country, we are having to move much further than our European counterparts, they are therefore much more open about the United States of Europe something our own leaders are still trying to deny.
Of course the oft repeated quote by Churchill rather paints the picture, when talking about the European project and not the Council of Europe of which he was a great supporter, he said “If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea.”
Some years later De Gaul responded that if Britian wanted to become a member of the Union she must anchor herself off the coast of Europe.
The EU is beyond a confederation and in its present form is not a federation it would be better to assume it will become a unitary state with powers devolved from the centre rather than a federation. Of course both a confederation and a federation are steps towards a unitary state only a cast iron constitution would prevent the possibility, and unfortunately the EU Constitution on offer in not such a document, as it allows changes to itself without regard to the members states parliaments or the citizens.
I am for democracy I am therefore aginst any system which is specifically designed to remove the government from democratic control. That is why I am against the European project because it does exactly that which with which I disagree.
Scotish devolution or EU regionalisation to give it its proper name, is an EU inspired concept to divide the member nation states and construct a European Union of the regions. However that was not the point of your question. Britian is one unitary nation state and has been since the Scottish king combined the thrones and began the process of uniting the parliaments. This is a vast area and many of the accepted versions are not the reality, in fact it was Scotland which took over England not the other way round, but that is by the by. As one people with one shared government the Scots have as much rights and as much responsibility to the nation as any others.
Accepting change; if the Scots no longer wish to remain within the union there is little we can do to prevent them leaving, legally of course it would be treason against the British state to try to leave, but politically I do not think that would have any bearing. We are not subjecting the Scottish troops to the command of an English Parliament there is no English Parliament, it is a British parliament, however in its present incarnation the government is in control of the Scots, every major post in the British government is now filled by the Scots, the Prime Minister although Scottish represents an English Seat, the rest do not. So it could well be argued that the majority of the English are at present ruled by the minority Scots.
None of this of course would matter except that Scotland now has its own parliament and there is a call for total independence from the United Kingdom, this of course creates its own problems and allows the suggestion you have made about the troops to be aired.
Owen,
With the greatest of respect, you cannot on the one hand argue for the formation of an EU Army and on the other hand , dismiss the fundamental arguments about the ethos of supra national government as unimportant. The two are inextricable linked.
You asked
“Why all the excitement about nation states? What is so brilliant about them?”
And you also wrote
“The problem with the nation state is not the institutions, it is the fetishisation of one level of power, national governments”.
Why is it that intellectuals always deride the nation state as a sort of quaint anachronism more suited to a past age than the modern global world we now inhabit? It doesn’t make sense! (The same intellectuals, incidentally, who blush at the very mention of “The British Empire”, yet have absolutely no problem with rampant EU Imperialism)
Apart from the obvious point made by Ken Adams (that though the EU hates the nation state, a nation state is precisely what the EU intends for itself. Why else an anthem, a flag, a constitution an army or indeed a demos?) there are also very powerful arguments to be made for the viability and worth of nation states.
Instead of talking about the “fetishisation of power” (whatever that means), try talking about democracy. Imperfect as it undoubtedly is - it’s still the only worthwhile game in town, or are you proposing that it too disappears along with all the other passé and archaic irritations now obsolete in our modern and brave new world?
Of course you’re not.
So we at least agree that some form of democratic accountability must always be the foundation of any governmental arrangement.
For reasons that any serious student of the EU - whether eurosceptic or europhile - will know inside out, the EU is NOT democratic. The “democratic deficit” within its institutions has long been the cause of much hand wringing and gnashing of the teeth - and many articles, pamphlets and books have been written about it. (”Democracy in the European Union by Dimitris Chryssochoou, for example. Though the author is a passionate supporter of the European Project, he despairs of its lack of democratic accountability) And there is an increasing body of resigned opinion which maintains that the EU is fundamentally UN-reformable and that its very construct precludes effective democracy. The European Union, then, desperately needs the “loyalty” of its citizens in order to ultimately lend legitimacy to the EU project. Hence the desperate push to try and force a “European identity” upon the peoples of Europe. An army, a police force, a common European history, common law, common leaders etc etc.
But it just won’t work.
A viable Democracy depends on a community to which its people feel they belong and to which they owe their loyalty. To quote Roger Scruton from ” England and the need for Nations”..
