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

Peace in Europe

Europe’s history is filled with war and strife, whether between European nations or with others beyond the continent. Regardless of how far back in time one cares to look, this is an indisputable fact that one cannot deny other than through a lack of historical knowledge.

Yet over the last 50 years, the number of wars within Europe has reduced substantially, to the point that some European countries have enjoyed an unprecedented period of peace within their own borders as well as with their neighbours for over 50 years. So who or what has brought this era of peace within Europe?

For the anti-EU movement, this peaceful period is solely attributed to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation [NATO]. From their perspective, the European Union has done nothing to bring the peace in Europe, and its only because of NATO and the USA, that Europe has enjoyed this tranquil period. From the pro-EU movement’s perspective, the opinion is divided between those that believe it is solely the EU, and those that believe it’s the combined effect of both the EU and NATO.

So where does the truth lay? Is it NATO, is it the EU or is it a combined effort and effect of both?

NATO itself is comprised of 28 countries of which 21 of them are also members of the European Union. The EU member states that are not part of NATO are Malta, Sweden, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland and Austria. One could use the argument that because NATO is made up predominantly of EU member states, these countries have used NATO to provide the peace within Europe and in particular the European Union itself.

However this argument falls flat on its face when one looks at the wars that have arisen within Europe. Prime examples are the Greek-Turkish clashes, where both are members of NATO yet the organisation has been unable to stop the bloodshed. So if NATO is supposedly the sole reason why Europe has had such a long period of peace, one begs to ask “why then has it not been able to stop its own members from fighting each other?”.

On the other hand, one could claim that it’s the European Union itself that has brought peace, and this can easily be substantiated by the fact that every single member state that has joined, has seen no war with its fellow EU members. True, some member states have clashed with other nations within Europe, but none have clashed with other EU member states.

Personally I believe that the truth lies in the combined effect of both NATO and the EU.

The European Union, and its predecessor the European Economic Community, have brought the member states closer together through political and economic integration. The divisions that have led nations to war in the past, have been blurred to the extent that these nations now have more in common than in their differences. The political systems that are in place within the EU, the economic interlinking between the nations, and the unique structure of the European Union itself, has led the member states to not only avoid going to war with each other, but also provided the venue for them to resolve their issues without bloodshed.

The ability to discuss their issues, the underlying principles of the European Union itself that member states must not only respect the other members but also their borders and interests, has been a pivotal point in ensuring peace within the European Union’s borders. NATO itself with its membership being predominantly EU member states has given these countries another venue for resolving issues without firing a single shot.

Without the EU member states, NATO would dwindle to a group of 6 nations. Without NATO, the EU would not have an effective “military” wing. So through the political and economic integration provided by the European Union, and the military “union” provided by NATO, they have together given the EU member states this era of peace. Together, these two entities have taken out of the equation the reasons that do lead nations to war against each other.

by James aka EUR

This article has been produced exclusively for the WAPEU website.  Its reproduction is permitted as long as the article is used in full and acknowledgement is given.

Today I came across yet another debate on YouTube over which is better.  The European Union or the United States.  Endless jibes as people strived for supremacy over one another.  'Europeans are weak!'.  'Americans are obese and ignorant!'.  The usual playground nonsense, and then World War II reared its ugly head.  It quickly descended into serious stuff.  We've all heard the common, associated phrases about most of us speaking German, or the Americans arriving late to the European theatre.  Many seem to think Germany is still a Nazi dictatorship or that France has never won a war in its history.  But there's a real sense of malice.

I often wonder why this is.  Combatants in this battle for the high ground don't usually have an extensive knowledge of WWII.  There's often a general lack of insight into the current political landscape.  Most of the time they've yet to even set foot in each others' cultures, preferring to conduct their attacks from opposite sides of the Atlantic.  They recycle phrases repeated to death already.  So what's fuelling this fight?

The United States is the lone superpower in the world today.  No doubt China is rising rapidly, Russia handles its resources to great political effect and the EU is an economic giant.  But there is no power on this globe as all-encompassing as the United States.  Therefore, much like the great empires of our history, from the Romans to the British, other nations watch America closely.  From the government to the people, every move the US makes is scrutinised, judged or occasionally applauded.  There's a need for people to compare themselves.  It's used as a benchmark.  If we're behind, we'll catch up, but if we're ahead they'll damn well be told we are!  This is more than friendly competition.  It's not easy living under the spotlight.

But what I find preposterous, are those who support the EU taking part in these arguments at all.  After centuries of war and strife, we finally achieved peace on the European continent.  It isn't a throwaway achievement, to be taken for granted and used to begin further wars outside of Europe.  Attacking America is nonsensical.  It's a fight that cannot continue.  We've learned from the mistakes of our past.  We've developed a new Europe.  A new approach to dealing with our problems.  We must take the same approach in conducting our relations with the US and the American people.

'United in Diversity' isn't a motto that should be applied only to the European Union.

by BritishEuropean

Introduction

It is without doubt, one of humanity’s greatest and most ambitious projects ever undertaken - the creation of a multinational union of independent nations who not only willingly join but also relinquish some of their national powers to a central body. The European Union is a project that commenced over 50 years ago through the establishment of three independent but related communities.

Europe itself, is no stranger to war or famine. The history of the continent is one of continual warfare and strife, whether within its own continental borders, or with nations beyond them. The world has seen two world wars, both of which begun within Europe itself and rapidly spread throughout most of the world. Most of humanity’s great empires have their roots within Europe, and European beliefs, achievements and discoveries are now the norm throughout our small world.

There are many who, in some cases, have valid reasons to oppose the development of the European Union. Amongst them is the so-called lack of democratic political institutions within the Union, the lack of clear transparency of its operations, and more importantly – and which is one of the driving forces behind those that oppose the EU – is the lack of public knowledge of what the European Union is all about and how it functions.

Yet, despite these deficiencies, the European Union’s survival is not only crucial for Europe itself but also for the rest for the world.

In the series of articles to follow, I’ll address not only the strengths and deficiencies of the European Union itself, but also its impact on Europe and on the rest of the world.

by James aka EUR

This article has been produced exclusively for the WAPEU website. Its reproduction is permitted as long as the article is used in full and acknowledgement is given.