RSS

July 2, 2008

William L T Schirano, -, Silver Contributor (40)

Excellent piece...Indeed, what Europe needs to do is to involve its citizenry in a decision of this magnitude. Consult the people of Europe in an open and transparent fashion. Allow them to voice their opinions on these fundamental questions through referenda. Only then will the European Union have the legitimacy that it needs to proceed forward.

July 3, 2008

Ilyas M. Mohsin, PPP, Platinum Contributor (296)

very factual.
Lisbon Treaty, Lisbon Strategy, Barcelona process etc are not understood by the rank and file in Europe. Hence the estrangement despite proximity and commonality of objectives. It appears that the politicians have not delivered the genuine services needed for creating a new mindset among the people. The civil society at the individual state level may also be withholding the requisite effort for furthering the cause and propagatng that the "European Union is not a constraint."

July 4, 2008

Heinrich Bonnenberg, Energiewerke Nord
DGAP, Platinum Contributor (303)

Cordial thanks to this excellent paper. For my understanding you are totally right. But please do not confound Europe and European Union. Europe is much more, e.g. Russia is part of Europe, too. And please do not forget that also the European Ukraine wants to be partner of the Union.
We should not forget that the Irish decision has been a real democratic decision, in the sense of our horizontally structured democracy which we West-Europeans thankfully could develop after World War 2. Our reaction to the Irish decision has to be democratic, too, in the same sense, but well knowing that there is the hard working, honest fishermen fighting each day for his family and his community on the one hand and the well provided, smugly self-confided administrator being not needed in his own country and send to Brussels or Strasburg on the other hand: liberty and social equity wished on one side and „par ordre de Mufti“ on the other side.
For starting your welcomed proposals I think the youth had to put the political elite in all European countries under strong pressure. Maybe we need a European, a Pan-European movement, started by the youth in West and East, in North and South and in the centre, really in all Europe. However, the prerequirement is that some are ready to say good buy to the loved fun-society, bemused by analysts of all different types.

July 6, 2008

Jeffery Allen Richard, lawyer/contributor, Silver Contributor (41)

As an American constitutional lawyer with a particular focus in elections related issues (back when I was a government attorney in the States, I was involved in several thorney constitutional issues involving plebiscites, referenda and disputed elections), I find the recent European discussion regarding the "democracy deficit" with the EU very interesting - especially with comparison to early US constitutional history.

The original Articles of Confederation forming the United States of America was approved by the Second Constitutional Convention in 1777 and later by the constituent states by 1781. By 1787 (several years after independence was recognized by Great Britain), there was a demand to reform the Articles, including such fundamental changes as granting the US Congress power over foreign and domestic commerce, and providing means for Congress to collect money from state treasuries.

A Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia in 1787 and was intended only to revise the Articles of Confederation. Instead, as we all know, a new constitutional was proposed a new government rather than "fix" the existing one.

This new constitution was debated vociferously and publically with remarkably articulate publications such as the Federalist Papers of Hamilton, Jay and Madison and the various Anti-Federalist Papers of George Clinton, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry and many others. The states held ratification conventions, most of which consisted of delegates specifically elected for the convention -

July 6, 2008

Jeffery Allen Richard, lawyer/contributor, Silver Contributor (41)

Oops, I managed to screw up my own comment. Let me finish:

The states held ratification conventions, most of which consisted of delegates specifically elected for the convention - with constituted democratic approval as understood at the time.

In short, the US constitution was approved after being widely and intensely debated in public, and ratified in each state by means of extraordinary conventions where the constitution was debated by officials elected specifically for this purpose.

The Lisbon Treaty - although hardly as far-reaching as the constitution proposed by the Federal Convention - was not subject to this level of public attention. With only Ireland having an extraordinary measure for ratification - unfortunately, by means of a referendum - it is no wonder that there appears to be a "democracy deficit" with Lisbon Treaty. Approval and modification of Foundational Law should be an extraordinary event in order to grant it extraordinary legitimacy.

