The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy?

So, voters in the Republic of Ireland have voted against the Lisbon Treaty, rejecting it by a margin of 53.4% to 46.6% in yesterday's referendum. The Lisbon Treaty, let us remember, is itself a compromised and attenuated version of the European constitution which was so resoundingly rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. The Treaty of Lisbon requires ratification by ALL 27 member states in order to become law. It would, as such, be natural to assume that the Treaty has been withdrawn - that bureaucrats, politicians, and lawyers have gone back to the drawing board (again); one might even hope for an acknowledgment that plans for a 'greater' or more integrated Europe are finished, an understanding that even the watered-down version has been rejected by the only EU nation whose citizens were allowed to vote on the Treaty.

But, then, of course, one remembers that this is the EU we are talking about, and that nothing so trifling as the democratic will of the people ought to derail the vision of a United States of Europe to rival that of the USA or China. Ireland, declared EU President Jose Manuel Barroso against all evidence to the contrary, remains "committed to a strong Europe." Now, let us not forget that this was the country which rejected the Treaty of Nice (effectively a referendum on joining the Euro) back in 2001 by a margin of 46.1% in favour and 53.9% against (it is worth noting, as an aside, that as yesterday's referendum demonstrates, the 'No' vote has actually increased in Ireland). What was the EU's reaction? They forced Ireland to vote again, the bill finally passing in October 2002.

There is, of course, precedence for this kind of disregard for democracy within the EU: when Danish voters rejected the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, they too were told to vote again, presumably until the 'correct' result came up. The fact that Maastricht was initially rejected by such a narrow margin (0.7%) is entirely irrelevant: firstly, voter turnout was extraordinarily high (83.1%) and, moreover, that is the way the democratic process works: on a simple 'yes-no' question, a win by one vote, by 0.1% of the vote, or by 100% of the vote is the same. That is the point of such a vote; the losers cannot turn around and proclaim that they 'almost won', or that they would have won had voters only understood the question adequately. There is no 'almost'; 'almost' is nothing. 'Almost' is defeat, defeat in a democratic vote undertaken by the citizens of a democracy.

Where does the EU go from here? Ah yes, "Ratifications should continue to take their course," stated Barroso. And what, in effect, does this mean? It means that in all of the other EU member-states - the ones in which voters do not get a say in proceedings - the Lisbon Treaty will be ratified. And then, with Ireland the only obstacle remaining, the EU will exert such immense pressure that, in the end, the inevitable re-vote will take place. But what happens if the Irish reject it again? What then? How many rejections is enough for the EU? One? Apparently not, even if it has come from four separate countries (France, Holland, Denmark, and - twice - Ireland). Two? Three? At what stage will the EU get the message - the clear, unambiguous, democratic, and legitimate message - that its citizens (although, of course, let us be clear: the EU itself has no 'citizens', at least not yet. This is precisely what is at stake here) do not want federalism, a common foreign policy, a united army. The EU's sheer contempt for the democratic process, for the will of the people, is breathtaking. The EU is like the stalker (the sex pest?) of Europe, unable to take 'no' for an answer.

The EU is a body whose co-legislative organ, The Council of the European Union, is entirely unaccountable, holding secret votes the results of which cannot be scrutinised by member-state parliaments. It is an organisation whose one deference to the democratic process - MEPs - are, likewise, unaccountable to member-state parliaments. The EU Commission is served by commissioners whose membership is proposed by member state governments and approved by the European Parliament, entirely bypassing any notion of accountability of democracy. It is, finally, an organisation whose central body, the Council of the European Union, has relative voting weights rather than outright democracy. 'One person, one vote' clearly means nothing to the EU.

For too long the opponents of the EU have been branded as nationalist, insular, parochial, ignorant, and racist. No doubt a very few of them are, but many, many more have been poorly served by fringe political parties who do more to de-legitimise their cause than to strengthen it. So-called 'Euro-skepticism' is a legitimate point of view. But the future of the EU is an issue which goes beyond simple left-right, Labour-Conservative dichotomies. Not only is the EU undemocratic, it is actively anti-democratic, not to mention bloated, incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, and wildly unpopular. Even those people who are in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, of the European constitution, of a federal Europe modeled after the USA, ought to be gravely concerned about the EU's democratic deficit. You cannot simply shrug your shoulders and tell the people that you know what is right for them. Europe has been down that road before.