Irish vote shows Europe’s lack of legitimacy

The Financial Times ^ | 9/29/2009 | Larry Siedentop

[bruinbirdman]

There will be no winner of the Irish referendum – not at the level that matters most. But there will be a loser: the European Union. What matters most for the future of the EU is that it create popular support for integration. It is failing to do so. The most striking thing about opinion across Europe today is the decline of idealism about integration and the resurgence of a kind of nationalism.

Calling a second Irish referendum to achieve the “correct” decision has strengthened perceptions of the EU as managerial, even undemocratic. If the Irish vote Yes, there will be no surge of popular enthusiasm across Europe. However, if the referendum is defeated, there may be widespread satisfaction at the failure of an attempt to coerce opinion.

Since the rejection of the constitutional treaty by French and Dutch voters, the EU seems blind to a central insight of liberal democratic thought – that the means of reaching public decisions are just as important as the ends. The EU has declared member state nationals to be European “citizens”. But the truth is that they do not recognise themselves as such. Why have Europeans been so ungrateful? Why has it proved so difficult to create a European demos?

Open, sharp disagreements that create a kind of public theatre are the means by which national political classes catch the attention of their citizens and foster a sense of empowerment. But in the EU a bureaucratic preference for reaching compromises behind the scenes and presenting them to the public as faits accomplis has been the norm. The EU may be a civil servant’s dream but it is a citizen’s nightmare.

That helps to account for the nationalist reaction to the centralising of power in Brussels since the 1980s. Transfers of power from member states (often under the rubric of health and safety), the abolition of national currencies in the eurozone, enlargement to the east and freer movement of labour have led to a change in perceptions of integration.

At first the process of integration touched only interests. The measures involved in moving towards a single market seemed technical and the process relatively cost-free – something that could be left to experts. But with the acceleration of integration it is now perceived as touching not only interests but also identities – the identities provided by national citizenship.

That change underlies the nationalist reaction across Europe. But it also gives ground for hope, suggesting that we are faced not with a potentially authoritarian form of nationalism but a liberal nationalism embodying values threatened by integration.

The inward-looking mood of Europe today is not simply a result of insecurity caused by the financial and economic crisis. Nor is it just a result of fear about the scale of immigration in Europe and the cultural issues that raises. It is also the result of worries about the future of self-government in Europe. Direct election of a European parliament was introduced as the democratic counterweight to the centralising of power in Brussels. But, alas, the parliament has become part of the problem, rather than a solution. It has failed to acquire any ability to mobilise and shape opinion.

This failure inclines many Europeans to fall back on national institutions. But they find that such institutions no longer carry the clout they once had. People are aware that powers have been transferred to Brussels. But their sense of empowerment remains lodged at the national level.

This is dangerous, for it can breed cynicism about representative government: on the one side, power without real authority; on the other, authority with less and less power. Might the European and national parliaments discredit each other?

The urgent question raised by the nationalist reaction is: what can be done to ensure that it remains liberal, defending representative government, rather than becoming bleakly chauvinist? National political classes need to be reconnected to the European project. Direct election of a European parliament cut the nerves linking political classes to the EU, giving them an excuse to distance themselves from Europe. That excuse must be removed. The original model of national legislators having a European role – enabling them to provide a sense of empowerment on European issues to their voters – suggests one possible means. Reform is indispensable if Europe is to create a demos.

[headstamp 2]

“The most striking thing about opinion across Europe today is the decline of idealism about integration and the resurgence of a kind of nationalism.”

Good, it’s about time people grew up.

[ruination]

Here's the cover of the official layman's guide to the Lisbon Treaty. Notice the multicultural assembly they've chosen to represent the new EU order. Why don't they just come out and say that repopulation is part of the deal?



The Europeans seem way too clueless about what's being done to them.

[Rottweilerson]

some would accuse those who are guilty of “nationalism” of wearing tinfoil hats for thinking the NWO (EU) wants to usurp their Sovereignty. /off

[torchthemummy]

The urgent question raised by the nationalist reaction is: what can be done to ensure that it remains liberal, defending representative government, rather than becoming bleakly chauvinist? National political classes need to be reconnected to the European project. Direct election of a European parliament cut the nerves linking political classes to the EU, giving them an excuse to distance themselves from Europe. That excuse must be removed. The original model of national legislators having a European role – enabling them to provide a sense of empowerment on European issues to their voters – suggests one possible means. Reform is indispensable if Europe is to create a demos.

Oh that sounds like a good idea - return to cronyism by appointing reps by national insiders and powerbrokers instead of allowing a modicum of representative rule via elections. Please!