“Democracies owe their existence to national loyalties - the loyalties that are supposedly shared by government and opposition, by all political parties, and by the electorate as a whole. Wherever the experience of nationality was weak or non-existent, democracy failed to take root. For without national loyalty, opposition is a threat to government, and political disagreements create no common ground”.
Or what Mill called ” The principle of cohesion among members of the same community or state”. NEITHER is this Nationalism, as Mill goes on to explain:-
” We need scarcely say that we do not mean “nationality” in the vulgar sense of the term; a senseless antipathy towards foreigners; indifference to the general welfare of the human race or an unjust preference for the supposed interests of our own country; a cherishing of bad peculiarities because they are national, or a refusal to adopt what has been found good by other countries. We mean a principle of sympathy, not hostility; of union, not of separation. We mean a feeling of common interest of those who live under the same government or are contained within the same natural or historical boundaries. We mean, that one part of the community do not consider themselves as foreigners with regard to another part; that they set a value on their connexion - feel that they are one people, that their lot is cast together, that evil to their fellow countrymen is evil to themselves”.
In short, people who are part of a true demos feel they have a territorial stake in the land in which they live. They tolerate the laws - even when those laws are not what they would wish - because they have a stake in forming the laws. They have “joint ownership” of the laws which creates the responsibility to abide by them as well.
This has never, does not and will not happen in the fatally flawed, undemocratic EU.
You can have democracy or you can have the EU. You can’t have both.
JO”
Owen I can understand why many belive that the EU is really not influential in our laws, and do not understand how the EU is involved in every area of government. This is because in Britain we are not told that it is an agreement, suggestion or a demand at the EU level which is behind the new proposal when it is announced in Britian. Only those who study the affects of the EU on our domestic life can see where and how the EU is having a such dramatic affect on every aspect of our way of life; from the laws and the rules we have to obey to the food we eat, how we farm our land, our waters, how long we work, what medicines our doctors can prescribe, right down to our basic human rights, all are influenced by our membership of the EU..
An small but important instance happened this morning; the Times headline is that the government are proposing to give the police powers to randomly stop and breath test drivers. There is not a mention in the article that this is an EU Commission demand, which has been opposed by both the Home office and the police.
I do not suggest we debate the rights or wrongs of giving the police such powers, but this opens a window on the way the EU affect our laws, as this is a direct demand from the EU Commision, who said unless the British government applied this law willingly they would force the issue.
Back in 2004 Ad Hellemons, president of the European Traffic Police Network, warned that if the UK does not voluntarily follow the recommendation, the Commission will attempt to make the random-testing plan into a directive, giving it legal force over member states.
“We are aware that the UK is not happy about this, but at the end of the day we are talking about making our roads safer,”
Although the Home Office opposed the introduction of random breath tests for drivers, arguing that such measures are “inefficient” in catching drink driving offenders and the police said “We already have sufficient powers to request breath tests. The ability to carry out random breath tests would remove the need for police to justify their actions and may serve to further alienate the public. The answer lies in ensuring there are sufficient numbers of officers deployed to roads policing duties to enforce the legislation.â€
And giving the police such a power undermines the concept of the presumption of innocence; in that a policeman would be demanding proof of innocence without any suspicion of there being a crime. In such ways does the influence of people we do not elect influence and undermine our democracy and force on the British people things even their elected representatives and government offices and police do not want.
Heck, where to begin…
“Why is it that intellectuals always deride the nation state as a sort of quaint anachronism more suited to a past age than the modern global world we now inhabit? It doesn’t make sense! (The same intellectuals, incidentally, who blush at the very mention of “The British Empireâ€, yet have absolutely no problem with rampant EU Imperialism)”
Well, it is rather quaint to believe in a time of fiercely independent, unitary and sovereign nation-states. It has always been more complicated than that….even if you look at the late nineteenth century, which possibly has the best claim, there was still the gold standard- effectively, the European (which meant the global) financial system was run from London on the basis of shiny stuff. Like the ERM, but far far stricter…
No more history, but national sovereignty has always been complicated and interlinked for as long as national sovereignty has existed.
“a trade deficit with the EU in manufactures of £116,600 million (about £220,000 million in today’s money)”
Do you mean billion?