July 7, 2008

Ilyas M. Mohsin, PPP, Platinum Contributor (296)

To my mind, comparing the EU experience with the emergence of a Federation out of confedration in the US may not work. The 13 newly-liberated colonies knew that they needed a political structure for the new country but it had to be one country.
As against that the EU is trying to develop a format whereby various countries, with variable institutional development, are trying to evolve a viable structure for common representation in relation to ceretain issues.
Despite good moves like softening of borders, one currency, almost, and ECM- modeled trade adjustments, the inidividual memebers stay as independent entities. No federation can allow such an arrangement.
This makes the EU proposition look like a far-cry despite the enthusiasm for its success shared by many. Let us hope the Europeans can overcome their difficulties and create a new model of political
co-operation.

July 11, 2008

Jeffery Allen Richard, lawyer/contributor, Silver Contributor (41)

For what it is worth, in its first century of history the US was repeatedly faced with severe challenges by its various member-states. For example, in 1799, the Kentucy and Virginia Resolutions (ghost-written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison) asserted that it was the right of each state to determine whether a given federal law would have force in that state or not. Later, New England contemplated secession in 1814 at the Hartford Convention and during the Nullification Crisis of 1832, the state of of South Carolina asserted the right to unilaterally invalidated any federal law it opposed.

Obviously, the challenges facing the European Union are different from the challenges faced by the young American republic. I am only suggesting that it is worth learning from how the US faced its early constitutional challenges (which arguably ultimately failed when the various compromises holding together the early American republic failed leading to the American Civil War).

July 16, 2008

Oliver

What is "democratic approval"? When it comes even to matters of life and death, such as euthanasia, scope of the health system etc. we entrust the task to politicians. We elect parliament and politicians precisely for the task to work out complex treaties and regulations. That's representative democracy, and we have it for a reason.

@William L T Schirano,
The problem is that in the end, all that can be voted on is yes or no. It's patently impossible to have people vote on every single paragraph, and even then, you could in the end be left with ruins. People are against the treaty for reasons that are very much mutually exclusive and it's impossible to satisfy all sides -giving one group of dissenters what they want will make another that much more ardent. Not the least, the "plus" in legitimacy is a subjective one, and it comes at the price of de-legitimizing the existing political systems in the member countries. Transparency? By all means. But the precise reason we're having problems in the EU IS that everyone wants a say in everything and the right to block anything he feels he has to look askance at. Decisions of this magnitude? The impact of the question of how much the national health systems of the larger countries pay for diabetes patients has much more of a life-and-death impact. But we're happy to leave it to politicians and experts. People sort of grasp that they can't really judge most medical issues and no one would go to the butcher round the corner and ask him whether he should have surgery, just because the butcher knows his way with cutting up meat...

Yes, we should have a lively discussion. But it should be about general issues and directions, not about specifics. Just as we can discuss what kind of health system we want to have, if private insurance should exist or not, etc. But no one would ask the public to vote on the next services catalogue of public health insurance nor, in my eyes, would the public appreciate to be asked to vote on it (and if it did, the system would most likely collapse). But for some reason, when it comes to the EU it's like when it comes to football monday mornings: Everyone's a coach/manager, and everyone knows much better how to do it than those who actually dedicate most of their time to doing just that.

@Heinrich Bonnenberg: I don't think anything is gained by pure derision and defamation and by a disrespect for our own political system. People have been directly elected to the European Parliament. And even the councils of ministers very much has an indirect democratic legitimacy. The talk of "par ordre de Mufti" is precisely the demagogy that derails any and all progress. To call the Irish decision "real" democracy as compared to the processes in other countries is not only an insult to the constitutions of countless countries with a representative democracy, it is an insult to the people of Zimbabwe and similar countries who very much have to live with sham "democratic" processes. If you prefer direct democracy to indirect, you're welcome to your opinion. But in a democracy, it's equally true that unless you can convince a majority of your opinion, that's all it remains.