Lisbon treaty: EU democratic process in question

Guillemind

You will find below a translation of a french text about the Lisbon treaty wich we have wroten in february 2008 after the French ratification. It tackles the issues of the whole ratification process of the European constitution since 2005.

We think that the story of this process is relevant for the Irish public. Moreover we consider that our point of view exceeds the French context and deals with the democratic stakes of European integration.

Commentaries are more than welcome!

_______________________________________________________________

Lisbon treaty: EU democratic process in question


Laurent Dauré & Dominique Guillemin


On February 4, the French Parliament voted in the bill modifying title XV of the French Constitution in Versailles, and three days later, on February 7, the Treaty of Lisbon was formally ratified.

The Lisbon Treaty, which provides for the reform of the EU’s institutions, was drawn up to replace the draft European constitution, which was first rejected on May 29, 2005 by 55% of French voters and then on June 1, 2005 by 61% of Dutch voters.

How did we go from the voters’ refusals to the adoption of the text by Parliament in 2008? Before the 2005 public vote, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, chief author of the constitution, declared: “It is a good idea to have chosen the referendum, so long as the outcome is yes.”(1) And one year later: “The rejection of the constitution was a mistake which will have to be corrected.”(2) In spite of the French and Dutch noes, some countries did adopt a constitution which had little chance of success, an indication that the initial project was not amendable: “If it’s a Yes, we will say ‘On we go’, and if it's a No we will say ‘We continue.’ (…) If at the end of the ratification process, we do not manage to solve the problems, the countries that would have said ‘No,’ would have to ask themselves the question again.”(3) Why then was so imperative a text chanced to be put to a public vote? Pro-Europeans, who were convinced that their project would arouse popular enthusiasm, may have shown too much optimism. In 2005, the citizens, who had received a copy of the text, were encouraged to follow the campaign massively, and they did not miss the opportunity to express themselves. The debate was not only covered by the main media -characterized by their clear preference for the “yes vote”(4) - but was also soon led on numerous forums, meetings, blogs or through various publications. At the time, defenders of the constitution resorted to meaningless but imperative maxims: “We need to build Europe”, “Europe needs a new start”, “Let’s be more European!” and so on. In brief, the idea was that we needed to build Europe because we needed to build Europe. Their method – a convenient one – was to present arguments against the constitution as dangerous and reactionary. Great disasters to come were announced in order to persuade the more reluctant (5). But the sole purpose of such alarmist outcries was to hide the true political nature of the project. Was it to build a federal Europe? A European superstate? A Europe of the nations? In any case, constitution defenders considered no “Plan B”, and “Europe had to get out of the rut it was in”. This kind of phrase, which was to be heard everywhere in 2005 as well as in 2008, falls within the province of EU mythology: the peoples of 27 sovereign nations were to be united in a new political framework. The EU still believes that popular legitimacy will put the finishing touches to what it has achieved in terms of legislation.

In 2005, this ideal scenario was ruined by the ‘Non’ and the ‘Nee’, but it would not be rewritten. It has quite plainly never been an option. The “EU crisis” was not about Europe’s political and institutional orientation; it was a slight incident which needed solving. But no new text was submitted before summer 2007. There are two reasons for this, one being the French electoral calendar, for Jacques Chirac could not go back on the verdict of the ballot boxes, and therefore left the task to his successor; Nicolas Sarkozy promised indeed to take the 2005 vote into consideration and proposed a “simplified treaty to gather the measures on which there is a consensus in Valéry Giscard d’Estaing’s constitution”(6), which would be ratified by Parliament. The second reason is that the treaty should be based on the following principle: “[That] all the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way”(7).

Thus, with the Lisbon Treaty the EU was concealing the Giscard constitution, which it refused to give up. Although president Sarkozy’s approach was legitimate to the extent that the “simplified treaty” was supposed to be radically different from the previous text (8) (more protective, less liberal, more consensual…), how to account for such declarations as: “The substance of the Constitution has been maintained. That is a fact”(9); “We have not let a single substantial point of the Constitutional Treaty go...”(10); “90 per cent of it is still there...These changes haven't made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004.”(11); “The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term 'constitution' ”(12); “It’s essentially the same proposal as the old Constitution.”(13); “The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.”(14); “Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?”(15) etc., etc.?