The trouble with criticizing the EU on grounds of democracy is that it forms a catch-22, in that without a commitment to integration from member states there cannot be a democratic EU, and lack of democracy is paraded as a reason to avoid integration. My ideal would be to educate the British public and make the argument for an EU constitution in calm and reasoned terms, before they would accept the argument s and decide in favour. Unfortunately this seems unlikely- the wider debate on giving Europe a constitution tends to get quite inane, and ends up, courtesy of UKIP (R.I.P!) a debate on ’shall we give the French our country?’
“desperate push to try and force a “European identity†upon the peoples of Europe. An army, a police force, a common European history, common law, common leaders etc etc.
But it just won’t work.
A viable Democracy depends on a community to which its people feel they belong and to which they owe their loyalty.”
I don’t like the idea of a common European history, but the current national curriculum only seems to touch on Europe in WWI and WWII. A voluntary redraft of the curriculum to include something at least on the centuries Britain spent intimately involved in maintaining the European balance of power might be nice.
My original point was that an army would be far more effective than any amount of flag-waving or celebrating ‘Europe Day’ (that sort of thing makes me sick), and the existence of an army would stimulate the process of breaking through the catch-22.
The whole ‘fetishisation of power’ means: why is democracy at a nation-state level better than democracy at any other level? Why is Scotland an EU region, when Scottish is a nationality arguably far more convincing than ‘British’, which is too often used as a synonym for ‘English’. There seems to be nothing inherently unjust in subjecting ourselves to the wider entity ‘Europe’, any more than the historical accident ‘Britain’, supposing the practical problems of Europe, and the democratic deficit could be solved. Another meaning of ‘fetishisation of the nation state’ here is that you seem unable to envisage an EU with some powers, a British government with other powers, and local governments with still other powers. None of these entities would be a nation-state with unitary sovereign power, but you seem to see an either/or choice.
“Wherever the experience of nationality was weak or non-existent, democracy failed to take root.”
You mean, like Weimar Germany? This extends into the realms of unproveable theory, but I’d say a strong middle or commercial class is far more important in promoting democracy than national feeling. Obviously a certain degree of homogeneity is required, and significant anti-democratic movements cannot exist without putting democracy in jeopardy, but democracy is supremely good at balancing competing interests. That is its great strength as a form of government. This one could run and run though. I suppose if you are convinced that national feeling is important to democracy I won’t ever win you round, but I suggest that a Britain with 4 nationalities may not be the best place for you either.
And Kant says
“other states are forced by their own insecurity to offer themselves as arbiters, albeit without legal authority, so that they indirectly prepare the way for a great political body of the future, without precedent in the past”
But I originally thought explaining my ideas myself, without reference to long-dead thinkers writing in utterly different situations, might work better.
I think those are the main points
A final question about the far-reaching power of the EU…if it is so bad, why do we obey? The EU has no particular coercive power, other than trading restrictions, and these can also be flouted without particular consequence. Who, in your opinion, is driving the great hoodwink of the British public, and to what purpose?
Sorry Owen, the EU is not democratic because the European Project was specifically designed to omit the voters. The original founders of the project were certain and certainly correct, that if the people were involved there would be no chance of getting the project off the ground, so they devised a process which omitted the people from any important decisions. Monnet for instance strongly believed in a technocratic style of government this influenced the basic strategy and the basic architecture of the European Project.
Democracy within the project has become a dirty word most often referred to as populism, how can democracy exists in a system which removes that which is popular because most people agree. How can democracy exist in an organisation which claims it is democratic but ignores the expressed wishes of voters in a referendum.
“why is democracy at a nation-state level better than democracy at any other levelâ€
In the first place how can there be democracy in an organisation which is not based on a demos, and not based on the wishes of the people. Also the “any other level†in this instance refers to the EU. The problem is that the EU is not offering democracy because it is anti democratic because to be otherwise would have meant the EU did not exists.
This from a Round Table report
“A sustainable project for tomorrow’s Europeâ€
formed on the initiative of the President of the European Commission-
As a “federal revolution†was not possible, the approach had to be reform in small stages. This was the beauty of the “Monnet methodâ€: building a federal Europe by means of a technical approach. In practice, this involved transferring sectoral and non-politically-sensitive national powers, such as those relating to customs duties, to a supra-national executive (the High Authority of the ECSC, the Commission of the EEC, the Commission of Euratom) and refraining from conferring direct democratic legitimacy on the European institutions so as to prevent their being rejected by the Member
States.
