Case Study 1 - The handling of the European Constitution

The content of the original draft European Constitution was judged to be so significant that it was considered to require the agreement of the people of Europe before it could be enacted by the European Union.

Acceptance of the constitution was to be through Parliamentary votes (ratification) or referenda.

Ratifications through parliamentary vote

Most European Union member state governments do not enjoy absolute majorities, indeed, some were elected with the support of just 20% of their own electorates. Because of this most governments opted for Parliamentary ratifications which resulted in the countries concerned "accepting" the Constitution with no direct reference to the people.

This practice of minority factional politicians imposing their "minority" decisions on European electorates has increased significantly and in particular concerning decisions to increase the powers of the European Union over nations.

This is one of the reasons for an increasing democratic defitit which undermines the process of participatory democracy. Needless to say, where the people of Europe were not permitted to have a direct voice, the European Constitutional draft was "accepted".

Referenda - the voice of the people

On the other hand, where countries held referenda the outcomes were far less convincing in terms of the percentage of the electorate supporting the Constitution. In the case of France and The Netherlands the referenda rejected the Constitution convincingly. Although the process of ratification and referenda stopped it was considered that other European populations were likely to have rejected it.

Democratic crisis

Most political parties in European member states who control governance survive in power to the extent that they avoid asking the people their real views. They know that to do so threatens to undermine the politicians' increasingly arbitrary decision-making powers.

The follow up

The outcome of the failure of the original Constitution to find universal acceptance resulted in European political parties not honouring the pledge to only advance this cause in the situation of universal support.

Encouraged by the German Chancellor, politicians collaborated openly in agreeing to change the name of the original document from a "constitution" to that of an "amending treaty" or just another "European Treaty". They also removed some cosmetic content.

This tactic was openly described in a letter sent by the German Chancellor to the heads of government. The overall objective was to avoid any involvement of the people of Europe in the decision to accept this new "Treaty" by avoiding any commitment to allowing national electorates express their democratic view through referenda.

Unfortunately, the new "Treaty" contains largely the same effective content as the original European Constitutional draft. This has been admitted by both the President of the Convention which was responsible for drafting the original Constitution as well as by the current President of the European Parliament.

Third rate politicians

The unsettling and disgraceful message transmitted by European politicians is that they have no faith in the people of Europe to support the decisions they take.

This attitude reflects a tacit admission by politicians that their decisions are arbitrary and favour interests other than those of the people of Europe. If this were not the case they would willingly submit their proposals to their electorates in referenda.

National politicians and governments, in the name of the European Union, are proactively marginalising the views and preferences of the majority of Europeans.

Politicians against the people

This is a matter of great concern. This concern is not derived from any Euro-scepticism or anti-European viewpoints. This is simply a description of the facts demonstrated so shamelessly by Angela Merkel's self-interested enthusiasm to manipulate. An open willingness to prevent participation of the people of Europe through a refusal to work to represent the expressed preferences of the electorate.

Essentially, it is not even a case of their thinking they know better than the people, it is worse, their intent is to impose what their political parties want on the people, no matter what the people think.

The new European collectivism

This behaviour approaches step by step the old totalitarian regimes where people had to endure what the "leaders" decided.

The European Union wishes to stake an international claim as a champion of democracy and human rights and yet the European Union institutions connive by remaining silent. They do not even hint or suggest that the conditions to strengthen their powers should be based on legitimate participatory decisions of all Europeans. Quite openly the European institutions set no democratic standards. They tolerate a proactive marginalization of the European population by political parties. This is, of course, the other dimension of a political European Union where even the central administration's board, the European Commission, is proactively political.

To be pro-European be pro-people of Europe

The whole of the European Union system is drifting. It heads openly and shamelessly towards increasing administrative power levered by political parties to enforce the arbitrariness of imposing decisions on the people and without seeking their agreement. The system has become proactively dismissive of the view of the public. This is completely unacceptable. But it is important to understand that this expression of dissatisfaction with this state of affairs is not anti-European or Euro-sceptic. This position certainly criticizes institutions, poltical parties and their fabiricated elites. For how can they presume to be the possessors of the rights and volition of the people on something which has never been asked of the people? A pro-European position is one which places the interests of the people of Europe in first position. This means defending the individual freedom of thought and expression of all Europeans so that they can fashion, free of coercion, their own preferences.

