Kicking the Irish Out

Wolfgang Münchau can best be described as the authentic voice of German wishful thinking. Very often his upbeat stories on the German economy (e.g. German business confidence rises) sit side-by-side on the same FT page as a story such as “German GDP estimates revised downwards”. However his piece on excluding nay-sayers from the EU plumbs new journalistic depths.

A more credible German commentator is Jürgen Habermas who has an interesting article on the same theme in the English edition of Spiegal. Despite the promising byline “let the public decide about the future of the European Union” he only goes on to propose an EU-wide referendum on the “future direction of Europe”. The legitimacy of pan-European referendums presupposes that the various peoples of Europe comprise a single polity, which is very far from being the case. No nation is going to going to accept that its state can be abolished against the majority will of its people, simply because there are majorities in other countries that would like them do so. Indeed Habermas implicitly accepts there is no pan-European polity by concluding that those nations where there is a majority in favour of a multinational federation should proceed to set one up (presumably outside the EU framework) without the others. In practice I doubt a majority could be found in any nation (outside the political class which is more interested in the pursuit of collective power than in representative governance) in favour of this step.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,560549-2,00.html

Ali (1): Even 150 years later John Stuart Mill can still provide the best answer as to why the Lisbon treaty is rejected by the public ….

“But if the era of aspiration to free government arrives before this fusion [to create a multinational federation] has been effected, the opportunity has gone by for effecting it. From that time, if the unreconciled nationalities are geographically separate, and especially if their local position is such that there is no natural fitness or convenience in their being under the same government (as in the case of an Italian province under a French or German yoke), there is not only an obvious propriety, but, if either freedom or concord is cared for, a necessity, for breaking the connection altogether.” — J.S. Mill “Considerations on Representative Government” (1861)

In response to Ali: in my view, it is extremely important that pro-Europeans like Henry make these obviously correct points, rather than giving a clear run to Tory Eurosceptics, far right Polish extremists, French Trotskyites and fascists, and so forth. As an Irishman currently living in France, I’m deeply aware of just how cynical a lot of ordinary voters here are becoming about the European project. The reaction of European governments to the French and Dutch no’s in 2005, and to the Irish no in 2008, have a lot to do with this.

Henry you are totally right. I was not happy with the Irish vote–I just thought self-absorbed, irresponsible ingrates to be honest, but that is my opinion and I am entitled to it.

I am inclined to think that at this stage, with everyone having spent years coming to an agreement the option should have been sign-up or secede and nothing in the middle–it might help to focus people’s minds and encourage them to behave responsibly. I could easily be shown the error of my ways on this (maybe everyone in Europe should have had a vote).

There is lots wrong with project and the disconnect you have been talking about is very real and should be attended to. I think the disconnect along economic lines is spot on and I think we can see signs of the same splits appeaing across the pond with NAFTA.

The Irish of course given the choice had every right to vote no (this isn’t a North Korean democracy); the bozone layer screwed up as always.

Having said all of this, what planet is Munchau on? Just set up a new EU over night–and do the people of the EU get a say in this? I am beginning to wonder after all whether the Irish didn’t after all have a point.

Ooo. And how are the “Irish” going to learn this? Are you going to call them all up and tell every one.

@11 : The heart of the problem is the different political philosophies that shape Anglo-Irish and Continental thought. Continental thought since Rousseau has been dominated by the idea of collective self-realisation; that collective action is required to achieve political goals and the individual may be coerced in the interest of the collective (e.g. the nation, or the proletariat, etc.). Anglo-American political thought since Locke never accepted this, retaining a belief in the primacy of liberty; i.e. that individuals should be free to do what they want, with state interference limited to preventing one individual from unlawfully harming the interests of another. With the discrediting of socialism as an ideology, many of its former champions on the Continent have merely transferred their allegiance from class to Europe as their collective of choice, while retaining the idea that whole countries can be coerced through QMV in the name of the general will of the European collective. This coercion is however viewed as an unacceptable interference in self-governance by the English-speaking countries who believe we should be free do what we want (unless it causes injury to people in other countries).

freeborn john,

Wolfgang Münchau can best be described as the authentic voice of German wishful thinking. Very often his upbeat stories on the German economy (e.g. German business confidence rises) sit side-by-side on the same FT page as a story such as “German GDP estimates revised downwards”.

