WeAreProEU

The Irish no vote took a toll on the European constitution ratification more than a year ago but the coming second Irish referendum at the beginning of October brings up the subject again. It is likely to trigger another round of passionate debates. Let’s hope this time debates will prove more constructive for the EU endeavor.

Providing that we may qualify this Irish no vote in 2008 as a failure (I already hear the Eurosceptics screaming “communist” and “dictator” or throw a shoe at me) I would like to focus on why and how it qualifies as a failure from a certain viewpoint.

The referendum, the right process?

When you put such a historical event - the ratification of the Lisbon treaty - to a referendum while communication and education have both failed to channel relevant information to the public who is supposed to make an important decision then the “Irish no vote” takes place.

When an institution or a government fails to provide the means and fails to build up the proper context for its people to have a solid education on a critical subject they are called upon to express their opinion and make a decision, then this so called “democratic process” is an absolute failure.

I believe in direct democracy at a local level where you actually understand and know the environment, what is at stake and how you may have a direct impact on your life and the life of your neighbors. This was the ancient Athenian democratic paradigm and it still holds true for nowadays towns and to some extent the regions where we live. However nowadays societies (nation states and transnational institutions such as the EU) are otherwise much more complicated and the environment changes much faster. Direct democracy applied to intricate global affairs which require a certain vision, expertise and thorough understanding of the end and the means of the project, may well prove a disaster. The current bridge to fill this gap of knowledge is representative democracy.

Did our parents vote for the steel and coal organization in 1951 or for the treaty of Rome in 1957? Yet everyone today enjoys the benefits of the last 60 years of peace in Europe. These treaties which helped pool steel and coal resources and develop a common nuclear agency binding countries together were an important step toward a long lasting peace on the continent.

Did we all vote for the Maastricht treaty in 1992/93? The French and Danish did but other member states negotiated opt-outs and/or ratified through their parliaments (The UK for instance). Yet we are now enjoying the EU common currency and its benefits such as streamlined transnational currency operations and lower costs, more stable currency value and therefore safer, better credit rates to finance our deficits and lower inflation thanks to the ECB. Last but not least the € has also sheltered the old continent from what could have been even more dire consequences from the US crisis if we were still under national currencies monetary systems.

Did we vote for the Schengen area (first agreements signed in 1985)? Yet today the Erasmus generations enjoy travelling from one university to another, people can freely move around which facilitates cultural exchanges and business. In one day you may go ski in the Austrian Alps, go shopping in Milano and enjoy the night on the French Riviera, all of these without having to apply for any visa or crossing any border.

This is not a pamphlet against the concept of the referendum. It is questioning the relevance of its systematic application within a certain context of people’s apathy and lack of insights over a serious issue. This brings me to the second issue: the wrong communication and the limit of our democracies.

Wrong communication and the democratic deficiencies – wrong context for a referendum?

The referendum is stipulated in the Irish constitution so it had to take place from a legal standpoint – We are not questioning its technical validity but its relevance in a given context.

The right to information & education are universal European values which have been claimed and defended from ancient Greece, through the Renaissance, the enlightenment centuries and the ideals of the French revolution to modern and post-modern nowadays societies. So whether this treaty is put to a referendum or not the issue remains open: people’s understanding and commitment to education on fundamental subjects that affect their lives and, on the other hand, the democratic institution’s commitment to providing the means to educate the masses on the given key subject.

The problem is that, as explained above, direct democracy is not necessarily the answer to everything when context is not proper to it and I consider the Irish vote as a concrete example of this discrepancy. There were three major problems with this referendum:

1. The EU commission and most of the EU institutions fail to communicate their mission and vision to the public (irony is that EU sceptics claim the EU is a remake of the defunct USSR which had an extremely well organized and effective propaganda machine as opposed to the EU).
2. On the other hand the EU has become an easy scapegoat for far right parties with a national agenda. Look at the EU parliament seats, more and more EU MPs positions are occupied by EU sceptics groups and far right parties. Anti-EU rhetoric is synonyms of constituency gains in certain regions.
3. The public has little if any interest for the EU which results in low and insignificant turnouts.

Combine these three factors and you may understand why the EU debate in the public sphere is turning increasingly poor and shallow or even invisible. This is mainly because EU citizens do not feel concerned at all. In turn the absence of rational and educated debates leaves a dangerous sort of public relations vacuum to the benefit of extremist groups who are staunch opponents of the EU.

To prop up this case, one can also refer to the French and the Dutch no vote in 2005 regarding the first treaty written by Valery Giscard d’Estaing. These two fiascos fall in the same category. These votes were meant to reflect a real vision for Europe. Instead of such, the turnout came in as a sheer sanction vote disapproving the governments in place at that time for failing to tackle chronic national problems. Oppositions in both countries hijacked the referendum for their own political agenda and as a result the debate was flawed from start.

It would take any reasonably educated person only a few minutes to debunk most of the fallacious arguments advanced by the EU sceptics but the problem is that the EU debates do not SELL. It just does not interest people at all because the EU is not presented to them at all or it is presented in a far too complicated and abstract way which makes no sense to them. At a time of frenetic races to catch ever more audience with increasingly irrelevant, futile and dull programs on our channels our national medias are partly responsible, but one must admit that the EU itself is also liable for this dire situation.

The final words.

Now, about the common claim that a referendum is more democratic, I partly explained above why I think the referendum is not appropriate in the current context. Every day there are laws voted by our representative national parliaments. I come from France and here the population gets to vote to elect the Republic’s President but in many other European countries the President is elected by the parliament. Are these countries less democratic? Certainly not, these are just other form of democracies such as the parliamentarian democracy. Democracy means power to the people. And knowledge is power. What kind of power is it when you put to a referendum an intricate question to some people who have no clue about what is being discussed? Is it really democracy when the public opinion dwells in the dark, abused and fooled by random EU sceptic prophets or political parties polarising the debate and playing on the irrational fears and resentment of the masses for their own political agenda?

As of today, we must put in some trust to the politicians we have elected. They are qualified to represent our interests at the national and international level and, fully aware of what it means for their people and their future, cast a vote which will make history.

Meanwhile the European people and their leaders finally wake up to offset this lack of “knowledge based democracy”, we, the pro-Europeans, should strive to build this bridge between the people and the EU. There will never be such a thing as a strong democratic European society as long as its own people fail to be active in building and preserving it. The real European democracy, the Europe which is not only an insipid market but also a political entity made of flesh and blood with a vision will take place when the European conscience of the people will arise!

by Alexis Brizzi aka Veni Vidi Vici