EU << Democracy

I recently attended a small talk given by the conservative MEP (Member of the European Parliament) for the south east of England, Daniel Hannan.

He did not paint a very rosy picture of the EU's current method of operation, not a rosy picture at all.

I'll start with the Lisbon Treaty (i'm not going to get into whether it's the same as the European constitution - though it bears many striking resemblances):

- BEFORE the national governments had even starting debating the treaty in the respective national parliaments, the EU was already acting as if the treaty was in force, an example of this is the numerous EU embassies that have opened all over the world, enforcing an EU foreign policy, an EU foreign policy that has no legal basis.

- The Irish voted 'no' (the lucky bastards got a vote) - from what i gather, one of the main reasons they voted 'no' was because none of the 'yes' politicians bothered to actually explain what the treaty was going to do, why would that be? So, by the rules of the EU, the Lisbon treaty is finished, it needs all 27 members to accept it or it can not come into force, yet the EU and the national governments are steam rolling it through and ratifying it, none of them has said what will happen to Ireland, who DEMOCRATICALLY rejected this treaty

Notice something very critical here, there has been no criticism of the Lisbon treaty yet, just the way the EU is ignoring due process to force it onto the people of Europe.

The actual treaty is an enigma to someone like me who has not read it, so can only count on testimony from the politicians who claim to ahve read it – that's unreliable information at best.

However, here's a list of 10 things in the treaty,

1.“The European Council shall appoint the High Representative of the Union for foreign affairs” – That is already happening, creating political ambassadors for the EU

2.“Member States shall support the Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy actively and unreservedly, in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity” - I'm sorry, what the fuck? Unreserved support, I think not – Who decides the policy? Where's the provision for debate here?

3.“The Common Security Policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence” - Yes, so a European Army

4.“The European Parliament and Council may establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions” - So, fuck the national parliaments, let the EU control all law making powers.

5.“Europol (Pan European police force, to be created by the Lisbon treaty) shall combat forms of crime which affect a common interest covered by a Union policy” - Ok, so a European Police force

6.“The Union shall develop a common policy on asylum, visas and short-stay residence permits” - Right, so nations have no power to decide on their own border policies

7.“The European Council shall elect its President, by a qualified majority, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once” - The European Council, a council full of appointed commissioners (normally failed politicians), will appoint a President of Europe, NOT the people of Europe.

8.“The Union may take initiatives to ensure co-ordination of Member States' social policies” - And what initiatives would they be? Who sets the Unions Social policy?

9.“The Union shall take measures to ensure co-ordination of the employment policies of Member States” - Indeed, so forcing national elected governments to kowtow to the EU

10.“The Union shall have legal personality” - And so can act like a sovereign state.

If that doesn't point to a United States of Europe, I don't know what does. Note how this will not be a federal enterprise as many people claim, the national governments will mean nothing – This is more modelled on the old USSR - all decisions being taken undemocratically by appointed bureaucrats in 'central government'.

Now, how would any of that benefit the citizens of Europe? Where was the mention of them? Where was the mention of democracy?

The answers are No, absent and worse than invisible.

Now on the EU in general:

- According to the German government, 84% of the laws passed in the last few (i think it was 20, but can't be sure) years have been to comply with the latest EU fad, sounds a lot, no?

- For the last 13 years the auditors have refused to close the books on the EU, the numbers simply do not add up, how the hell is that acceptable to anyone?

- The European parliament doesn't actually make a lot of the rules that we attribute to 'Brussels', it's the 27 appointed (so unelected) commissions that do.

Severe financial irregularities, a monopoly on all decision making and those decisions made by appointed commissioners (so no hint of democracy there), are these the actions of an honest organisation?

The examples above are but a drop in the ocean of the real issues the EU has. By saying that, i'm assuming that the EU wants to be a democratic and representative body, something i'm not sure of. In fact why is there never an open discussion of the EU's long term direction? Why do they not trust the people with this information?

I'm not anti-Europe – I'm anti the current EU. I want co-operation within Europe (free market agreements and the like), but that doesn't mean that everyone in Europe should lose their ability to democratically elect people to change the laws that affect them.

It's about time that the national governments stood up to this and defended European democracy. The people of Europe deserve better.

To conclude;

Democracy: Hard won (MILLIONS have died for it), but lost so easily - in this case, to the sound of laughter and applause in an opulent conference centre in Belgium.