“The problem has been that European voters don’t pay very much more attention to the Parliament than they did when it was a toothless congeries of windbags, so that the Parliament is accumulating power without much in the way of democratic responsibility”

“But there’s been a radical disconnect between the rather vague, lofty aims of national politicians on the one hand, and the actual day to day business of national politics on the other. Neither of these inspire much popular support or interest”

“The problem has been that voters don’t pay very much attention to the Parliament”

The Council of Ministers is made up of the elected representatives of the members states. This is the most powerful body of the Union. The parliament is composed of elected members of the member states. The commissioners are appointed by the elected governments of the member states. That’s lots of democracy.

The decision making process is tortuous, it’s true. This is because the EU is composed of sovereign member states. Any stream lining of this process would make the EU look more like a superstate, which it isn’t and never will be.

For the constitution, about 4 years ago in Finland, I told my one cousin that was asking me about the US - that the EU will last long…as the case is with the constitution, i feel that more and more people are realizing the true nature of the effects of continually expanding the boarders.

The other day I noted that –
How the EU deals with a NO will demontrate just how grown up the “Union” really is, and how strong and resilient it is. In my view this is a test that is overdue – if the “Union” and its institutions can weather the storm of a rejection in a positive, and mature manner then the EU will be stronger for it rather than weaker. Rejection of the Constitutional Treaty, contrary to what some politicians have said, does not mean rejecting the EU.

Though I must say, I’d vote ‘yes’ if the EU resembled a nightwatch-state.

If you can’t do that in a blog, then where can you?

As noted above, “Very obviously, those who are starting this debate are in part motivated by opportunism.” and “It has surely not escaped Sarkozy’s attention that he’s defending Europe in terms that are likely to prove embarrassing to his personal enemy, Jacques Chirac.”

jlw – this is something that has been discussed under various headings (“variable geometries” was the buzzword a few years ago; can’t remember what it is now). Basically, it is possible for member states to forge ahead with deeper integration – but the politics become a little tricky given the already quite considerable interdependence among the existing EU member states. Perhaps worth a post in itself one of these days.

But I’d like to see France, Germany and one of Spain and Italy take on the deepening task themselves. Is there a provision of the current arrangement that prohibits member states from political integration within the EU? If not. couldn’t three or four countries create a federal-style political union on their own, without the consent of the UK or other obstructionist nations?

A Bundesrepublik Europa (or what have you) would have enormous influence within the EU and beyond, even if it only stretched from Stettin to Seville or from Kiel to Callabria. And if it were established along non-nationalist lines—or at least with “nationalism” confined to fairly autonomous Länder or regions—then it could provide an attractive core to states willing to adopt further deepening.

Or something. I’ll remove the hat from my mouth now.

As the chairman of Chirac’s party the UMP, Sarkozy cannot oppose the Constitution without gross, self-defeating disloyalty. However, if the “non” vote wins, he will be the biggest winner of all, politically. So while ostensibly claiming to be pro-Constitution, he has done everything he possibly can to sabotage the “oui” vote. He has vociferously voiced his opposition to Turkey’s entry into the EU, confusing the two issues in voters’ minds; he has done as little campaigning as he can get away with, even cancelling a major interview on the most watched news programme the other day. And he has, as you rightly point out, emphasised the neo-liberal aspect of the Constitution, with a view to scaring off Socialist voters, because it is the leeching of Socialist support that is really losing it for the “oui” team. (The moderate right is largely on-side.)

Europe has not been in any way a major part of Sarkozy’s political discourse over the past decade, and it’s wishful thinking that his talk of a neo-liberal Europe is some sort of kickstart to a real debate on Europe. It really is just political opportunism.

Sorry for going off-topic. Great post, Henry, some of the most in-depth analysis I’ve seen anywhere.

I’ve heard this talked about – with expansion into the Caucus, deep into Eastern Europe, and North Africa (Morocco, Tunisia, Israel). Frankly, though, I doubt it will ever happen. There are all sorts of problems being raised with Turkey, and many people deeply involved in the EU project doubt the wisdom of further expansion.

It also gets much more difficult to add further members the bigger the club gets – given that any existing member can blackball a new nation from joining. Greece – for example – would have vetoed the 2004 enlargement if Cyprus wasn’t allowed to join.

This’d be a good topic for another thread though.