Referendums on the EU

Nosemonkey and Jon Worth have been writing recently about the idea of a UK referendum on its EU membership. Nosemonkey focused on debunking the reasons for a referendum, but there is essentially two reasons put forward against an in/out referendum: it wouldn't settle the membership question, and without a clear "out" plan, such a referendum wouldn't offer any clear choice. I thought I'd add my two eurocents on this, and why I think it doesn't make sense for those supporting EU membership to support an in/out referendum in the UK at the moment.

If there's one thing that can be drawn from the campaigns on the Constitution for Europe and Lisbon Treaty, it's that referendums are very poor ways of deciding the structure of complex, multi-issue matters. Amending Treaties on the EU have always covered very general reforms, mostly on procedure, and it's hard to explain or campaign on such questions. And as Jon noted, being able to fall back on the status quo meant that rejecting Treaty changes was a responsibility-free pass to further your political stance, without the overall answer of the electorate being obvious. It strikes me that if the outcome of a referendum doesn't give you an idea of what people want, then it's not much use.

In the future, changes to the EU Treaties should be on a case-by-case basis, and not general reform Treaties. These would have the advantage of having clear aims that can be debated, and people would have a better understanding of the role the EU plays, and discuss whether it should play a bigger/different/smaller role in that area. This doesn't escape all the problems of uncertain outcomes, but it does greatly reduce them.

In/Out referendums are like general treaty reforms, even if it asks a clear underlying question. This is because the different options to membership - nicely summed up by Jon as the Norwegian, Swiss and US options - are complex results. Nosemonkey has written about Norway and Switerland, and some of the issues with their position. I'll try and write on their relationships with the EU soon (because they have different and complex relationships), but essentially if you're building a single market, it requires common rules, which in turn require common legislation, which in turn requires a common decision-making process.

Switching from EU to EEA membership means joining the internal market but not being part of the institutions that shape it, which is a loss of political power and autonomy.

As Jon points out, the withdrawalist side has to have a case for the alternative which can be debated - without this alternative, the referendum becomes a farce of decision-making. "Do you want the UK to leave the EU?" would translate into "Do you hate the EU?", since it would essentially ask people to state their opinion, rather than actually make a choice.

It would also be unfair to the withdrawalist side. The reason why some supporters of EU membership also support an in/out referendum is that it might be winnable and put the question of membership to rest. Given the non-choice described above, and the general indifference of people to the EU, a yes-leaning "meh" might be the outcome. This wouldn't let the withdrawalist side put their case forward properly, and it wouldn't result in an outcome that would be very meaningful.

Since membership is the status quo, it is essentially for withdrawalist to come up with a case for a non-Member State UK that they want to put to referendum. Until the withdrawalist side come up with an alternative to put to the vote, holding a referendum is pointless, and supporting a referendum without a clear question is merely a more principled-looking way of political point-scoring, whatever side of the debate you're on.

Lisbon passed with 67.1% voting Yes

It's official: the Irish people have voted Yes to the Lisbon Treaty, with a big swing from the first result (53% No) to 67.1% Yes. With the Polish President promising to add his signature to the Parliamentary ratification of the Treaty, the only real obsticle left for full ratification is President Klaus of the Czech Republic.

Nosemonkey has already examined the question of the referendum's legitimacy.

Will he hold out long enough for a Tory government to be elected in the UK? It probably depends on the fate of another challenge some Czech senators are making against the Treaty in the Constitutional court. If the challenge is thrown out, it will become nigh impossible politically for Klaus to hold out - after all, he is only an indirectly elected figure-head head of state.

Kosmopolito has asked whether this marks the end of the road for big EU treaties and if smaller, single-issue treaties are the way forward. I think that single issue treaties would be a great move: presenting a clear-cut issue would go a long way to ensuring that future debates can stick on topic. However, the image of a complicated tangle of competences and treaty law isn't appealing - I would prefer a unanimious system rather than an opt-in, opt-out ad hoc one.

Grahnlaw has already called for greater transparency under the Lisbon setup, and has set out quite clearly what he would like to see happen. I'd love to see it myself, but I can't say I think it will quite happen....

Finally, happy Unity Day to Germany! Froehe Tag der Deutschen Einheit!

