THE EU AND DEMOCRACY

Supporters of the Lisbon Treaty have argued that it is mainly about ‘internal housekeeping’ and involves some ‘tidying up’ of existing institutional arrangements.
Any serious examination, however, shows that this is a gross exaggeration.
The Treaty lays the foundation for a Euro super-state of the future.

Already 80 percent of Irish domestic laws are influenced by EU laws and decisions. The Treaty would give greater influence to the EU commission since this is the institution that draws up and implements EU policies. Increased competencies and the removal of powers of veto enhance the ability of the Commission to impose neo-liberal and militarist polices on the peoples of Europe.

The Treaty creates a new EU Presidency who will dominate the EU Council and emerge as the main figurehead of the EU.
The Lisbon Treaty also creates a new Foreign Minister for the EU whose main purpose will be to tie the member states ever tighter into a common foreign policy. The aim is to build up a figurehead who stands above national interests and represents the EU as a whole. He or she will not be elected by the people of Europe.
‘The (European) Union will have a legal personality’.
It will create a legal personality for the EU, the purpose of which is to give the EU its own legal existence, which takes it beyond being a co-ordinator of nation states. It is another important step in moving to a federal model that is similar to the USA, which is theoretically a legally separate entity from the individual states of Texas or North Carolina.
In practice, two developments will quickly follow from this. The EU will be able to sign up to international legal agreements on foreign policy, crime or judicial matters rather than simply on trade matters.

It also means that the EU will seek a seat on the UN Security Council as a legal personality in its own right and capable of speaking for the different countries that compose it. Internally, the Lisbon Treaty reduces the influence of member states on the day to day running of the EU in a number of ways. The voting system at the EU Council is changed so that it becomes harder for member states to block decisions.  The Treaty also gets rid of the right of each nation state to nominate someone for the EU Commission. Instead two thirds of EU states will have a nominee of the Commission on a rotating basis and so one third will have none for one of the respective five year sessions. Taken together, the measures which are outlined above are clearly not just ‘tidying up’ arrangements.

These are serious efforts to lay the basis for a United Sates of Europe. National identities are increasingly swapped for European identities, it is perfectly reasonable to ask will this mean more democracy or less?
Unfortunately, the evidence from both the Lisbon Treaty and the record of how the EU actually functions shows that it entails less, rather than more, democracy. The Lisbon Treaty effectively does nothing to address the lack of democracy. Instead it makes it worse in three major ways.

It transfers more powers to an EU super-state whose decision-making effectively lies outside the public scrutiny.

It strengthens the neo-liberal bias of the EU and so locks in a consensus around right of centre politics. ‘Negative integration’ where barriers to the free market are being removed is the order of the day, but any attempt to forge a ‘positive integration’ with greater public regulation over markets are questioned as spurious efforts to hinder real competition.

It introduces a passerelle clause or footbridge that gives the EU Council the right to extend its powers without any further need for a new treaty.
Defence and military matters are excluded but in all other areas this allows for the removal of a national veto.
There is a provision to notify parliaments of the change but unless there is a vote against within six months, it can go through. In the Irish case, this will do away with the need for further referenda as the bandwagon of EU integration moves forward.

The lack of democracy in the EU is often justified by a need for ‘efficiency’. How, it is asked, could a continent of 490 million people be run on democratic lines?
By the same token, however, it might be suggested that the people of India or China should give up aspirations for democracy because their countries are too big! The efficiency argument is spurious because it avoids the simple question: efficient for whom?
In reality, the structure of the EU makes it highly efficient for big business to shape public policy behind closed doors.
The Irish referendum gives us a rare opportunity to kick back at the corporate aristocrats who dominate our world. Accustomed are they are to getting their way, a resounding NO will come as a cruel blow. All the more reason, then, to administer it.