Why we need a Europe of INDEPENDENT states?

Speech at the third Conference of the Network for Direct Democracy in Europe (NDDIE)

Disposition:

1. Defining a "functioning democracy"

2. The EU's democratic "system errors" - enhanced by the EU Constitution

3. Outlining a democratic alternative to the EU State

Visions for Europe: A democratic alternative to the EU State

All of us here have different views on the present EU and what the future European co-operation should look like. But, we can all agree on the need to strengthen democracy and citizens' participation. The question is how.

Our different answers are determined, I think, by different views on how to define democracy. The main difference is not if the definition should be broad or narrow. By arguing for referenda and citizens' participation we can agree on a broad definition - democracy should be something more than casting a vote every four or five years.

I think we differ in the view on democracy - shall we view it in only formal terms, or also if it is functioning? The advocates of an EU Federation or EU State often use an over-simplified line of argument. They tend to focus on the formal requirements for a democracy: An EU Constitution as the basis for an EU State, European parties participating in European elections to a "real" European Parliament, forming a "real" European Government. They say that we need to create a supranational government at the EU level - with the same functions as government in the States - democracy will appear automatically...

Such a supranational co-operation may appear democratic in an outward way, but it does not necessarily lead to a functioning democracy. How do we define this?

1) Defining a "functioning democracy"

To establish a well-functioning democracy at a European level the following characteristics are needed:

* An agreed public space for debate between all citizens

* A common identity as Europeans

* The active participation of citizens in elections

* An accountable and legitimate supranational level

The criteria are interlinked and none of them are fulfilled today:

* There is no real European debate in which "ordinary" citizens take part. The obvious reason is the language barrier. Another reason is that decision making in the EU is complex, hidden and far away from the citizens.

* There is no European people or "demos". Consequently, there is no European identity. There are many peoples and identities, which is in fact one of Europe's strengths.

* There is no active participation in the EP-elections. Each new Treaty that has given the European Parliament more powers has, in reality, resulted in a falling voter turnout in the elections. Most EU citizens do not identify the European Parliament as "their" Parliament. Their loyalty lies with their national parliament.

* One reason for the lack of accountability is the undemocratic and hidden decision making. Qualified majority voting means that a law that a sovereign State opposes may be imposed upon its people even though they are against it. The lack of accountability is partly a result of the lack of transparency. The central principal is secrecy, except for those rare instances where exceptions are made. It should be the other way around!

Consequently, there can be no basis for an EU Constitution as the foundation for a functioning, democratic EU State.

2) The EU's democratic "system errors" - enhanced by the EU Constitution

The EU-system has some principal democratic "system errors". These will be codified with the proposed State Constitution:

# The EU's legal system - undermining national legal systems

Today, EU laws override national laws and Constitutions. In any conflict between EU law and national law, EU law will prevail. A law can be forced upon a people that they have not asked for! With the planned State Constitution the EU will get its own "legal personality", which enables the EU to act internationally in its own right. The EU can then sign an international Treaty, without the need for separate ratification in the Member States.

# The role of the European Court of Justice - gradually expanding the EU's powers

It is the role of the European Court of Justice, according to the Treaties, to rule in favour of the Treaties. And through its rulings, the Court has a possibility to expand the EU's competences into new areas. We get a "creeping centralisation" decided by judges and legal experts, which politicians have no control over and the citizens no say.

# The role of the Commission - the driving force of centralisation of powers

The Commission has the sole right of making proposals for laws and other measures. It acts as a sort of hands-on executive in the day-to-day running of the EU. It also has the responsibility of ensuring that the laws and directives proposed are correctly implemented. This construction gives the unelected, secretive Commission huge power as a driving force towards greater centralisation of powers to Brussels.

To sum up, from a national democratic point of view the EU-system is: undemocratic, centralised, bureaucratic, and it lacks scrutiny and flexibility. Can we not create a much better European co-operation? Yes, we can base co-operation on the basis of an already functioning democracy: the national parliaments.

3) Outlining a democratic alternative to the EU State

Here is a collection of different views on how to change the EU of today. Together they outline, broadly, a democratic alternative to the EU State:

* Cut the acquis: The present 85 000 pages of EU-law (acquis communautaire) must be radically limited. We must instead focus on cross-frontier issues related to the Single Market, which national parliaments cannot solve effectively by themselves. It could cover minimum standards to protect employees, consumers, health, safety and the environment. Member States should always be free to adopt higher standards.

* We need real subsidiarity: At the moment the EU decides what is the most effective level to solve a certain problem. Instead, it should be the national parliaments that should decide what powers to "move up" to the EU-level. Bottom up - not top down!

* Simplifying decision-making: Today, there are roughly 30 ways of making decisions in the EU. THIS can be reduced to two: binding laws and non-binding recommendations.

* Veto on vital issues: A national parliament shall have the right to veto an issue which is vital for its national interest. The Prime Minister shall defend the decision at the next European Summit.

* No legislation by the Court: The legal activism by the Court shall be curbed. The Court has to respect the European Convention on Human Rights.

* National parliaments elect the Commission: Every national parliament should elect its own member of the Commission, and also have the power to dismiss him or her. The Commission shall be turned into a secretariat for the Council and the national parliaments.

* Flexible co-operation: The individual Member States shall be free to choose their level of co-operation. They should also be free to choose what agreements they want to sign with other countries, for example free trade agreements.

* Better scrutiny: The basic rule should be that all documents and financial accounts should be accessible, unless there is a well-motivated reason for keeping it secret. The European Parliament should only have one task - scrutinising the EU budget.

* Equality of languages: If we do not understand each other, democracy will never function. When legislating, all official EU languages should be treated equally.

*

In this way a European co-operation based on national democracies can be built- call it a "Europe of Democracies". One objection may be that this vision only sees states as actors, not the citizens. Another objections may be that the "globalisation" demands a new kind of "post-national democracy" - whatever that is.

Globalisation changes the environment of the Nation-State, but does not make it antiquated. The globalisation's effect on the sovereignty of States is often exaggerated. States have always been interdependent to some extent. Theories of "post-national democracy" are interesting. But they do not change the fact that democracy still works best within the borders of Nations or Nation States, defined by language and culture.

What is democratic in theory, does not necessarily turn out so in practice. The federal EU State suits the multi-lingual European transnational elite. What about the many nationally oriented voters? Those citizens tend to be forgotten. But we cannot do that, if we want to create a real participatory democracy.

Even though we have different views we need to unite, as democrats, to let the people have a say on the future of Europe!

Thank you!