The “Monnet methodâ€, illustrated by the declaration made by Robert Schuman on 9 May
1950 — “Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built
through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity†— enabled Europe to
break through the political deadlock: it directed the creation of the ECSC in 1951, then the
EEC and Euratom in 1957.
A “stroke of genius†that allowed the consolidation of the European community of values
and paved the way to a political Europe
Also
The institutional architecture would not in any case be sufficient to make the Union fully democratic:
In fact the EU Institutions are undemocratic, for they do not enable people to make or change
a single EU law. and the EU turns national Ministers into supranational legislators, responsible collectively to nobody for their decisions and greatly increasing their personal power, while reducing the democracy of their own peoples.
Referring to another paper written by Gian Luigi Tosato and Ettore Greco, for the EU Commission which goes by the name of “The EU Constitutional Treaty: How to Deal with the Ratification Bottleneckâ€
The report is mind boggling and breathtaking in its utter contempt of any democratic process, and deals entirely with methods that can be used to circumvent the requirements of international law or any democratic response from the people in a referendum, to enable the forcing of the Constitution on states which have failed to ratify.
But is does show that every word in every treaty must be considered in the light of the twisted logic the Europhiliac will apply to them, and cannot be considered a safeguard against a determined process of integration into the EU State.
For instance; From the Constitution-
Art 4-447 The Constitution shall enter into force on …,
provided that all the instruments of ratification have been deposited, or,
failing that, on the first day of the month following the deposit of the
instrument of ratification by the last signatory State to take this step.
Will be interpreted as meaning the Constitution will come into force when the last state intending to ratify does so, it does not mean that the those states who do not ratify will be able to stop the Constitution.
In other words the treaties which require 100% agreement for change are to be ignored if it suites the Euphiliac, their reason, because the 100% agreement applies to changes to the existing treaties, not to the replacement of the treaties with the Constitution. Although the one can argue that to totally replace one treaty with another could by any reasonable interpretation be considered a change, the twisted EU logic will probably be regarded as the real meaning of the clause. Even if no one is going to ask for clarification before the referendum (although perhaps we should) and the suggested interpretation will serve to at the very least muddy the waters, by confirming the Euphiliac claim that a no vote would mean having to leave the Union. However one thing is certain, many of those treaties would not have been accepted by member states in the first place if this was the case.
The last section of this part deals with the ratification process in member states, quite clearly the writers are not too fond of allowing the people to have a say in the proceedings and see the risk of allowing us to have give our views to be a danger to the plans.
“Nevertheless, the risk that frequent recourse to popular consultation at the national level could complicate if not paralyse the integration process should not be overlooked….It is clear that if national leaders choose to appeal systematically to the electorate to avoid having manage directly the more delicate steps in European integration it will become increasingly difficult to reach common or strategic position on the more important problems or events.â€
It is quite clear that the EU would not exist in the first place if the people had been allowed a choice with the full knowledge of the eventual intention to form United States of Europe. The French and German people would have rejected such a plan out of hand as would have the British people. Even today we can see that the German constitutional court demands that EU law must be consistent with German law and are resisting the ECJ argument the EU Law is superior to German Law.
It is not a matter of a division of powers some at one level and some at another level it is the un-accountability which goes with those powers to the EU level. And power should be passed upwards from the people not downwards from an unaccountable political elite.
Historical political take over in the past have created an elitists system which has removed the power of the people to resist, the Romans did it the English and Scots did it. Ask any Nationalist Scot and they will tell you that it was their lords who sold their country to the English. The EU has created an elitists political system which will do everything in its power to prevent the people actually having a choice.
What you seem to suggesting is that we now move to give democratic authority to an organisation which was built in an undemocratic manner and still retains all of the anti-democratic characteristics of its construction within its present architecture.
First totally reform the EU so that it is democratically based, second allow every voter within the member states to vote on exchanging their nation states powers.
Owen wrote..
“There seems to be nothing unherently unjust in subjecting ourselves to the wider entity ‘Europe’, anymore than the historical accident ‘Britain’”.
But we haven’t “subjected ourselves” at all! The people of Britain have never given their blessing to political Union with the Europe. I think it is perhaps this one single fact that enrages me more than anything else, and for this I can only blame our own arrogant and duplicitous political elite.
You wrote..
” Another meaning of “fetishisation of the nation state”
With respect..thats not what we are talking about. Your words were “fetishisation of power”. The two are completely different.