Are you kidding me?
Or didn´t you read the FT – oh- two years ago?
For years the (British) FT including Munchau have denigrated the German economy. Especially in comparison to the British and US one. So much so that in 2006/2007 the “FTD” (Financial Times Germany) wrote a few articles ridiculing their British colleagues including Munchau.
And I suspect they had fun writing those articles.

It was only in 2007 – in my recollection – that Munchau wrote articles grudgingly acknowledging that Germany might not be a waste basket any longer. While still asking for more reforms here.

Right around the time the housing bubble in the
USA burst. With the following credit crunch. Up till then he was a cheerleader for the UK and US economies.

@11:

1. There is no mechanism for countries leaving (or being expelled). This was deliberate. The EU was designed as a roach motel. Integration was intended to be irreversible.

2. The EU works pretty well. It is not ungovernable and prone to collapse. One of the reasons (not the only one, of course) that the Irish referendum failed was that no compelling case was made that Lisbon was necessary to the continued functioning of the Union. Compare to Maastricht, when such a case was made and referendums, when held, supported ratification.

“it is extremely important that pro-Europeans like Henry make these obviously correct points,”

Forgive me (well, you don’t have to) but I rather object here. I’m pro-European. I like the Continent, have spent the last few years living in Portugal.

I am however anti-European Union. I object to the manner in which the political system works. Yes, I know as I’ve revealed here before, I’m a member of UKIP, a political party that wants out of the EU. But that’s the point: the objection is to a political system, not the obvious reality that Britain (and if we’re to be inclusive about what “British Isles” means, Ireland) is a part of the continent of Europe (or just offshore, to taste).

I’m entirely pro-European and I object to that tag being appropriated solely for those who are pro- European Union.

I’m no expert, but I think there’s quite legitimate concern that the EU is too centralized to really allow the level of local autonomy that is justified by Europe’s level of cultural diversity (which is one of the glories of the place). The EU seems disposed to sacrifice various forms of local autonomy to economic efficiency and bureaucratic rationality.

This is a general issue with centralization, and could be said about some European states relative to their regions as well. The same could be said of the U.S. Federal government vis-a-vis the states, but in the U.S. there was obviously much, much less genuine cultural diversity than in Europe, and also much of that diversity was connected to unjustifiably racist local institutions in the South.

How will the EU cope with the Liberum Veto? Especially when many questions of whether or not something is subject to veto are themselves required to muster unanimity? What are the chances that no country out of 27 will find a reason to knock down a major reform?

It’s not as if Prussia, Austria and Russia are at the borders, hungry for partition, but the EU’s chief institutions were designed for six members, are sorta creaking along at 27, and will increasingly degrade on the road to 40. What’s a rotating, six-month presidency worth once every 20 years?

Even in a reality-based debate about the future of the EU, there are some serious questions. The Union has made two solid, good-faith runs at addressing the institutional issues and related items, and they’ve been shot down at least one-and-a-half times. Is serious reform possible?

no compelling case was made that Lisbon was necessary to the continued functioning of the Union.

Key word compelling. A couple weeks ago, a lot of people were claiming that the sky would fall if the referendum failed. And yet … the trains continue to run on time (to the extent that they ever did). People still get their paychecks. The civil service (including that in Brussels) still goes to work in the morning knowing what they’re supposed to do that day.

“Only after you have kissed the fleeting stead of death,
wretch!” returned Grignr.
A sweeping blade of flashing steel riveted from the massive
barbarians hide enameled shield as his rippling right arm thrust
forth, sending a steel shod blade to the hilt into the soldiers
vital organs.

Hi,

Yeah…whatever. On the other hand couldn’t we just settle it all in a good, old-fashioned, traditional, brain-clearing, civil war, and get it all straightened out that way? What’s the matter with the way everyone else does it?

Have a nice day!

Antti

Tim (#18): I sit corrected. I should have said “pro-EU”.

For a start, the whole “We’re the real Europeans” thing is getting ridiculous. Now Sarko is president of France and positively dribbling on the Americans’ leg, who’s the carolingian core pioneer group? Germany (well, Angie Merkel ain’t no Jacques Delors) and Belgium? Chuck in plucky little Luxembourg? No Dutchmen or Danes, too keen on NATO, Italians or Greeks, paupers, Swedes, not in the Euro…does Spain or Portugal get in? Or are they too close to Africa?