Those confessions betray relief and satisfaction about the maintainance of the original treaty, but they also betray explicit intentions of dissimulation, which is totally unlike the spirit of openness that was a major claim of the constitution. “The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable… The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”(16)

The Lisbon treaty is not a consistent text, but a combination of amendments to the European constitution, references to previous treaties and annexes, which isolate the most controversial parts. The method “is to keep a part of the innovations of the constitutional treaty and to split them into several texts in order to make them less visible. The most innovative dispositions would pass as simple amendments of the Maastricht and Nice treaties. The technical improvements would be gathered in an innocuous treaty. The whole would be addressed to Parliaments, which would decide with separate votes. The public opinion would therefore unknowingly adopt the dispositions that it would not accept if presented directly.”(17) Little matter then that the treaty should be 267 pages long, and about 3000 with the annexes (18). Thanks to this trick, the reluctant peoples can be ignored. This draws suspicion on the previous steps of European integration. For after all, as José-Manuel Barroso put it, “If a referendum had to be held on the creation of the European Community or the introduction of the euro, do you think these would have passed?”(19)

With Nicolas Sarkozy in power and supported by a majority in Parliament, French ratification became little more than a formality, since “[the changes] have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum.”(20) The rest followed easily: on December 13, 2007, the treaty was signed by the 27 heads of State in Lisbon; France was the fifth country to ratify it. Thanks to a general climate of political and media approval combined with soothing “end of crisis” lines, no debate was raised on the content of the project which had been rejected by the people in 2005. 2008 will be dedicated to national ratifications and the new European institutions would be in office as early as January 1, 2009. But only Ireland is constitutionally bound to put it to a plebiscite. The date has been put off several times because the opinion polls did not predict a clear outcome. A ‘yes’ outcome, of course.

“Some things are easier to legalize than to legitimate.” Nicolas de Chamfort (1741-1794)

Translated from the French by Astrid Aïdolan-Ague

Notes:

(1) Le Monde, May 6, 2005.
(2) Speech at the LondonSchool of Economics, June 26, 2006.
(3) Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg Prime Minister, a few days before the French referendum in 2005, Daily Telegraph, May 26, 2005. Moreover, Luxembourg ratified the Constitution on July 10, 2005.
(4) 29% of discourses on television in favour of the ‘No’ against 71% in favour of the ‘Yes’ according to the television programme “Arrêt sur Image”, France 5, April 10, 2005.
(5) Two among many exemples: “If you vote ‘No’, you are exposing us all to the risk of war.” Pierre Lellouche, Paris UMP MP, France 2, April 26, 2005; “Those who turn their noses up at the European constitution should keep in mind the pictures of Auschwitz.” Jean-Marie Cavada, Member of the European Parliament, AFP dispatch, January 22, 2005. In 2008, the same is repeated in Ireland: “Say yes to openness, yes to the new Europe and yes to the end of totalitarianism”, Brian Cowen’s speech in Tullamore, May 12, 2008. Totalitarianism… But what totalitarianism?
(6) Nicolas Sarkozy, Europe 1, January 31, 2007.
(7) Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Sunday Telegraph, July 1, 2007.
(8) “Of course this simplified treaty cannot be a new constitution, because the French and others have already said no to it. But Europe must be provided with institutions on which a consensus will be reached.” Nicolas Sarkozy, meeting with José-Manuel Barroso, Brussels, May 2, 2007.
(9) Angela Merkel, German chancellor, The Daily Telegraph, June 29, 2007.
(10) José Luis Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister, official speech, June 27, 2007.
(11) Bertie Ahern, Irish Independent, June 24, 2007.
(12) Dermot Ahern, Irish Foreign Minister, Daily Mail Ireland, June 25, 2007.
(13) Margot Wallstrom, European commissioner, Svenska Dagbladet, June 26, 2007.
(14) Giuliano Amato, former vice-President of the European convention, speech at the London School of Economics, July 21, 2007.
(15) Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime minister of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Europe Agency, June 24, 2007.
(16) Karel de Gucht, Belgian foreign affairs minister, Flandreinfo, June 23, 2007.
(17) Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Le Monde, June 14, 2007.
(18) Compare with the 191 pages of the European constitution and the 64 pages of the Constitution of Ireland.
(19) President of the European commission, Daily Telegraph, November 4, 2007.
(20) Dr Garret FitzGerald, former Irish Prime Minister, Irish Times, June 30, 2007.

is_that_so

There are pragmatic reasons why "democratic" countries chose not to put Lisbon to the vote. It may be wrong but our vote here is not for the "disenfranchised" of Europe.