I have no objections whatsoever to national co-operation through International Treaties on issues such as trade tarrifs, climate change and “terrorism” etc. We have many such treaties through the WTO and the UN etc, but the EU treaty is different. It involves a fundamental dilution of national sovereignty. And the handing over of national sovereignty is NOT within the remit of Parliament.
Furthermore, I don’t believe that national sovereignty precludes the handing of some powers to regional or local bodies.
You still seem to be clinging on to the vain hope that the EU is reformable Owen. But even if more powers were handed to the EU parliament, the powers of the Commission reduced and Council meetings more transparent, it would still be fatally flawed.
It wouldn’t matter what mechanisms the EU puts in place, the European Union would never be democratic because its whole existence is contingent on only ONE political doctrine - the perpetuation of itself!
In a Representative Democracy such as ours, we have a choice of parties, usually spanning many political creeds. We elect the candidate, closest to their own views to represent us. If they mess up, we kick them out and try another.
But imagine if you can, an election in which every candidate endorsed only ONE doctrine. What if, for example, all parties campaigned that the earth was flat - and every piece of policy and legislation by all parties stemmed from “Flat-earth” principles? There would still be debate in parliament, but only about the different degrees of flatness to which each Party or MP subscribed. No matter the outcome of the debate, we’d still get Flat-Earthism. That would not be a Representative Democracy - it would be a one-party state.
And so it is with the EU. Apart from the 10 UKIP MEP’s who were elected specifically on an anti-EU ticket, most of the rest - though each Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat in their “national politics” - are committed to the idea of the European Union. It is only in the nuances of their EU credentials that they differ. There is no “Official Opposition” in the EU because no opposition exists within its own institutions. All are committed to the creation of a pan-European Superstate. They only differ in the matter of the detail.
Ok, I think most of Ken’s points are roughly
-the premise of the EU is undemocratic, therefore how can it ever become democratic?
-the discussions on ratification of the Constitution have not accorded first place to democracy
-the founders of the EU were not concerned with democracy
Is this mostly what you are saying?
I’d say….most democratic European countries were founded on an undemocratic premise, Britain included. Reform can happen. Attempting to get 25 countries to agree on any binding constitution is an astonishing diplomatic effort, and attempting to get the electorates of those 25 countries to also ratify would be even more astonishing. For what it is worth, the USA ratified its constitution with the approval of state legislatures, not explicit referenda.
This leaves aside a wider point about democracy itself- is it an end in itself, or a means to good government? What are its weaknesses? I would say a grave weakness of democracy, particularly referenda, is their inability to deal with complex issues. How many of the British electorate would read any proposed EU constitution before voting in any referendum? I don’t want to turn this discussion into an argument about democracy, and I would accept that it is usually the least bad form of government. However, it is substantially flawed, and it is worth acknowledging these flaws.
This is what I wrote JO
“fetishisation of one level of power, national government”
“With respect..thats not what we are talking about. Your words were “fetishisation of powerâ€. The two are completely different.”
Stop being a pedant. The phrase above clearly refers to the power of national government.
However, some mild pedantry of my own, but I think more justified.
“here seems to be nothing inherently unjust in subjecting ourselves to the wider entity ‘Europe’, any more than the historical accident ‘Britain’, supposing the practical problems of Europe, and the democratic deficit could be solved.”
“But we haven’t “subjected ourselves†at all”
The words ‘could be’ make my statement refer to the FUTURE.
You are referring to the PAST.
“And the handing over of national sovereignty is NOT within the remit of Parliament.”
Explain? Act of Union 1707 handed sovereignty to a BRITISH parliament from an ENGLISH Parliament. Most of Ireland was handed over to Eire. Innumerable British territories around the globe have been ceded from the sovereignty of the British Parliament.
“I don’t believe that national sovereignty precludes the handing of some powers to regional or local bodies.”
If those powers are constitutionally protected, then national sovereignty is no longer vested exclusively in Parliament.
“the European Union would never be democratic because its whole existence is contingent on only ONE political doctrine - the perpetuation of itself!”
Surely every institution is fundamentally based on that doctrine. And your description of Flat-Earthism, entertaining as it was, seems to also miss the point somewhat.
“There would still be debate in parliament, but only about the different degrees of flatness to which each Party or MP subscribed. No matter the outcome of the debate, we’d still get Flat-Earthism. That would not be a Representative Democracy - it would be a one-party state.”