Referendum Day

So today's the big day, and Ireland is going to the polls to vote on the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum. I'm hoping for a Yes, and I'd encourage Irish voters to vote for a Yes for 4 main, simple reasons:

1. It will strengthen the European Parliament. The Treaty gives the EP a greater say over EU legislation and the EU budget, which gives our vote in the European elections more weight.

2. It will involve national parliaments more in the EU legislative process. It give national parliaments a greater opportunity to scrutinize EU draft legislation and allows a "yellow card" system so they can register disapproval or subsidarity concerns.

3. It forces the Council to vote in the open - increasing transparency and accountability.

4. It gives the Charter of Fundamental Rights the force of law, enshrining human rights and workers' rights so that EU law has to comply with these standards.

In other words, I hope for a Yes result because the Lisbon Treaty, while imperfect, enables the EU to work better, and strengthens democracy, transparency and human rights in the EU.

The result will be revealed on Saturday, since counting doesn't start until then. There is a live blog on Irish Election.

A short July Round-up

I was away for the weekend, so I've missed a few bits of news, so here's a short round-up:

1. Javier Solana has ruled himself out of the running for the High Representative of the CFSP post - or the replacement post if Lisbon is passed in the Irish Referendum. Solana has served as the CFSP chief for 10 years, as well as being the Secretary-General for the Council*; so he knew something about being in a "double-hatted" position, as the Lisbon HR's post would be (the HR would also be the vice president of the Commission). I wonder if this announcement is good news for Barroso or not. It means that there's one less Iberian to compete with if there's a multi-office package up for negotiation (Felipe González would probably be backed by Sarkozy who is reportedly dropping his support for Blair for the Presidency of the European Council). Barroso still has a chance that the EP could confirm him for the post before the Irish Lisbon vote.


*These posts aren't actually officially linked; he just happens to hold both of them at the same time.


2. The Bill for the 28th Amendment to the Irish Constitution has been published (see Stephen Spillane here and here and Irish Election - Irish Election has the full wording of the amendment).

So the second referendum campaign will start gearing up, and the campaign organisations Generation Yes and Ireland for Europe could become more active (Generation Yes has already been quite active). The Dáil will be closing for a long summer break soon, and I somehow doubt that TDs (Irish MPs) will spend it campaigning for the Lisbon Treaty - if they won't keep the Dáil open for longer during the worst economic crisis the state has had to face, then what are the chances of them doing some campaign work?

3. Barroso has been urging that the G8 accept the need for an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050. The Commission will attend the G8 in L'Aquila this week. The language of the article indicates that the Commission isn't asking that much of the G8 right now - "accepting the need" may turn out to be less significant than the European Council's "political backing" Barroso for a second term - but movements in policy this week could translate into more co-ordinated negotiations by the G8, and perhaps also the EU, come December's Copenhagen Climate Change conference. The significance of the G8 has in any case been downgraded politically by the rise of the G20, but the G8 may still reveal some of the changes in position in the diplomatic dance that will be ongoing between now and December.

At the moment, my expectations for the December Summit are quite low, given the economic crisis and the natural focus on getting the global economy going again. Some of the indications of the cost of fighting climate change are jaw-dropping, and it's hard to see how fiscally-pressed states will be able to stump up the cash. Sweden has a tough task ahead of it if it wants to boost the EU's green credentials. [The Swedish presidency has a page on EU environmental policy here].

Also worth looking out for is any sign of the press embarrassing Italy - which is Berlusconi's fear.


4. The US and Russia will probably agree on a new Treaty aimed at reducing their nuclear arsenal. It's good in terms of diplomacy and improving relations, but at the same time, it is probably one of the few areas in which they will find it easy to reach agreement. Georgia, NATO expansion, missle shields, etc. are much more sensitive diplomatic issues. Hopefully a deal on nuclear arms - and the inter-governmental commission that's mentioned - will throw up more opportunities for closer and better relations between the US (and EU) with Russia.

Young, Irish & Pro-Lisbon? Welcome to Generation Yes

A new pro-Lisbon group has launched in Ireland today, and surprisingly it's a youth-orientated group. During the first Lisbon referendum, the age group with the highest percentage of No voters was the 25 to 34 age group.

