The Irish, the last democrats in the EU?

On June 12 the Irish will be given an opportunity to vote on whether or not they are willing to give up a major chunk of their national sovereignty. It is an opportunity that was denied to all the other citizens of the 27 nations that make up the European Union. The EU champions democracy for other nations, to the four corners of the earth; however, it is refusing most of its own citizens the right to vote on an important issue, namely whether they are willing to allow the EU government to make major decisions directly affecting their lives—circumventing their nationally elected bodies. True, the EU has been making decisions for all its members for decades, but most of the important ones were in effect subject to veto by each nation, as unanimity was required. Now the EU plans to change its setup and allow for majority vote on numerous important matters.
 
The Brown government in the UK, ‘the mother of democracy’, is one of those that, despite repeated promises to allow the people to vote on the matter (through a referendum), is welshing on this commitment. It plans to submit the treaty to discussion and vote only in the Parliament for one simple reason—it looks like the majority of the people would reject this loss of independence.
 
Moreover, other EU member nations are following the same path,
denying their citizens the opportunity to vote on the new treaty, which is replacing the rejected constitution, but is in many ways similar to it. These anti-democratic moves take place despite the fact that there is growing alienation of the EU’s people from the European institutions, especially the Commission (the EU executive branch), caused in part by the often arbitrary ways in which the Commission acts, putting its judgments ahead of and above the preferences of the people.

What would a sociologist on the side of the angels—or at least on that of democracy—do to ‘reconnect’ the EU citizens to the evolving European institutions?  She would insist that the new treaty be voted upon by the people rather than by the parliaments, given that parliaments often do not reflect the voters’ preferences well enough on specific issues. Rather than conducting referendums one nation at a time, she would insist that it be conducted by all EU citizens voting at the same time. And, instead of merely asking the public to vote the whole treaty up or down, voters would be offered alternative formulations to rule in or out. For instance, the public could be asked whether EU enlargement should require a unanimous vote or merely a simple majority; whether the EU should move toward a political union (e.g., have a foreign minister of its own) or merely aspire to be a civil society; and whether limitations on the movement of labor from new members to old ones should be unbounded or curbed.
   
Above all, such a sociologist would urge that for a given period, say six months, an EU-wide focused dialogue should precede the vote. Plebiscites have long been criticized as anti-democratic because, among other reasons, they express the passion of the moment rather than reflecting the results of deliberations. Hence the need to allow for dialogues, periods in which people can consult with each other and their leaders. These tend to be especially effective when the public realizes that they are going to lead to a specific conclusion (in this case, the vote on the ratification of the EU treaty) rather than being merely ‘educational.’

Societies—even ones as large as the United States—do engage in dialogues about public policies. Most times, one or two topics top the public dialogue agenda; for instance, whether or not to allow gay marriages or whether the time has come to withdraw the troops from Iraq. These dialogues often seem endless and impassioned, but actually, most do lead to new, widely shared, public understanding. Such understandings, in turn, often provide the basis for changes in public policy that are well grounded in popular opinion.

Europe has had several such dialogues, but those were conducted largely within each nation—in part because people still see themselves first of all as citizens of this or that nation and not as Europeans, and in part because the points of closure—where these dialogues lead to changes in public policy—often are still national and not EU-wide. Hence, it is important that this time the vote be EU-wide and binding on the EU as a whole.

Critics argue that ‘Brussels’ has succeeded for decades in promoting one policy after another, without such public participation. Such critics ignore that many of these policies are of limited importance (e.g. dealing with the width of trucks’ axles) or are resolutions which, once passed, governments and citizens were largely free to ignore (e.g. a resolution calling for member nations to increase their R&D budgets beyond 3% of the their total budget).  This kind of ineffective legislation has fed into growing alienation that is now bubbling to the surface.

The EU can continue to limp into the future without narrowing the disconnect between its institutions and its citizens. This amounts to a sociological time bomb, as the EU is continuously expanding the scope of its community-wide actions, encompassing issues that are of considerable interest to the public and are highly emotionally charged. For instance, matters concerning immigration, anti-terrorism policy, and enforcement of human rights. It is not too late to follow the Irish and allow all EU citizens an effective vote about key matters concerning their national and shared regional future.