Every democracy requires this exact situation. If every party does not agree that the structure and state of the democracy should exist, then if an anti- government is elected, the system would dissolve. The only party alternatives to UK Parliamentary democracy at Westminster are Plaid Cymru, the SNP, and Sinn Fein. If any of these parties could win a majority (of course they can’t, but this is HYPOTHETICAL) then the Westminster system would no longer exist, because their platform is against the institution to which they are elected. And it has literally nothing to do with ‘a one-party state’. If this is how you view Westminster politics, I’m very glad that we are ruled by an ‘arrogant and duplicitous political elite’, who appear to understand the system if nothing else.
You appear to have little understanding of the value of democracy and the horrors that will surely follow if we allow ourselves to be subject to an unaccountable paramount power. A colleague of mine explains the naiveté of many europhiles by describing them - whatever their age - as tidy-minded teenagers who believe in the mirage of big government in a perfectly regulated world. I leave it to others to point out the fundamental dichotomy between such babes and those of us who feel bound to fight for the liberty of our descendants. The harsh real world will have no mercy on us if we are careless enough to be seduced by the false doctrines of such ‘wise fools’ who (God save us!) see themselves as the next generation of our quisling political establishment. … …
Owen I think you misinterpret my points;
Accepted my point is the premise of the EU is undemocratic, but I do not go on to say- “therefore how can it ever become democratic?†but rather it cannot if it retains its present architecture, because that is specifically designed to be anti- democratic, the EU need to be totally reformed so that it becomes democratic. In other words to become democratic it must be reformed on democratic principals, I do not see any evidence of that happening. To follow the path set out by Altiero Spinelli the EU would remain undemocratic until it was a fully formed political entity a nation state in its own right with the power residing at the centre and then moves would be made to pass some powers back down to the regions. We would in effect be forced to become part of the bigger nation state of the USE but then later we would have some choices returned to us from the centre but of course we do not have the choice of remaining outside of the construct in the first place.
-the discussions on ratification of the Constitution have not accorded first place to democracy.
In the first place the convention instituted by the Laeken Agreement was not democratic it was totally controlled by a central presidium which itself was controlled by a smaller unit of three, see the Gisela Stuart http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article1035973.ece
Since the French and Dutch rejected the Constitution the shakers and movers of the project have been considering ways to bypass the problem caused by allowing the people a voice and to prevent any further chance for the people to vote against.
The system of ratifying any changes to the present treaties is set out and agreed in those treaties from that perspective the Contusion itself has no voice on the matter, how can it, as it must be ratified by all member states before it can have any legal force. So far only four states have taken a referendum, two voted in favour and two voted against, all other ratifications have taken place within states parliaments Since the rejection by the French and Dutch only those states which were 100% certain to ratify have been given the chance to do so, in all other states including Britian the whole project has been sidelined, in fact our government position is that the Constitution is dead.
So my position is not that democracy has not been afforded first place, but it has been and is being purposefully relegated to no place the Constitution will be force through over the heads of the people who will be denied any chance to give their views.
-the founders of the EU were not concerned with democracy
The founders of the European Project understood that to allow any popular participation would condemn the project to an early grave, as the proposals would founder if the democratic principal was allowed any place in the formation of the project.
The argument you make aginst referenda is instructive in that it presupposes that Monnet et al were correct to assume that the ordinary man in the street does not have the intelligence to decide on the determination of his own state and such prickly problems need to be decided by some technocratic system, this of cause is an anti-democratic argument. In fact your argument has no place in any democratic system and is not borne out by the facts, before the French Referendum the Constitution was at the top of the best seller list for weeks on end. The French did make a decision based on the Constitution any other argument advanced after the fact is nothing more that an attempt to nullify the vote.
In fact any man in the street can decide a simple question; do you wish to exchange your powers; do you wish to accept citizenship of the EU etc. The argument that these things are far to complicated for us mere mortals is a non starter, who made the questions so complicated in the first place if it was not the technocrats. We have in any event equally difficult decisions to make every time we elect a government and at those times the politicians manage to boil down their arguments.