If this line of reasoning was for the betterment of all EU nations then that would be fine but most of the dissatisfaction as far as I can see is a "how dare our parliament decide for us" attitude.

Seeing as national governments are for the people, by people ,where is the democratic deficit or are the voters in individual countries not to be trusted in their original choice of government?

I also wish that the D'Estaing quote would not be so narrowly interpreted. IMO it also implies that trying to get the treaty passed would take an inordinate length of time and that many countries, ourselves included (although I like to think we are rising above it on this one ) like to blame the incumbents for anything from personal debt to bad weather.

What's more it lets loose all forms of political misinformation under the banner of "democratic debate". Multiply that by 27 and I can see where he was coming from.

France is a very good example of this and many of France's current problems are due to the fact that they refuse to address structural difficulties in their own economy and instead blame Sarkozy, the EU or any other bogeyman.

I don't think the EU is meant to be all things to all people but by and large it is about co-operation. The treaty does allow national governments scrutiny of EU business and repeats current guarantees in that area. Democracy in action if ever I saw it.

Finally a quote from a past politician here (maybe someone can recall who said this) after an election result which I am pretty sure he lost.

"The people have spoken, the bastards".

And maybe that's why

ixtlan

Here's my non-PC take.

Sometimes there are times when governments govern and the people do not/should not get to vote.

There are been many EU treaties over the past decades. Every one of them had good points and bad points for every country. Governments compromised so that they got what they could live with.

If all of those treaties had been put to a public vote in every EU country, I would humbly suggest that we would never have had any of them passed. Ireland has voted each time with great difficulty. Each time special interest groups have raised issues which are usually based on highly improbably scenarios, or threaten to vote no if the government does not acceed to other demands.

Witness in Ireland... SIPTU apparently approving of the treaty but with-holding approval pending the government promising to implement legislation... The IFA apparently approving of the treaty but with-holding approval pending the government promising to veto the WTO deal (which is not connected to Lisbon). This would be played out on a grand scale across Europe if everyone voted.

It's funny that the no side points to the fact that France and Germany might very well vote no if given a chance... and then the next no comment is that the voting power of the large countries (eg France and Germany) has increased at our expense.

In a perfect world I would vote on which parts of the NDP plan I considered most important, but unfortunately you can guess that most people would vote for those parts in their areas. If asked to decide on national matters with local consequences people will always favour their own areas.

We therefore understand, even if we don't like it, that a national government must take a very big picture view. Likewise a government representing a country has to look at the overall picture in EU negotiations and make the best compromise. Often though if this best choice were put to a vote many many people would vote no, because they look only at how they are affected and not at how the entire country is affected.

Perhaps it was indeed a sign of over-enthusiasm for the democratic ideal that the constitution was put to a vote. Ultimately, every one of those 26 other countries will have a general election and then the voters can decide whether they governed well agreeing to Lison. And it's not cast in stone despite what the no side says. If an issue arises that really does cause outrage then there will no doubt be another treaty with an opportunity to change or improve the situation. Everything changes.


Ix.

ParkRunner

ixtlan wrote: »

Witness in Ireland... SIPTU apparently approving of the treaty but with-holding approval pending the government promising to implement legislation... The IFA apparently approving of the treaty but with-holding approval pending the government promising to veto the WTO deal (which is not connected to Lisbon). This would be played out on a grand scale across Europe if everyone voted.

Ix.

I have only recently started studying the Lisbon Treaty debates and an interesting point I heard was that Fine Gale are supporting a Yes vote to Lisbon and at the same time urging the Government to use its veto on the WTO deal. If Lisbon is ratified we will lose the veto in a whole raft of areas so we will just have to stomach whatever is put before us.

genericgoon

Whether you vote yes or no will have no effect on the WTO negotiations. The 2 issues are unrelated except for the fact the IFA is holding the government to ransom over Lisbon if the result of the WTO is deemed unfavourable by them.

Moriarty

Zenno- read the charter with relation to linking to videos before you post here again please.

zenno

sorry about that. will make sure next time. the video is an important one if some readers have not yet seen it though. sorry again.

Scofflaw

The following are the standard methods of ratification of treaties in the EU:

This is how all the other EU countries ratify international treaties.

