Ratifying Lisbon

A pattern is emerging. The Lisbon Treaty is attracting support – or at least acceptance – from the broad mass of people and is opposed by the far left (who see it as a capitalist plot), extreme Nationalists (who see it as a threat to the possibility of making their territories independent), and Irishmen (who will believe any old rubbish that people tell them*). There being no Irishmen in the Spanish Parliament, the treaty was approved there the other day with the votes against of the left Socialists and the Catalan, Basque and Galician separatists (IU, ERC, EA and BNG respectively). Apart from this there is no obvious deep-rooted opposition to the treaty in Europe. Despite the delirious fantasising of Britain’s Eurosceptics there is no mass rebellion in Europe against the EU and all its works – even, be it noted, in France and Holland.

The far left may still object but they lost the argument convincingly in France in 2003, when it became clear that they were mistaken (to place no more sinister interpretation on their conduct) when they insisted that rejection of the Constitutional Treaty would usher in the famous Plan B, with paradise on earth as the next stop. The French left were told at the time that there was no Plan B but they refused to believe it. Now, after another defeat in last year’s presidential elections, they are making an approach to land on the same planet as the rest of us inhabit.

The Nationalists are a different matter. When Sinn Féin, the French National Front, Britain’s Conservative Party and UKIP, the Italian Northern League and the Polish National Catholics with President Lech Kaczynski get together (to say nothing of the political teenagers of Catalonia’s ERC**), then it is time for all good men to come to the aid of the party. The purpose of Lisbon, which is the purpose of the EU itself, is to reduce the power of Nationalism. In view of the horrendous damage that Nationalism inflicted on the world in the last century this should hardly be a controversial position. It is worth noting that the newly-independent countries of central Europe see the EU as a guarantee of their independence; it is the regional parties that see a threat. How can Catalonia be independent if its present position is not only entrenched but the present member states are (unfortunately but inevitably) the fundamental units in the EU? But how is independence compatible with membership of the EU? What does independence mean in this context and how does it fit with the increasing power of regions, including cross-border regions, and their recognition as interlocutors by the EU? These are questions to which I have seen no answer. But I do know that the future of Europe lies in getting away from petty local squabbles between Nationalists.

It is an axiom of British politics, at least among those who support such things, that Lords reform will always stumble on the need to get the House of Lords to approve its own reform, and that electoral reform cannot be introduced because it would harm the interests of the parties that would have to introduce it. Something similar is happening in Europe: the creation of a proper Union to replace the patchwork of squabbling nations cannot go ahead without the approval of those very nations. Some have seen and experienced the horrors of Nationalism and are only too pleased to go ahead. In others, however, people confuse their individual identity with that of a group and see the projection of their own nation as a matter of the utmost importance to their own sense of personal identity. Looked at this way, though, the EU has really done quite well to get the level of support that it has.

*Many voters were influenced by arguments that Lisbon would make abortion more likely, endanger Ireland's low corporate tax rates, put Irish neutrality at risk and lead to conscription to a European army. The Independent 28-6-08.

**I write as someone who was once a teenage politician.

Comments

[Ralf Grahn]

Lavengro,

Essentially I think that you are right to point out the benefits of the European Union, although you might underestimate the feelings of disaffection and disillusionment across Europe.

In my view, the overwhelming pro ratification votes of the national parliaments speak for the 'objective' need for more effective common institutions.

But the deepening divide between the so called EU elites (national leaders, governments and parliaments, in fact) and large swathes of popular opinion make me think that the European Union has to embrace democratic legitimacy and accountability.

In other words, the EU citizens have to be given the means to choose the officeholders (and vote them out of office) and to set the course for the European Union.

[Peter Harvey]

Ralf,

Welcome back. I can’t disagree with you in general but I would say this. My view of the EU is formed by the fact that I live in one of the most pro-European countries while my other reference point is the irredeemably Eurosceptic UK.

Lisbon – which is, as everybody knows, a reworking of the 2003 Constitutional Treaty – is the only possibility that we have. It is that or nothing, and nothing means paralysis and slow collapse as the Nice arrangements prove increasingly inadequate for the present membership and incapable of accepting the applicant countries.

People grumble. They always have done and they always will do. People grumble about their national governments but such grumbling is not an existential threat to the existence of those governments, far less of the states themselves. However, the EU is in a period of transition, which is a delicate moment. Spain’s transition in 1975-78 had some hair-raising moments, and some spectacular compromises were made, before a satisfactory solution was found that allowed the country to move forward on an agreed basis. I would say that if only we can get this process of ratification behind us, we will have reached a more stable situation where changes can be made as the system as it gets going and where accommodations can be made within an existing framework. That accommodation would include dealing with the grumbles from the people that inevitably arise in any polity. And the present economic situation most certainly isn’t helping; dissatisfaction with authority – whether or not it is justified – is always the result of economic slow-down.

As I have said, Lisbon is the only choice that we have. It offers a more powerful Parliament and a smaller Commission, both of which are to be welcomed. The history of the European Parliament has been one of constantly increases in its powers; we saw last week with the Return Directive (which was very controversial here) that what happens there counts. It is to be hoped that as the EU acquires more international clout, the Parliament will continue to extend its power and influence. The Parliament already has the right to sack individual commissioners rather than just the Commission as a whole. We are stuck with the Council as a platform for national representation, but at least QMV will make it work better and thus in the interests of a majority.

The Lisbon structure is what we have got, I hope! It is not perfect but it is far from being a disaster, and it is an essential improvement on Nice. If it can be got working, it will be found that the higher profile of the EU’s actions will increase citizens’ awareness of, and thus interest in, what it is doing. The existing structures will then be used, and adapted if necessary, to provide the democratic representation that will be demanded.