In these days of universal suffrage it cannot be right for the people not to be given a voice in their own constitution. The EU constitution actually says it applies directly to the people, that the citizens of the EU freely agree to exchange their powers of government and agree with the following…. That being the case the Constitution claims that on its ratification democratic authority has been granted by both the states and the people. So the people must have a voice and as the constitution applies to both the states and the people that voce must be separate from the state. That voice must be expressed within the present nation states as there is no other authority that has any form of popular mandate, and until the constitution is ratified there is not an EU wide power that can influence the nations power to decide its own determination.
Pedant: the future is built on the past what you seem to be suggesting is that we ignore the past as we decide the future. As the past contains clear promises that we would be voting to remain in a Common Market, that no essential national sovereignty would be passed to the EU, that at no time would our membership of the EU create a move to replace English Common Law with Corpus Juris or Code Napoleon, that the power to accept or reject any European Proposal would remain at all times within our own parliament and be subject to the acceptance by our own ministers.
Should we now forget all those broken promises and just concentrate on the future development of the EU from is present base which has been only been achieved by removing the EU from political debate and removing the power of the people to giver their assent to the ongoing unification. We did not vote for our country to be subsumed in a super state of Europe and no government has ever been elected on a platform of passing power to the EU level.
I think not, I think we should revisit all of the previous agreements and decide once and for all what we want from the European project or indeed if we want to be members of the project in the first place.
What are you talking about? Where has all of this come from?
“I don’t want to turn this discussion into an argument about democracy” but we can do I suppose.
Why do I appear to have little understanding of the value of democracy? When did I say anything about big government, or indeed the regulation or harshness of the world?
I pointed out a fundamental flaw in your argument about the EU, namely the fact that every institution requires a basic level of agreement about its existence. The flaw you point out in European democracy is a basic precondition of any form of democracy. Furthermore, to say that the Conservatives are committed to a European superstate would be a surprise to say the least for many Conservative MPs, and Conservative voters.
Why does this mean I don’t value democracy?
Referenda are a blunt instrument, and given that 40% of the electorate couldn’t even drag themselves to a polling booth in 2001, I hardly think that a majority of the electorate will take the time and trouble to read up on any referendum issue. The constitution, and books about it were top of the non-fiction bestseller lists in France, granted. However, this encompassed sales of 420′000 copies of the constitution. The French population is around 63 million, though of course not all can vote, and copies of the constitution may have been read by multiple individuals. However, I think you are kidding yourself if you think the referendum, or indeed any election, is by any stretch of the imagination an informed choice.
Arguing against referenda is not undemocratic, it is against direct democracy. Referenda are actually contrary to the very principles behind representative democracy of the FPTP variety. FPTP presupposes that the representative will represent ALL constituents to the best of their ability, making informed choices on the basis of all the information available to a representative and their staff. If we are to privilege direct democracy, then the principle behind this is presumably that our representatives should be mere delegates.
The ’simple question’ that can be asked in referenda can end up skewing the outcome wildly, though in this case it should be a fairly simple ‘Do you want to ratify the EU constitution?’. I agree that, regretably, referenda appear to have become entrenched in our constitution as a method of conducting constitutional change, and as such we ought to ratify the EU constitution through a referendum. But I was pointing out that such a method is flawed in its own right, and it is very easy to see why it might be desirable to avoid a referendum if possible.
“As the past contains clear promises that we would be voting to remain in a Common Market, that no essential national sovereignty would be passed to the EU, that at no time would our membership of the EU create a move to replace English Common Law with Corpus Juris or Code Napoleon”
Indeed. In 1974 such promises were made by one government, concerning the EEC. Another, totally different government took us into the EU in 1992, who had made no such promises. Or should we renew legislation every time a new Parliament is elected? Of course I wasn’t suggesting we ignore the past, but JO seemed to have utterly missed the point of the original statement, which was about the fundamental difference between sovereignty at European level or at British level, in a hypothetical environment in which the democratic deficit was removed.
“There seems to be nothing inherently unjust in subjecting ourselves to the wider entity ‘Europe’, any more than the historical accident ‘Britain’, supposing the practical problems of Europe, and the democratic deficit could be solved.”
Here it is again. Hopefully it will be apparent to both of you that this is neither a prescriptive view of the future of the EU, nor an attempt to claim that the British public had ’subjected’ themselves to EU sovereignty.
But I might as well ask you both when you decided to subject yourself to Westminster? I know I didn’t. Sure, there was an election, but no chance to vote on the whole existence of Westminster. I’d prefer to have my affairs run by Cambs County Council thank you very much.
