Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


EU's democratic deficit

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 11 March 2008
Alex Orr (Platform, 8 March) refers to two important introductions in the European Constitution and its almost identical replacement, the Lisbon treaty: a president and a virtual foreign secretary for the European Union. He omits to mention that these two posts are vital for formal international recognition of the EU as a sovereign state. Both documents are explicit: it shall have legal personality.
The treaty of Maastricht made us all citizens of a European Union by virtue of our citizenship of quasi-independent sovereign member states. After ratification of the Lisbon treaty, we will all become citizens of a federal state of 500 million people
whose member state parliaments are required to contribute actively to the good functioning of the union.

The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Iraq remind us that only a totalitarian government can hold together peoples of such disparate identities as those now comprising the EU. It already had its unique crime of xenophobia and a European police office (Europol) storing data on its individual citizens, and the Lisbon treaty introduces an operational committee on internal security and a European public prosecutor.

A referendum for Scots would, indeed, restore faith in the democratic process in Scotland but can do nothing to modify the structural democratic deficit of EU institutions or the threat to individual liberty through increasingly sophisticated methods of surveillance at the service of this new and more powerful state.

MARY ROLLS
Westerkirk
Langholm, Dumfriesshire





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 10 March 2008 8:42 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Socrates2,

11/03/2008 00:52:10
good on mary rolls wanting an independent scots referendum on the issue at least she can see the advantage of the scots having an independent voice in the world
2

EWB,

UK 11/03/2008 07:04:00
Interestingly, Roger Helmer, MEP for the East Midlands (of England), wrote in his December 2007 Newsletter:

"Germany, along with 15 other member-states, has added a last-minute declaration to the Lisbon Treaty, recognising the EU flag and anthem. So one of the trivial changes between the Constitution and the Treaty, on which Gordon Brown relied for his U-turn on a referendum, is already falling apart.

"Admittedly the German declaration will have no legal force or practical effect. But then the decision to drop the flag and anthem from the treaty had no practical effect either."

The EU has enough 1984-type organisations, e.g. Europol, Eurojust, Olaf, and is about to introduce Euro gendarmeries with the power to operate unaccountably across the borders of member states. The whole business resembles Hitler's Gleichschaltung, the standarisation of political institutions in all states occupied by Germany; the EU calls it "harmonisation", which smacks of Newspeak.

We should indeed be worried about the scope of the EU and its relentless drive to create a superstate, ironically described by some as the EUSSR.

As for a Scottish referendum, why has the normally so vocal First Minister of the Scottish Government gone so quiet on this one? As a proponent of the contradictory "an independent Scotland in Europe" slogan, Alex Salmond must surely welcome the establishment of one state in which Scotland will become the best wee region.

Were a referendum to be held in Scotland, Gordon Brown would doubtless treat it with the same contempt as those ten referendums held in English marginal constituencies just before the recent Lisbon Treaty vote.
3

Isonomia,

Lenzie 11/03/2008 08:28:30
democracy means ordinary people in power, it does not mean voting for an oligarchical political elite. That at least is what the Greeks understood as democracy!
4

gus1940,

Edinburgh 11/03/2008 08:41:38
Am I the only reader who can guess the writer of a letter from the heading without reading any further?

This one was easy - almost as easy as S. Campbell's hundreds of pro-nuclear letters.
5

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 11/03/2008 08:48:15
Mary Rolls has consistently proved that she has an outstandingly comprehensive grasp of the EU situation. It is indeed the "structural democratic deficit" that is the Achilles' Heel of this brave new superstate in the making. Its architects do not seem to have even the basic understanding of political philosophy that would enable them to recognise the meaning of principles like separation of powers, checks and balances, and all the rest. The EU is a democratic shambles, and a dangerous one at that - not so much for what it is, but for what it can and in time probably will become.

Its foreign affairs chief is not worthy of the name of Foreign Minister for the meantime, because he can only attempt to correlate the often diverging policies of 27 national foreign minsters, but just wait - sooner or later central power will pass to Brussels. When defence and foreign affairs are finally transferred to the EU, what is the justification for the retention of the United Kingdom? It might as well split into a number of more conveniently administered EU regions.

It used to be said internationally that you could never get the better of a British diplomat, because you could never tell what he was thinking. in a slightly altered sense, i wonder what the denizens of King Charles Street are thinking, if at all, when they allow the UK to be maneuvered into its present situation of being effectively emasculated as a sovereign state. It is not as if the new situation is in any way an improvement, certainly not when it involves throwing away centuries of hard-won democratic achievement. And for what?