And certainly none of the new member states; poor, and insufficiently ideologically pure. There’s an issue of bad faith here; it’s OK to not apply community law or vote against a treaty, so long as you are a member of the purity club, whose membership is constantly revised down. France votes No? Fine. Ireland votes No? Unfine. A couple of years ago they were the EU musterknabe, but now, well..

The Franco-Germans are just going to have to suck up the idea that people disagree.

Meanwhile, bad faith in language; not only does Tim Worstall claim to be a “eurosceptic”, which is hilarious – scepticism implies you can be persuaded – what’s this “I’m really pro-European” fuckery? Is there anything Tim believes in he doesn’t try to deny every time he gets called on it?

UKIP member…but I’m a lady! pro-European. DDT bullshit fan and long-term TCS climate bullshitter…but I’m a lady! environmentalist, I just don’t believe in doing anything about it. Supporter of all conservative causes….but I’m a lady! libertarian. Pathetic imitator of Glenn Reynolds in all things….but I’m a lady! fiercely independent pillar of British Blogging TM.

Operator of pathetic spam blog…he doesn’t actually deny that one. Owner of the only “blogging policy” in the world to explicitly give himself the right to accept payment for posts without making them known? Oh, that one too. What connects these two?

Just for reference:

The compensation received may influence the advertising content, topics or posts made in this blog. That content, advertising space or post may not always be identified as paid or sponsored content.

It is lazy thinking (or perhaps more of the ‘integration by stealth’ deceit) to describe the EU as “sui generis”. There is no new form of governance in the world that has not been thought of time and again throughout history. The EU should today be described as a soft Confederation because its member states are still recognised as sovereign states in international law. However Elmar Brok’s description of the EU as a ‘state under construction’ best captures the intended direction. Any policies decided by the ‘community method’ are already federal as they can be imposed through QMV on nations against the will of the people or their elected representatives. EU law pre-empt national law just as US federal law pre-empts that of US states (which are certainly not sovereign states and would better be called provinces or regions).

Henry,

“the quite extraordinary outpouring of idiocy we have seen has real political consequences for a political project that I care about.”

I agree with you, and I’d go a step further.

I think some of the responses to the Irish No have given us Pro-Lisbon people pause for thought. On one hand, I accept the (some say elitist) rationale that complex international treaties, constitutional matters etc are seldom put to plebiscite with very good reason. (Indeed, The Law itself should remain impervious to popular sentiment – I mean, we can all imagine a hypothetical situation in which Civil or even Human Rights are rescinded following a referendum arising out of some popular hysteria &c. (Immolate the paedophiles!!))

And yet. There is this nagging sense for me that some of the NO camp’s concerns have been vindicated by the paternalistic responses coming from some our EU colleagues: “you see their attitude to democracy”!

Slavoj Zizek might say this was all about Taboo. Irish Constitutional necessity has – almost accidentaly – exposed the unspeakable dirty little secret at the heart of the project: “Pssst … has everyone forgotten about the French and Dutch votes?”

Shaggy and Scooby (The Irish Electorate) removes the mask from the Spook (The Spectre of the EU Constitution) to reveal the Fairground Operator (The Eurocratic Elite.)

Meddling, Tony. It’s meddling kids.

legitimacy of nation-states has become progressively less based on nationality as such and more on formal political (legal and democratic) procedures on the one hand and substantive social and material outcomes (prosperity, security, equality) on the other.

Right, that’s the question. For the last 200-odd years, government authority has been based (increasingly, and often in principle solely) on the idea that it represents the will of the people. Of course this only works if the people can be imagined as prior to the state — and indeed the trend has been toward increasingly ethnically homogeneous states, in Europe even more than elsewhere.

Of course that’s not the only possible answer. As you say, legitimacy could be based on the combination of formal legal gurantees and a steadily rising standard of living — and indeed that, rather than the popular will, has arguably been the fundamental source of legitimacy of the American state (as Herbert Croly argued a long time ago.)

What I wonder, though, is how much people are willing to accept state authority on that basis if they don’t feel the government represents them in some more fundamental sense. At the very least, that sort of legitimacy is very sensitive to whether the rising standard of living is broadly and consistently delivered in practice (as Croly also pointed out.)

In any case, in what sense is “the people” in a nation-state anything other than a “formal abstraction”? We will only ever come to personally confirm the existence of a tiny proportion of our compatriots after all!