The people of Europe need faithful representatives, not party representatives

European politicians reflect an alarming decadence in their seeking of positions supportive of their party interests whilst ignoring the interests of the people. These leaders, so-called, affront the people of Europe through their smug collective acts of disrespect and who somewhat repulsively exude a level of beaming confidence that they will not be called to account or judged for their acts of crude arbitrariness. They have decided amongst themselves that only they know what the preferences of the people are and yet they do not have the confidence to permit the people of Europe to confirm whether or not their presumptions are correct. Such politicians do not hold the freedom of expression of the people of Europe in high regard. Indeed, their declared intent demonstrates their desire and willingness to undermine the freedom of expression of the people of Europe.

Third rate output by an "elite"

All of this fabricated elitism might even be justified if somehow these people demonstrated some comprehensive intellectual grasp of what the people want, combined with some practical ability to organise events to satisfy this. One of the original aims of the European Convention, organized to draft the European Constitution, was to try and "bring Europe closer to the people". However, the Convention completely failed to achieve this because the people of Europe were kept away from the Convention and only political party representatives participated. As a result the common sense of the electorate was unable to help shape the Constitution. Predictably the Convention produced a ridiculous document about the relative institutional powers as a turgid and depressing volume which almost no one has read. Predictably, even on a subject of such supreme importance to the people of Europe, the sum total intellectual effort of this gaggle of European politicians was completely incapable, in practice, of producing anything which inspired. Indeed, the original draft European Constitution is a monument of the incapacity of European politicians to "bring Europe nearer to the people."

The shabby process continues

Now the tactic employed by politicians has not been to redraft something responding to the people. Rather in a lazy and somewhat shambollic process they seek to hide the content and to make decisions without reference to the people. They, following the Convention's failure, participate proactively, purposely and shamelessly in pushing "Europe affairs" even further away from the people of Europe. Such politicians demonstrate an open willingness to arbitrary, uninspiring and crudely cynical behaviour of which many Europeans are ashamed. The people of Europe, we should recall, have suffered in the past from such supercilious behaviour of mediocre intellects reserving for themsevles the trappings of what they think constitute their role plays as part of an "elite". This vulgar "elite" which does not pass for more than a self-fabricated cabal of political party self-interest. As in the past such crude behaviour was associated with a view of European society being a collective within which individual freedom of expression is to be suppressed. Anyone daring criticise this "elite" is accused of being anti-state or anti-system when in fact such criticism was only anti-political party antics.

European politicians are proactively supressing freedom of expression

Today we see the emergence of a repeat of European history where any criticism of this crude and disloyal behaviour of political parties is immediately labelled as being anti-European or Euro-sceptic. One has to ask, "How can anyone who is trying to promote the freedom of individual expression of Europeans be accused of being anti-European or Euro-sceptic?" In Europe, as elsewhere, the individual freedom of expression is what refines and shapes the preferences of the people. But in Europe the political parties are not interested in the preferences of the people. The absurd situation is that there is a lack of trust in the people by the politicians. This is causing a rapid decline in the faith of the people in political parties. Thus, as a result of poor political leadership the European democratic deficit widens.

We need to first of all reshape our systems of national representation

Europe cannot succeed if its mediocre self-serving politicians continue to place party over national interests. The people of Europe need representatives they can trust to carry their message to decision-making forums. As things stand, politicians fail to achieve this since they vote in line with their whips and political party interests rather than in line with the wishes of their electorates.

Demanding a referendum is pro-people and pro-European

Demanding a referendum on the current European Treaty is not irrational. It is an appeal for a more open democracy, for transparency and above all for truthfulness and an end to misrepresentation of the facts and indeed, for a government of the will of the people. It is time to stop smuggling treaty conditions onto statute books by stealth or now even in the open. European politicians might try and demonstrate that they are not self-seeking cowards but in fact possess qualities of leadership which would be reflected in their confidence to ask the opinion of the people. If the people refuse to accept something which is badly explained, this is only a rational decision. If they refuse something which is not in their interests, this is also a rational position. No decision of the people of Europe can be considered to be anti-European or Euro-sceptic for the interests of Europe and the interests of the people of Europe are one in the same thing. The interests of Europe are not those of some self-serving politicians and institutions.