[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

00279: Re: EU Constitution not compatible with democracy

From: Leopoldo Salgui <lsalgui(at)demopunk.net>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 21:11:31 +0200
Subject: Re: EU Constitution not compatible with democracy

Dear Stuart,
I thanks sincerely for your detailed answer. Unfortunately, my written English
is not good enough to interchange well-founded statements. Any way, I will
try it.

We belong to democracy activist groups, focused on the significant lack of
Political Freedoms in our self-proclaimed democracies. Certainly, if our
regimes are proto-democracies the European regime instituted by the Treaty
reach the category of democracy caricature. As you pointed, this is a heavy
concern because presently the European regime is generated, direct or
indirectly, over the 60% of the legislation passed in our countries. Yes, the
keyword is accountability.

But I am NOT ready to fight against the European treaty if such an approach
leads to maintain our national regimes. Yes, today the national parliaments
are slightly more accountable but I am NOT ready to fight to defend this tiny
difference of accountability.

After your explanations, it is clear my former criticisms for the "Democracy
Movement" have to be tinged. But definitively, it is not worth fighting
against the European integration process to come back merely to our national
regimes. The correct direction is forward, not back; I want to claim for
European referendums and real popular initiatives, I refuse to work to
reinforce other regimes lacking the same Political Freedoms. More
particularly, I am looking forward to being active for constitutional
amendments sparked by popular initiative, but I refuse to be content with the
armored Spanish Constitution or the UK constitution written on-the-air
changeable by single majorities.

Regards, Leo

El Miércoles, 25 de Mayo de 2005 12:06, Stuart Coster escribió:
Hi Leo,

Thanks for your comments on our recent statement.

It sounds from your message that your campaign is simply
focussed on trying to make the EU more democratic, rather
than seeking perhaps greater reform of the 1950s-envisioned
method of European co-operation that is today's EU. Which is
fair enough - you are quite right in your criticisms of the
European Parliament, electoral system, etc.

And you are right in your assessment that our objections to
European-level decision-making are somewhat more fundamental
than this. I suppose we go further because of the clear
lack of willingness shown by the Europe's political elite to
actually make any serious changes to make the EU more
democratic in recent EU developments: eg. the virtual
unaccountability of the European Central Bank, next to
nothing in Amsterdam and Nice, and the feeble provisions of
the EU Constitution to bring more accountability to EU
decision-making that you rightly point out. More
fundamentally, there is the question of whether true
democracy at the European level can be achieved unless there
is the basic requirement of a European demos. Even if
possible, this is a long distant prospect.

It is true to say that the Democracy Movement's campaign
focusses more on the loss of national democracy the EU
Constitution and further steps on the road to a
highly-centralised EU State will cause. This is not a
nationalist position. Our concern on this front is not
limited to the implications for Britain. We are equally
concerned for this loss of control over laws that affect
their lives being suffered by people in all other EU member
countries, and we often make that clear.

Indeed, we recently held a 'Europeans for Diversity'
international conference, bringing together EU-critics from
across Europe. You will have seen the flags of many European
countries featured prominently on our website, and a
facility to translate our site into a variety of different
languages. So having seen this I find it peculiar that you
can have concluded that we are 'nationalists'.

We of course wouldn't expect everyone campaigning against
the EU Constitution to agree with our view of what needs to
change about the EU. Indeed just here in Britain those
opposing the EU Constitution range from people who think the
EU system of co-operation has become too steeped in grand
empire-building, protection and corruption and only radical
reform can secure the sort of co-operation Europe needs for
the 21st century - right through to people who don't have
any problem with the current EU or even *an* EU
Constitution, but simply don't like the provisions of *this*
one. And I'm sure we all see in France that the 'No'
movement is a broad coalition of very diverse interests.

To build a broad enough coalition to stop this EU
Constitution, we must all be tolerant of our different
reasons and motivations for opposing this EU Constitution,
as long as they are not extreme.

To answer your specific questions:
Why the UK parliament is better than
the European Parliament?,

We would say that any of Europe's national parliaments are
the better, more accountable, forums for making decisions
that affect their voters than much less accountable EU
institutions making decisions that suit none of the diverse
needs of Europe's different countries very well at all.
National parliaments are more likely to be responsive to
people's needs, but they of course need forums to work
together on the issues that affect Europe as a whole,
participating in common policies as and where they feel able
to. That is of course a very different idea from today's EU.

As you point out, the electoral system for the European
Parliament is a problem - it results in broadly the same
people ending up back in the EP however people vote. And
whatever the political shape of the European Parliament,
that in reality has very little impact on EU decision-making
primarily made in the Commission and Council of Ministers.
Unlike national elections in which the outcome of a
parliamentary election has a direct impact on the governance
of the country.

Is there a worse electoral system than the UK electoral

system?

Our system is of course a long way from perfect. There is a
big debate going on here about that now, following the
recent election where Tony Blair's Labour Party won a big
majority of Parliament seats from a very small difference in
share of the vote. I'm sure there are worse, but I'm equally
sure there are very many that are better. But the failings
of our system are not as big a threat to democracy as the
proposal that more powers are passed to the EU to decide on.

Where are in UK the Political Freedoms of Direct Democracy

(I&R)?

Indeed, there are no formal procedures for direct democracy.
That is an issue for debate. Certainly there are many things
for discussion about how our own democratic system could be
improved and made more responsive.

But that should not prevent us from campaigning against
making things worse - by removing yet more decision-making
from our elected representatives to remote and unaccountable
EU institutions, that the EU Constitution will achieve.

What about an UK constitution?

We have a constitution. It is just not written in one formal
document. That too is a topic of discussion about whether a
written constitution is better for controlling government or
whether it is more beneficial to have one that is more
flexible and can evolve more easily with changing
circumstances.

Here at the Democracy Movement we are focussed however on
opposing the huge, immenent threat that would make the
ability to hold our rule-makers to account much worse - the
EU Constitution.

I hope this clarifies our views a little. Or let me know if
I can tell you any more.

best regards,
-Stuart-

Democracy Movement
http://www.democracymovement.org.uk


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]