Well, that’s why I mentioned Peasants into Frenchmen. It’s all about how the 19th century French state made a very concerted effort to give everyone living in France a common language, cultural and historical reference points, shared public life, etc., especially through universal primary education.

It seemed clear then that a state that was based on popular consent needed the “people” to exist in a positive way that a state based on divine right or “natural” hierarcy did not. There definitely seems to be a notion today that liberal political and economic insitutions are sufficiently universal and complete that there is no space left for the specifically political — the scope and source of authority of government doesn’t matter because the correct decisions are always the same, based on the same kind of rational expertise. What I doubt, though — and what these recent votes seems to call into question — is whether that kind of authority will be accepted in practice.

I have a suggestion: why don’t we all try to be good European citizens and discuss the new labour law underway, which could make the 60 hour week a standard if employers collectively take advantage of it. Or how about organizing some dissent regarding the proposed EU-US data sharing deal. With all the discussion about the referendum, such rather important measures that might actually affect our lives are almost completely ignored. Now maybe this is the fault of the undemocratic EU, but it’s equally our fault if we just let these things happen. If these measures had been proposed on the national level, there would be an outcry.

@47: Citizenship is the relationship between an individual and a state, and the EU is not a state no matter how much it wants to become one. The EU therefore has no more citizens than the Red Cross or any other international organization.

novakent : Citizenship is the relationship between an individual and a state and cannot be established in an international treaty, the contracting parties of which are states alone. “EU Citizenship” is a slogan, meaning nothing more than citizenship of a state that is a member of the European Union, which is why no-one can renounce their fake EU citizenship except by renouncing their real citizenship, or could retain it if their state were to leave the EU.

You’re simply wrong, EU citizenship confers substantial rights (movement, residence, work, anti-discrimination) that cannot be granted by national governments, EU law, where applicable, trumps national law and EU citizens can appeal to the European Court of Justice challenging national laws (Germany had to change its constituion in such a case).

n.b. Citizens of a member-state of the European Union cannot appeal to the ECJ, because it is not a court of appeal. It is a court of reference whose role is to clarify the meaning of EU law when asked to do so by a national court. Also Germans can challenge national law inconsistent with any international law (not just EU law).

I’m not sure I really understand the stakes in the “is the EU a state?” and “can you be a citizen of something other than a state?” debates. Why is talk of EU citizenship “bogus” or “fake” if one is only an EU citizen by virtue of first being a citizen of an EU member-state? And why adopt freeborn john’s restrictive understanding of where it is and isn’t meaningful to use the term “citizenship”? Is there anything imortant at stake here or is this just a general desire to demean (or not to puff up if you prefer) the EU?

Why can’t we think of EU citizenship as a concept making reference to that set of rights and obligations arising from one’s nation-state’s EU membership? Obeying EU law is such an obligation, as is paying taxes to fund the EU. I don’t see that these obligations can’t be seen as arising from EU “citizenship” just because they happen to be mostly executed by member-states themselves.

Personally I accept no obligation to fight and/or die for my nation-state (perhaps this is because it has never had conscription) and don’t think this is necessary for citizenship to be “real”.

“Citizenship is not something that can be invented by a Spanish prime-minister in a coffee-break at an EU summit (as EU so-called citizenship was) in order to impress his peers with his federalistic fervour as part of a campaign to secure regional grants for Spain.”

I can’t help but feel this claim betrays a naive or romantic conception of the emergence of nation-states and citizenship therein. Who was it who said that national identity rests not just on common memories but on common forgettings as well?

@: The origin of the concept of EU citizenship is well-documented as being Felipe Gonzalez, Prime Minister of Spain at the time of the negotiation of the Masstricht treaty.

The issue at stake is merely to avoid lazy language. Those who use the term “EU citizen” are, consiously or otherwise, using language intended to suggest a federal state finality for the EU project. The same is true of any talk of EU “soil” or an EU “border”. International organisations have member states, and not citizens, borders, soil or indeed powers of their own.

@61: DSW, Do you understand the meaning of the “consent of the governed”? Because it does not exist for “ever closer union” in any European country.

@62

Talk for yourself. In Spain it is still what most people want. Even those that do not want to be part of Spain want to be part of an ever closer European Union.

