open Democracy News Analysis - europe: after the constitution - Comments

Europe United on "Europe’s trance of unreality"

Europe United — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:27:31 +0100

This article puts its finger on the problems arising from a lack of genuine commitment to democratic accountability in Europe.

For those searching for an alternative vision, the time has come to demand a truly democratic Europe. Sign the petition: www.fivedemands.eu and join the movement.

Anne Palmer on "Europe’s trance of unreality"

Anne Palmer — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:23:37 +0100

Without the people behind it, the European Union will fail. What is happening now through the excellent account above of the "day before the referendum in Ireland, and the day after", has done more harm than any alleged anti-European Union or pro-Nation State person could ever have done.

Anthony Barnett on "Europe’s other legitimacy crisis"

Anthony Barnett — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:32:10 +0100

This is a very interesting article indeed - thank you very much. Your description of the "sandwich" holds out the option for the first time that I know of, of the administration in the EU's headquarters becoming a positive force with respect to public opinion, as they act in concert. But doesn't this challenge your earlier thesis from your book, that you quote, which says that anti-corruption drives simply delegitimises all politics "because they do not have opportunities to convince publics that they are successful in curbing graft and corruption".

Henrik R Clausen on "Europe’s other legitimacy crisis"

Henrik R Clausen — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:17:03 +0100

50 EU-funded projects, only 2 of them materialized (Greece)?

If that cameraman had real guts, he'd of course do what he was paid to do.

Then, in parallel, document the failures and the cover-ups and release that a while after the first propaganda movie.

That should make a difference :)

gladstone on "Europe’s other legitimacy crisis"

gladstone — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:29:50 +0100

The outcomes between applying the EU funds in a corrupt and a non-corrupt way seem hardly very different.

In a country like Bulgaria where there are hundreds of thousands of farmers living on the verge of poverty the EU only fund large scale projects covering dozens of acres.

When money only goes to those who already have plenty to invest does it really matter if it is applied corruptly or non-corruptly?

BrightonGeoff on "Europe’s other legitimacy crisis"

BrightonGeoff — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:45:32 +0100

Was intrigued by the anthropologist Edward Banfield's concept and how it applies to Bulgaria. Banfield's concept was developed in the late 1950s initially via a comparison of Southern Italy and US Utah. He found the citizens of Utah were active in numerous associations outside the family while the materially poor Italians werent.

Doesnt amoral familism apply to the UK similarly?
I don't see any widespread commitment to life outside work and the nuclear family, on my doorstep. I see a lot of overworked people who seek refuge in time out relaxing with their nuclear families.
Isn't maximising the advantages of the nuclear family what Thatcher was all about? I havent noticed any change after a decade of Blairism.

ianniscarras on "Europe’s other legitimacy crisis"

ianniscarras — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:19:44 +0100

Money for minions...

The Bulgarians have every reason to be grateful to for the European Commission's change of tack.

A close friend of mine was recently ask to make a promotional video of all the projects funded by the third EU Development Package in the Peloponnese, Greece. He found that of the 50 or so EU funded projects he was asked to film, only 2 had actually been completed and were functioning properly, both in the private sector. His skills as a camerman were taxed to the limits to cover up the sham.

Unlike the EU legal institutions and the framework they provide for redress, the EU's monetary donations have done as much harm as good in a country like Greece, fuelling corruption, providing a cover for poor economic policies, creating counterproductive incentives for individuals, and, yes, (see for example the funding for cotton production) even damaging the environment.

There is nothing wrong with EU funding in principle. But it has to be much better targeted and monitored. And probably much less of it should go directly to the state.

But the Bulgarians naysayers are also right. Greece just recently cancelled the independent Zorbas commission which was looking into political money laundering, putting in place a new body directly controlled by the Ministry of Economics. There is not reason why the European Commision should single out just one country for special treatment.

Iannis Carras, Athens, Greece.

Not logged in on "Referenda: democracy vs elites"

Not logged in — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:58:37 +0100

Thank you Gisela for taking up the need for a response.
However, I think the debate so far doesn't go far enough. What about preferenda? Matrix voting? Very little in life or politics is two dimensional! I refer to the article posted by Peter Emerson on 13/2/08 called Consensus Voting and Conflict Resolution. Obviously the mix of issues in the treaty referendum drew different supporters and different rejectors of the different themes but, in the midst of the generalised "no" vote", what are the messages from the people? What are the relative strengths of the different "no" themes? Yes, we desperately need much more participation in an informed debate that doesn't engage just the "political professionals" and is intelligible to the general citizen. We also need a methodology that then allows for evolving consensus and multi-option decision making that arrives at best fit for current circumstances. This might also address the thorny issue of who words the proposition and how!
Noeleen,
Northern Ireland

Not logged in on "The Lisbon treaty and the Irish voter: democratic deficits "

Not logged in — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 21:40:43 +0100

As the Chair of the Peace & Neutrality Alliance(www.pana.ie) and a Convenor of the Campaign Against the EU Constitution, a broad based and progressive alliance that campaigned against the Renamed EU Constitution(the Lisbon Treaty) I can only say that the original article was very misleading. The Irish Times commissioned the TSNmrbi polling company to ask why the Irish people were voting no, and while they could and did give multiple reasons for voting no, the three major reasons were that they would not vote for something they did not understand, they were concerned about the lose of Irish power and identity and they wished to safeguard Irish Neutrality. The domestic issues did not feature to any great extent. The treaty is now dead.