Which is why it's interesting to see the emergence of a grass-roots, pro-Lisbon organization, which is seemingly willing to really make the case for the Lisbon Treaty:

"Mr Byrne, a member of the Green party, says the campaign is “all just friends of ours” who were frustrated by the failure of politicians to properly explain the treaty the last time or to campaign effectively, so they decided “we’ll do it ourselves”. He noted that they recently started a Facebook page and have more than 800 members. “I think Declan Ganley only has about 100” he says of the Libertas anti-treaty campaigner."

Generation Yes has it's own website, Bebo and Facebook pages, and is on Twitter. On it's website it provides bullet-points on the Lisbon Treaty along with references to the relevant Treaty article for those who want to check things out in detail. I especially like the committment to referencing all points that they make - it will be good to lend the Yes side some authority by campaigning on practical changes rather than just vague benefits. Of course, there is the danger that the debate could get bogged down in too much detail, but I doubt that would happen for very long on the streets (or even on TV debates if they get there).

Its director is the former president of Trinity's student union, Andrew Burn. It is not funded by the Irish Government or the EU, but is looking for donations to help with its campaign, and plans on raising money through events such as table quizzes.

I'm really happy to see a grass-roots pro-Lisbon movement like this come together, and I hope they'll be able to make a great contribution to the debate in Ireland.

Ganley Committee Video

People Korps has flagged up a video on Ganley/Libertas' appearance before the Sub-Committee for Ireland's Future in Europe. It's very long, at almost 3 hours.

In it, Ganley emphasises that the EU needs to be more democratic and citizens need to have a bigger stake in it. A position which I support.

However, he was reluctant to spell out what he would like to see changed, insisting that he didn't have a mandate, despite the fact that it was a Committee that was looking for suggestions on how to proceed. He did eventually, when asked as a private citizen, say that more elected EU posts would be part of the solution. Ok so far.

But the Lisbon arguments didn't add up when compared with his European vision. The ECJ is too strong and too activist, but an EU constitution should be only about 25 pages along (and 15 pages would be "even better"). Subsidiarity is also very important. Yet reducing a complex set of inter-institutional and state relationships on competency and powers that needs to be understood in 23 different languages to 25 pages is an invitation for litigation, misunderstanding and judicial activism.

Subsidiarity is strengthened in the Lisbon treaty, giving national Parliaments more scrutiny of EU legislation and of the appropriateness of exercising power/legislating at the European level. The competence areas of the EU are more clearly defined. On top of this there is the increase in EP power and control over EU legislation.

Ganley insisted that his assertion that those who say that there's no political will to come up with a new treaty should step aside wasn't intended for elected national leaders, yet these are the people who negotiate and set out new treaties and treaty changes, and it is their political will which sets the pace of EU reform, which has been extremely slow (the lack of courage for a big leap forward in the democratization of the EU is reflected in the piecemeal approach in the frequent treaties since the early 1990s). There is nobody else this could refer to except the national leaders.

Some of Ganley's statements seem federalist (indeed some of his past writings seem to be federalist too), but in the absence of any clear policy, and in the presence of so many far-right, ultra-conservative and arch-Eurosceptic Libertas members/supporters, it is impossible to take Libertas seriously as a pro-Europe democratic reform party. Even if Ganley is a democratic reformer as he claims, it takes one than one member of a party, even if he leads it, to work successfully to that end. Or does he plan to unilaterally set the party's manifesto?

The Swiss Vote Yes

Switerland has voted yes to continuing closer ties with the EU. The vote was on whether or not to extend the free movement of workers to Bulgarian and Romanian citizens - if it didn't do this, it would have led to looser ties with the EU at a critical time.

Interestingly, from a country which celebrates direct democracy;

"With an eye on Ireland’s Lisbon Treaty vote, an official familiar with the Swiss and Irish tradition of referendums, observed that “Swiss direct democracy is not half as problematic as referendums in Ireland’s ‘occasional direct democracy’.” Well-organised civic education programmes encourage Swiss citizens to propose laws by popular initiative backed by 100,000 signatures.

Just 50,000 signatures can force a referendum to act as a brake or to force consensus on an issue."

Gasp - are they calling us "absolute fools, uninformed idiots"?