DSW

Henry: #66

“this is really quite pathetic”

No, it’s not pathetic, Henry. One is quite entitled to ask for your qualifications to speak about Europeans, when you don’t appear to be one (any more) or to have much contact with them (except in the distant past)

Don’t get me wrong – I like you, and agree with you in many ways. But I don’t you’re qualified to say what Europeans think

Nordic Mousse – you’re being a dick. Sorry, not saying you are one, it’s just the impression your giving.

freeborn john – if international organisations don’t have powers of their own then the EU isn’t one. Guess it must be a state? Or sui generis?!

Also: my point re: the origin of the idea of EU citizenship (according to you Felipe Gonzalez at a coffee break) was not that this is inaccurate (never heard it before) but 1) that I don’t understand its relevance and 2) that many a nation-state has emerged from more inglorious (not to mention bloody) circumstances.

The Lisbon Treaty, which is just the twin brother of the defunct European Constitution, is terrible for Europe for reasons I often discussed before the French referendum which rejected the EC.

I actively campaigned and voted against the EC. However that Eurocrat “elite” and its multinational buddies have more or less successfully “framed” the issue that if you are against their version, you are against Europe. Of they presented their project as the only one possible.

So now if you are against that particular project, you are labeled “anti-Europe”. I rather see it as being against rampant multinational globalization leading to the economy of the lowest common denominator.

If, as may be true, there is a need to revise European institutions, they could have written a text on that subject only in 20 or so pages. But they have a “mini-treaty” of nearly 300 pages that includes everything, even the kitchen sink, and all of it is favorable to corporate and banking interests.

French president and neo-con Sarkozy even expressly amended the French constitution for the sole reason of avoiding another referendum. One irony is that Sarkozy has been criticizing the European central bank even while his treaty reinforces the power and independence of that bank.

When the French voters rejected the EC, they did so in spite of the fact that the biggest political parties supported it and the mass media engaged in a dishonest propaganda campaign in favor of it. The “no” vote was really a grassroots movement with virtually no institutional support.

At the time, even many people who supported the EC complained about the unfair treatment of the “no” voices in the media. Typically you would have a forum with three or four “yes” advocates against one, if any, “no” advocates. The “no’s” where repeatedly attacked on a personal level and their motives were questioned. The major media talking heads denigrated the “no” spokesmen.

The “no’s” almost always strictly stuck to their own arguments.

I’m not sure if states do really “determine the limits of [their] own competence” (their competences are obviously restricted by the competences of other states, in other words by the extent of their territory). But putting that aside – you have shifted, it seems, from a point about the powers of the EU (i.e. your suggestion that international organisations, as opposed to states, have no powers of their own) to one about the geneology of such powers (the EU’s powers “have been conferred to it from nation-states”).

The latter point is true enough historically. On the other hand, I would point out that the powers of many states were, legally speaking, only conferred on them by other nation-states – e.g. Australia, Canada and indeed what you describe as the only EU member-state where the people are sovereign, Ireland. Of course in all these cases it was (always or eventually) politically and then legally imposible for the conferring state to reclaim the powers it had formally conferred, whereas, despite the lack of any explicit secession procedure, there is little to stop any EU member-state that wants to withdrawing and reclaiming the legal powers it has ceded/pooled.

So perhaps it is the possibility of secession that makes the EU no more than an international organisation in your view? But this poses questions about the status of, for example, the UK, since it has acknowledged the right of Northern Ireland (and at least implicitly Scotland/Wales) to secede.

DC (76): State power does not exist to push other states around. Its purpose is to protect individual citizens from others in society who would unlawfully harm their interests, to protect society from external threat, to provide public services and institutions that individual citizens or the private sector cannot, etc.

Thomas Paine said (in ‘The Rights of Man’) that there are only two kinds of government in the world; (i) those which derive their legitimate power from a people and (ii) those which can trace their origin back to a usurpation of power, such as occurred in 1066 in England. When Paine wrote this in 1791 he judged there were only two governments in the world (the USA & France) belonging to his first category, but since then peoples everywhere (including in the countries you list) have succeeded in replacing the arbitrary rule of the descendants of the usurpers that we called Kings and Emperors by parliamentary or presidential democracies which derive their legitimate authority from a people. Those in Brussels, Berlin and Paris for whom Wolfgang Münchau speaks would effectively be modern day usurpers so dedicated to their federalist vision as to be prepared to take us back to government without the consent of the people.

Citizenship of the Union is hereby established.

Treaty of Amsterdam