6

Hilary,

Edinburgh 11/03/2008 09:05:16
"formal international recognition of the EU as a sovereign state. Both documents are explicit: it shall have legal personality"

NO, NO, NO - as a woman once said.

Legal personality allows the EU to acceded to conventions that the Member States governments have already decided themselves that it should adhere to - Kyoto, ECHR, etc.

Pretending that that is the same thing as international recognition of a sovereign state is just that - a total pretence.

Do you think Paris, London, Madrid, Berlin, Moscow or Washington are lining up to recognise the EU as a STATE? Really?

Get real people - you are losing the argument by taking valid concern to ludicrous exaggeration.
7

Solomon,

Dunfermline 11/03/2008 10:06:37
Oh, how I wish that 'Hilary' was correct, but afraid that she is mistaken! The powers that be really DO want an "EUSCR" (ie Capitalist, not Socialist as "EWB" refers to). It makes globalisation plans much 'tidier'! Dig into the premises of the innocous-sounding OECD to see the danger that confronts us.

My heartfelt thanks to those like Mary Rolls for her incisive view of the 'Treason (sic) of Lisbon', and to those like Dr Wilkie, EWB, et al, for their contributions and efforts in keeping alive the disgraceful - some would say treasonable - actions of Gordon Brown, with his blatent sleight of hand re the Referendum. Surely his deceit and lies will rebound on him at the next election, when he finds himself on the dole?

Our hopes are now with the Irish people rejecting the "Treaty"!
8

Neil,

Glasgow 11/03/2008 11:07:55
The historic strength of Europe was that we were separate but stable countries rather than being run by a vast deadening bureaucracy like China. We are now both reversing our roles & the economic effect is clear to see & the cultural one will be clear in time.
9

EWB,

UK 11/03/2008 11:33:16
#7. Good points, and there is some hope that Ireland will reject this Treaty just as the Dutch and French rejected the previous Treaty establishing a Constitution.

Didn't the Strasbourg Parliament pass an amendment to the effect that it would ignore a possible Irish rejection, though?

I am afraid that Hilary is living in cloud-cuckoo land. The French and Germans want a superstate to rival the USA and China, with French rules and regulations and German economic might. Hilary surely knows that De Gaulle would have vetoed the present direction of the EU because "Une Europe des patries" it sure ain't.

#8, good point, too. China may have a vast bureaucracy in some ways, but its economy is very liberal. The EU has the bureaucracy and the mindset which will shackle economic liberalisation. That is ultimately why the EU is doomed.
10

Hilary,

Edinburgh 11/03/2008 12:09:54
Me in Cloud Cuckoo land? My, my.

"just as the Dutch and French rejected the previous Treaty establishing a Constitution."
Why aren't they having one this time if it's the same Treaty - or do you just put that, as everything, down to conveniently venal politicians rather than a change in the facts.

"Didn't the Strasbourg Parliament pass an amendment to the effect that it would ignore a possible Irish rejection, though?"

Errr, NO. How could it? It's an international treaty agreed and signed between sovereign states - look at the signatures at the bottom. You are crediting the wrong people iwth the power here.

Who cares what de Gaulle would have done. He is as dead as Churchill - as is DG's original idea of the European Defence Community or European Political Community - pre-1957.

Finally, the economy of the UK, Czech republic, Estonia, Ireland - all reaaly less liberal than China? You boys need to get out of the garden shed or the air raid shelter a bit more often.
11

EWB,

UK 11/03/2008 18:55:19
You are still in cloud-cuckoo land, #10.

The reason the Dutch and French people were not allowed a referendum this time is because they would have rejected the Lisbon Treaty.

You may be right about the Irish referendum outcome sticking, but, as with their rejection of the Nice treaty, they will be told to try again and achieve the desired outcome, i.e. approve it. Talk about not taking no for an answer.

One cares what de Gaulle would have done because his notion was of a Europe des patries, not of a superstate. The Treaty of Rome spoke of ever closer union and that is Brussels's end-game.

As for the economies of those countries that you quote. Apart from the UK, they are all small players that have very low rates of Corporation Tax, from 0% to 15%, whereas the average of the large EU countries is around 30%. There is nothing to stop Brussels for harmonising rates "to create a level playing-field".

It was interesting that the French asked for the clause liberalising trade to be removed from the Lisbon protocol.

As for the UK, Brussels has recently issued 41 directives that will reduce the City of London's competitiveness.

I think that there are none so blind as those who don't want to see, especially the EU-credulous.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.