When one elects a representative it is assumed that one has a choice, with regard to the EU that is not a factual representation, whether we vote for any of the major parties who have the capability of forming a government we are voting for a party which believes in Britian being in the EU. I would have thought any partisan claim that the Conservative political party is in any way EUsceptic can be scotched if you look at the history of our membership. They took us in, they campaigned for a yes vote in the referendum, their leader lied to us at that time. They signed the Single Europe treaty they forced through the Maastricht treaty. There are some conservative who are EUsceptic but the leadership are not they simply use the Eusceptic wing to keep those on board who are Eusceptic.
Democracy is at the heart of this debate I do not belive an undemocratic international organisation should have access to military power.
Of course not every intuition needs full agreement of the people to exists; I do not belive the Old USSR had the full agreement or the democratic authority of the Russian people. However it liked to claim that it did, at the same time it made quite sure that the people did not have any effect on the decisions being made in their name, in exactly the same manner as the EU removes the ability of the people to affect its decisions.
The EU Constitution says that it applies to both the state and to the citizens therefore both need to give their assent for it to become the basis for the sovereign power of the EU. Do not forget that once the Constitution is ratified the power and the authority will no longer flow from the member states, the EU will exist as a political entity of its own right with its legal authority flowing from its own constitution. It will at that time be eligible for entry into various state based world wide organisations such as the UN, membership of which is barred to the EU under its present formation as it is at present a creature of its member states.
We elect our representatives to represent us in our national parliament, before they can become a member of our parliament they must swear a duty of allegiance to the British state through the Queen, ditto any government minister, therefore we do not invest in them the power to change our national government nor do we give them power to change our Constitution in fact the very reverse is true, we demand of them that they protect the nation state and its Constitution.
There is no desire not to hold a referendum it would give the move some legal and democratic backing, there is only a desire to ensure that such a referendum is only held when the outcome can be fairly certain of being yes, and that is the reason why Blair was so keen to declare the Constitution dead, because once the people have spoken it becomes very difficult for a British administration to ignore.
Theoretical we ought to have an open debate within the country and then a national referendum, that way our government would know the true wishes of the British public, one has to wonder why the Politicians of the three main parties would rather keep debate about our membership of the EU off the adgenda when it affects every area of political discourse rather than lancing the boil.
We in fact do exactly, that each and every time we elect a parliament, Our Parliament once elected has the ability to ignore any agreements made by a previous administration and for as long as final sovereignty resides in our parliament then nothing can be certain for the future. Your argument lies on the sovereignty of parliament on one hand yet denies on the other, if we have a different parliament that is not bound by the promises of a previous administration then neither is it bound by any other agreement that is in fact the position.
However that is to miss the point; we were told that our membership of the Common Market would not entail loss of essential sovereignty that has nothing to with any government promise, in fact it was made by leader of the opposition Ted Heath, the point being made was that this was a trading block and would not impinge on national sovereignty, the claim was made to sideline the argument by the No group who had read the treaty and realised its implication for the future.
Ther are many of us who do not want to just keep stepping forward towards the goal of a United States of Europe, who belive that if you are intending to change the basis of the EU, then it opens up all other areas for debate. Only those who are working towards the USE want to close down the debate on the process which has created this situation because they know that they have reached this present position by subterfuge misdirection and outright lies.
I assume you are a British subject, Britian is a nation state if you were born here by law you are British and owe allegiance to the British state and it owes a duty of care to you. You could of course become a citizen of some other nation state and rescind your British nationality. .
I see nothing wrong with the position that we might decide to subject ourselves to the nation state of the EU, so I would suggest that those who favour such an option, do all they can to convince their fellow countrymen and women that this is the correct choice for us and our children, then we can hold a national referendum, I of course would be willing to accept the outcome, because I belive in the democratic choice of the people. What I will not accept is the gradual unification of this country with at no time admitting to the people the effects the reality and at no time allowing the people a voice.
Any particular reason why I can’t copy and paste from this site?
Its very tiresome having to type everything out twice… or thrice.
Thanks
JO
Hi JO,
I can’t replicate the problem on my computer. If you could email me (president at clarepolitics dot co dot uk) with details of your operating system and web browser, I’ll try to get it sorted. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Matt
European Union needs a common army as well as a common police force. This will improve our security.
Best Regards