1. Austria - Parliamentary ratification. Two-thirds majority required. A referendum must be held if at least one-third of the members of either house of parliament demands one.
2. Belgium - Parliamentary ratification. Constitutional changes require a two-thirds majority.
3. Bulgaria - Parliamentary ratification. Treaties requiring constitutional amendments must be preceded by a parliamentary vote to amend the constitution. This requires either a 75% (first attempt) or two-thirds majority (second attempt).
4. Cyprus - Parliamantary ratification. Subject to veto by President and Vice-President.
5. Czech Republic - decided on by Constitutional Court. If a treaty doesn't affect constitution it can be ratified by parliament. If it does affect the constitution, an amendment is required.
6. Denmark - Parliamentary ratification or referendum. If five-sixths of the Folketing vote in favour a treaty is ratified. If this is not achieved a referendum is required.
7. Estonia - Parliamentary ratification. Simple majority required.
8. Finland - Parliamentary ratification. Two-thirds majority required if treaty involves changes to constitution.
9. France - Parliamentary ratification or referendum. requires
three-fifths majority support in Congress or a referendum must be held.
10. Germany - Parliamentary ratification. Two-thirds majority required. Referendums on international treaties prohibited.
11. Greece - Parliamentary ratification. Three-fifths majority required
to vest powers in agencies of international organisations; absolute
majority required to limit the exercise of national sovereignty.
12. Hungary - Parliamentary ratification. Constitution prohibits
referendums on 'obligations set forth in valid international treaties
and on the contents of laws prescribing such obligations'.
13. Italy - Parliamentary ratification. Referendums on international treaties prohibited.
14. Latvia - Parliamentary ratification. Simple majority required.
15. Lithuania - Parliamentary ratification. Simple majority required.
16. Luxembourg - Parliamentary ratification. all treaties must be approved by two thirds of the Chamber of Deputies.
17. Malta - Parliamentary ratification. Two-thirds majority required for any changes to constitution.
18. Netherlands - Parliamentary ratification. Two-thirds majority
required where provisions of treaty conflict with constitution.
19. Poland - Parliamentary ratification or referendum. Decision on
whether or not to hold referendum made by Sejm or President and Senate.
Parliamentary ratification requires a two-thirds majority.
20. Portugal - Parliamentary ratification. "Where the Constitutional
Court rules to the effect that a provision of a treaty is
unconstitutional, that treaty is ratified only if the Assembly of the
Republic approves it by a two-thirds majority of the Members present,
where that majority is larger than the absolute majority of the Members
entitled to vote." Referendums on treaties prohibited.
21. Romania - Parliamentary ratification. EU treaties (and revisions to
EU treaties) to be adopted by two-thirds majority in both houses of
parliament.
22. Slovakia - Parliamentary ratification. Three-fifths majority
support of parliament is required to ratify any treaty that involves a
transfer of sovereignty and/or requires a change to the constitution.
23. Slovenia - Parliamentary ratification. Two-thirds majority support
of parliament is required to ratify any treaty that involves a transfer
of sovereignty and/or requires a change to the constitution.
24. Spain - Parliamentary ratification. Three-fifths majority support
in the Chamber of Deputies is required to ratify any treaty that
involves a transfer of sovereignty and/or requires a change to the
constitution.
25. Sweden - Parliamentary ratification. Three-fifths majority support
in the Riksdag is required to ratify any treaty that involves a
transfer of sovereignty and/or requires a change to the constitution.
If this cannot be achieved then a decision can be made by two
consecutive, simple majority decisions with a general election in
between.
26. United Kingdom - Parliamentary ratification. Simple majority required.

These are their standard mechanisms for ratification. They are using them to ratify Lisbon. To claim that there is some kind of jiggery-pokery involved is rubbish. You may think their ratification mechanisms are undemocratic, but that's not the point - the point is that the Treaty of Lisbon is being ratified by the EU member states in the normal way, according to their normal ratification mechanisms - it's not as if they haven't done this before, after all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gordon_gekko

i fully expect the ifa to come out in support of the treaty in the next few days , the fact is the ifa were in favour of it several mths ago but decided to row back and uses the treaty as a hostage to there own agenda on wto
its still unclear whether the gamble paid off

ixtlan

Regarding ratification mechanisms, most people don't understand the Irish system.

A normal parliamentary majority, if the treaty is considered not to affect the constitution.

What is supposed to happen is that there would be a ruling on whether the contitution is affected and hence whether to have a referendum. I assume this would be done by taking a case to the supreme court, but after Crotty this was never done for any treaty.

The Crotty case did not make a referendum mandatory for all treaties. In fact some legal opinion published in one of the papers said that Lisbon was unlikely to need a referendum... if anyone had the courage to ask this question. Politically of course it seems this would be unacceptable.

