What now for Europe’s citizens?
Following nearly eight years of controversy and failed referendums, the Lisbon Treaty finally enters into force today. The treaty had been sold as necessary in order to address the internal challenges facing a significantly expanded European Union. With its implementation we should expect greater efficiency in the decision-making process, more democracy as a consequence of the European Parliament’s increased importance and enhanced coherence and credibility in terms of external affairs.
While a set of rules designed for 27 instead of 15 member states should help to increase efficiency, the ability of the European Union to speak with a single voice is something up for debate. The new High Representative, Catherine Ashton, is meant to strengthen coherence in terms of external action, though she will not decide a single European policy, which will continue to be based on the unanimous agreement of all 27 member states. In one sense the High Representative can be considered a ‘super ambassador’ for the EU, though just how political the office will come to be remains to be seen.
But what I am most interested in is the Union’s journey towards greater democracy and transparency and its attempts to bring ‘Europe’ closer to its citizens. In particular, the treaty’s attempt to increase participatory democracy will be very interesting to monitor. The Lisbon Treaty aims to give citizens a direct say in European matters through the introduction of a Citizens’ Initiative, “whereby one million citizens, from any number of member countries, will be able to ask the Commission to present a proposal in any of the EU’s areas of responsibility.” Importantly, the practical details of this initiative have not yet been decided upon and will only be discussed once the Lisbon Treaty comes into force (so I’m waiting with anticipation from now!).
The Citizens’ Initiative will be even more interesting in light of Switzerland’s referendum (citizen initiated) over the weekend in which 57% of voters approved a ban on the construction of Muslim Minarets. The referendum was held following the Swiss People’s Party’s (SVP) successful campaign to collect 100,000 signatures to hold a referendum on the issue. With a population of just over 7.5 million, this works out at a ration of 1/75. Now compare this with the population of the European Union, which will mean that a citizens’ initiative will require only 1/500 citizens to sign. These citizens’ initiatives will allow citizens to petition the European Commission to bring forward new policy proposals and while they do not appear to be binding there should be concern about the types of citizens’ initiatives that may be brought forward in the near future. With the rise of the BNP in the UK and the Geert Wilders phenomenon in The Netherlands, we should expect that the citizens’ initiative will open up a new door for far-right (far-left and whatever other extremist) groups to put pressure on the European Institutions – all in the name of democracy.
With only one million signatures required, I can only hope that the citizens’ initiative will not become the domain of extremist or nationalist views and pointlessness. I’ll keep holding my breath until the details emerge…
Very nice there Umar, keep an eye on those swiss, never trust a people that have spawned the likes of sepp blatter. JK
I can see you forsee problems with the relatively small number of signatures required for an EU referundum, what would be a good amount considering the size of some individual nations etc..?
Hi Cian,
Thanks for the comment. Hope that the bitterness of the France-Ireland game is starting to move away by now. Anyway the Citizens’ Initiative, should not spawn referendums in the EU but they will be a way of pressuring the Commission and governments more generally. They will allow citizens to petition the European Commission to bring forward new policy proposals. Of course, what all this will mean in the long run I’m not sure and I’ll wait to see how the process develops. In terms of numbers of citizens required, I do find that 1 million citizens is a very low threshold – accounting for approximately 0.2% of the population (of course it’s slightly higher when you narrow it down to include only those of voting age). I’ve never been a fan of arbitrary numbers but I would think that a population of 500 million should leave the number a little higher than a paltry 1 million. Germany has a threshold of 5% I believe to prevent extremist parties winning parliamentary seats. 5% may be too high for what is only an initiative and not a referendum but the low number does worry me.
I think we need to critically probe the throw away assumption that the enforcement of the Lisbon Treaty brings ‘more democracy’, as you put it.
The flagship result of the Lisbon Treaty’s ratification was the appointment of two top figures who did not need to be elected to get there. More importantly, the relationship between the European Parliament and the populations that vote for its members is incredibly distant, and for most considered entirely peripheral, therefore largely beyond public scrutiny and acountability. We’ve had a storm over MPs expenses in the UK – but the anecdotal evidence thus far suggests it’s far worse in Brussells, yet populations and media agencies can’t be bothered to reckon with it.