Not logged in on "Turkey's judicial-political crisis "

Not logged in — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:12:09 +0100

'insulting the turkish nation' is not a new law it has always been in our constitution

Not logged in on "Europe’s trance of unreality"

Not logged in — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:31:22 +0100

Russia is part of Europe? Surely not all of it. That assertion should be qualified. Perhaps just west of the Urals.

maestrojon on "The Lisbon treaty and the Irish voter: democratic deficits "

maestrojon — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:02:37 +0100

While of course it is undoubtedly true that domestic issues played a part in the rejection of the Lisbon treaty in Ireland it is by no means certain that they were as significant as the authors here suggest. The unlikely coalition on the "no" side, which contained proponents of completely oppositional ideologies, nevertheless orchestrated a highly effective campaign that "got off the blocks" while the yes side were still "lacing their boots" as it were. Indeed, most of the party politicians were still busy with misty-eyed reflections of Bertie Ahern, and History's judgement of him, rather than working on what was always going to be a hard sell to the Irish electorate.

However, both of these aspects of the treaty's defeat ultimately rests on the nature of the treaty itself. It is, as anyone who has tried to read it will attest, inscrutable. Let me stress: this is not an explanation in terms of the "ignorance of the rabble" variety. The document, as it stands, is effectively illegible. By anyone. Anyone, at least, unfamiliar with the 50 or so other documents that it refers to, regardless of standard of education. I know accountants, political scientists, economists and lawyers-all politically engaged, all (basically) pro Europe-who voted no because of this alone. The Irish are conservative, cagey and shrewd-they would never sign a contract which they could not read-would you?

Ironically, I would conjecture that had the Irish been presented with the original constitution that the French and Dutch rejected, they would have been far more likely to ratify it. Had this treaty been legible it would have taken the wind out of the sails of the no campaign-the non-issues such as conscription and so on would have been unable to come to the fore. And the yes side would not have been left on the back foot for the whole campaign.

The "blame game" continues this week in Ireland over who is responsible for this so called "crisis". Government and Opposition each attacking the other while united in their blame of the media. To my mind the answer is simple: who ever suggested that such a technical, illegible document could be passed by popular mandate, anywhere, is to blame in the last analysis. This is not to say that the other factors that Ryan and Curtin mention which contributed to the negative outcome are not relevant, but rather that the apparatchik's within the Commission and elsewhere who drafted this monstrosity should engage in a "period of reflection" as well.

Jonathan G Heaney

Not logged in on "Democracy and referenda: a rejoinder to Gisela Stuart "

Not logged in — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:58:37 +0100

Beccy Allen does not mention the polls commissioned not by the political elite, but funded by the subscriptions of ordinary people in ten marginal constituencies. The question was whether there should be a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, as the politicians had promised. The turn-out was impressive and, by majorities sometimes in excess of the votes cast at elections for the sitting MPs, the resounding verdict was that we should hold a referendum. Gordon Brown, of course, ignored it and received congratulations from the other European leaders for his action. Over 80% of our governance is now made for us by the EU. Our system of "representative democracy" is good enough for the few remaining areas of legislation left to our Parliament, but for a major life-affecting decision such as whether our country should be subjugated to a quasi-federation run by people who are unaccountable to any electorate, then the consent of the people is essential. If the politicians feel they have a sufficiently strong case to persuade us, they should have no hesitation in asking the question.
Don Anderson

Not logged in on "Europe’s trance of unreality"

Not logged in — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:52:15 +0100

In almost every way, most of Europe (perhaps except for Russia) is sleepwalking. It has detached itself from the real world and is showing itself to be hollow, confused, and without vision.

srigotti on "Europe’s trance of unreality"

srigotti — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:30:28 +0100

Comparing progress (or the lack of it) of European Union politics and decision-making with the myth of "the major advantage of genuine democratic politics" of a United States political roadshow is rather naive and does not substantiate EU strength or progress in democracy in any way.

A real crisis, in European Union terms, as opposed to the fluctuations over time one would expect in strengthening any complicated union would be when you see nation states walk away. That appears not to be happening, even with some of the nation states that are less willing partners, and, on the contrary, the union is getting bigger (and more complex)