It would be interesting to check which countries considered their constitutions affected, and hence used the more stringent rules for their ratification systems.

Ix.

bedrock#1

Is it democratic to ban Eurosceptic Groups from forming within the European Parliament?? is this how the EU deals with any form of opposition??

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=335

What about the 100 million Euro fraud committed MEPs that the EU Parliament decided by a majority vote not to disclose details to the public ??

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=281

This Europe is not accountable for anything it does .....

Do you want to trust, say V.Giscard D’Estaing, one of the architects of the treaty.....

“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly” … “All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
- V.Giscard D’Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007

This is madness...

Scofflaw

bedrock#1 wrote: »

Is it democratic to ban Eurosceptic Groups from forming within the European Parliament?? is this how the EU deals with any form of opposition??

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=335

What about the 100 million Euro fraud committed MEPs that the EU Parliament decided by a majority vote not to disclose details to the public ??

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=281

This Europe is not accountable for anything it does .....

Do you want to trust, say V.Giscard D’Estaing, one of the architects of the treaty.....

“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly” … “All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
- V.Giscard D’Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007

This is madness...

Sigh. The EU is not banning Eurosceptic groups. It has proposed moving the minimum number of MEPs to form a Party from 20 to 30.

As to the MEPs voting not to make public the fraud investigation, they have not prevented it going public as long as the names of various secretaries etc are removed. If you're still bothered, you have a vote in the MEP elections next year - which is called 'democratic accountability' everywhere else.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bedrock#1

So unless they can come up with enough supporters the EU is giving themselves the right to ignore the voice of a strand of public opinion by making it more difficult for the "LITTLE GUY" ie. the minority to have a voice in this new Europe. I live in a Republic which by definition the rights of the INDIVIDUAL come before those of any other. READ BETWEEN THE LINES SCOFF.....

As for the fraud.... is it right that politicians because of their status can vote on whether to disclose details of a crime as huge this?? They are not above the law. Will ANY legal proceedings be brought against them?? Probably not but if so will anything bar a slap on the wrist come of it??? I doubt it. This is the money of the people of Europe..... they stole it and now they are asking us to trust them in a process like the LISBON treaty .... Are you off your head?

This stinks.....

humanji

Wait, are you compaining about democracy now?

bedrock#1

humanji wrote: »

Wait, are you compaining about democracy now?

Explain??

molloyjh

bedrock#1 wrote: »

So unless they can come up with enough supporters the EU is giving themselves the right to ignore...the minority'''

I think the point is that this is what happens in a democracy. Unless any group in any democracy can come up with enough support they cannot influence policy. Thats the point of the whole thing though, if the minority is small enough then it may well not be in the best interests of the majority to listen to them.

bedrock#1

well i think this is where the question of is the EU actually democratic comes in imo. at the moment it is perfectly fine for groups like Independence and Democracy to exist. now it seems that because they are increasingly showing the un-democratic/ beurocratic processes involved the EU are getting a bit worried.....

Scofflaw

bedrock#1 wrote: »

well i think this is where the question of is the EU actually democratic comes in imo. at the moment it is perfectly fine for groups like Independence and Democracy to exist. now it seems that because they are increasingly showing the un-democratic/ beurocratic processes involved the EU are getting a bit worried.....

It was proposed by a British MEP, and the EU constitutional affairs committee voted against it. It goes to full vote in July, but there is no guarantee it will be passed.

I would oppose the limitation, but on the other hand, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Lisbon. It is also not some kind of sinister move by unelected eurocrats, but a suggestion within the elected Parliament which will be voted on by the people it affects. I don't really see that as undemocratic, I'm afraid.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hotblack Desiato

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sigh. The EU is not banning Eurosceptic groups. It has proposed moving the minimum number of MEPs to form a Party from 20 to 30.

30 out of 750, ffs. That's a lot more favourable than Dáil Éireann, which requires your grouping to have 7 TDs out of 166 to get speaking time as a party, etc.

Edit: it's 4% vs. 4.2%, not a huge difference, but still more favourable than we have here at home, which I don't recall anyone complaining about.

WillieFlynn

The argument some people have that the Irish should vote no for people in other countries who have been denied a refendum and don't like the lisbon treaty. Also works the other way as well around... as a reason to vote yes, for those wanted to vote for it.

Hotblack Desiato

that argument doesn't work at all, imho. If someone in another member state wants a referendum, they need to put pressure on their own government, that's the only way it could happen.