@Tom
I would contend that the EU’s supposed ‘democratic deficit’ is definitely overstated. What the EU really suffers from is a ‘communication deficit’. Citizens do not identify with the EU or its institutions and there are of course issues of democratic control and legitimacy. Often I think there is too much information, which makes it even harder to find what I’m looking for. However, I think that you will find that the treaty that has just come into force does go some way to addressing these issues. Let us remember that the citizens of Europe are represented in the European Council by their elected governments. That citizens feel a distance from the European Parliament can be strongly linked with the lack of willingness of the political parties contesting these elections to do so on any basis other than national politics. And importantly, I think that the heads of state all came together and decided that the top two EU posts were going to be purely administrative. So I wouldn’t worry about Mr van Rompuy or Ms Ashton any more than I would the Secretary General of the Civil Service or the nation’s top ambassador.
Perhaps there is too much emphasis on the democratic nature of the European Parliament to the detriment of that of the European Council. But then this is probably a consequence of a different vision for the EU. More power to the Parliament might mean a gentle slide into federalism while a consolidation of the European Council would definitely swing the European project back towards our beloved consociationalism.
If you want to have some input into the ‘Public consultation on the European Citizens’ Initiative’ then please visit http://tr.im/GjyV
It will be open until 31.01.2010 so get moving if you’ve got something to say!
Since the EU is restricted on what it can make laws on, I wouldnt worry about anti-Islamic laws coming in. The same way that people were worried the Swedish could gather 1million signatures to lobby the commission to get Ireland to legalise abortion. No competence, no worry.
@ IrishLibertarian
I’m not worried about any laws being enforced through the citizens’ initiative. What I am more concerned about is the perception that this might generate both within and outside the EU. Potentially, we are giving a much greater voice to marginal opinions that may include racist groups. Instead of creating an atmosphere of inclusion (something I believe the Union does) it may work in the opposite direction. So even though there is no competence in this area, there may be need to worry. Not that perception becomes reality but that it does strongly impact on it.
Free speech and democracy for all means free speech and democracy for those we disagree with.
Agreed. But what do we do when that freedom of speech begins to infringe on the rights of other individuals? We have libel laws for a reason and some states use legal thresholds in their electoral systems precisely to combat excesses when it comes to freedom of speech (which feels very much like a misnomer but there you go).
Obviously I disagreed with you about the merits of passing the Treaty. I believed, and still do, that it was a mistake. That argument is behind us, however, and we have what we have. Personally, I think the citizen’s initiative is one of those ill-thought out ideas that tend to get proposed at large meetings in order to solve seemingly intractable problems and are met with swift acclaim by all present, passed, and never thoroughly analysed. I think you raise the crucial point, and identify a key problem.
I have no doubt that the in initiative will be used for exactly the kind of posturing you envisage – and worse on top of it. What happens when a million citizens sign a petition asking for the expulsion of the US ambassador to Brussels because of the next unpopular occupant of the White House? There are easily a million crazy anti-Americans in the EU. What happens when a petition is filed to grant autonomy to the Basque region? The obvious answer is that those petitions will be ignored, but yet they will have served to highlight divisive and politically toxic divisions within European Society. (What happens, by the way, when one million Muslims sign a petition asking for the right to set up Sharia courts?).
The kind of issues that win a million signatures are also often issues which are dear to small, and sometimes extremist sections of society. By giving those sections a voice, particularly on controversial issues, you elevate their prominence. By dismissing their issues, without a full discussion, you serve only to further alienate those groups from the society they are supposed to belong to. It serves only to pervert democratic discussion, and store up resentment.
Of course, most petitions will be ignored by the media. But the three I mention above, and your own example, are too juicy not to be covered extensively and be discussed at length in op-ed and news pages continent-wide. As a result, the reasonable petitions will be lost, and the crazy ones highlighted. It’s a bad idea.
That said, I think it opens up one more interesting possibility, politically. If opponents of the EU are clever enough to organise petitions on various embarrassing issues, like the budget, or accountability, then we may start to see the development of an actual European Polity. Ironically, the one upside is probably the one the petition system was designed to avoid.