book europe not without the people

7/31/2019 Book Europe Not Without the People

1/81

Michael Efler/Gerald Hfner/Roman Huber/Percy Vogel

Europe: not without the people


2/81

Michael Efler/Gerald Hfner/Roman Huber/Percy Vogel

Europe: not without the people!

The dismal state of democracyin the European Union und how to mend it

Edited by democracy international

VSA: Publishers Hamburg

Dr. Michael Efleris a political and social economist, a member of

the national Executive Board of Mehr Demokratie and director ofthe organisations Berlin offi ce. During the parliamentary hearingson the Lisbon Treaty he was one of the invited experts.

Gerald Hfner is the national spokesperson for Mehr Demokra-tie. He was a member of the German Parliament for ten years and

the recipient of the 2005 National Leadership Award of the Eco-nomic Forum Deutschland in the category: Improving the polit-

ical system.

Roman Huberis the national Executive Director of Mehr Demokra-tie where he worked for 17 years in a voluntary capacity before be-coming a staff member eight years ago. His main focus is the socio-political, civil society and humanitarian aspects of democracy.

Dr. Percy Vogel has a degree in biology and a doctorate in psychol-ogy. His work in the field of ecology and the environment led him tothe issue of democracy and to Mehr Demokratie, where he is now

a member of the Executive Board. He works in the Berlin offi ce.


3/81


4/81


5/81


6/81


7/81


8/81


9/81


10/81

18 Introduction

be selected from a range of genuine alternatives; 5. be based on

transparent and documented democratic procedures; 6. not be

pre-structured in respect of content by any non-transparent ex-tra-parliamentary interests for example, as a result of certainforms of lobbying; 7. not lead to disempowerment of citizens; 8.

within federal structures be reached at the correct level i.e. thelevel which has been allotted competence in the relevant treaty

or constitution.

One may agree or not with these criteria. However, listing themlike this should make it easier for our readers both to understand

how and why we make our judgements, and to form their ownopinion. What is important in any event, before making a critical

analysis, is to set out in advance the criteria on which the assess-ment of the quality of democracy is to be based. Only in this way

is it possible to make clear the difference between the ideal andthe reality. And only in this way can we really take to heart Beate

Kohler-Kochs admonition that we should not lowerour norma-tive standards to make them fit the EU reality.4

4 From: Kohler-Koch, B., 1999. Europe in Search of Legitmate Governance.

ARENA Working Papers, WP 99/27, Available at: hp://www.arena.uio.no/publi-catons/wp99_27.htm.

Part 1

Problems


11/81


12/81


13/81


14/81


15/81


16/81


17/81


18/81


19/81


20/81


21/81

40 41

Open expression of democratic envy: In a demonstration outside the Irish Em-bassy in Berlin shortly before the referendum in Ireland in June 2008, a group ofprotesters makes the point that by far the majority of people in Europe are notallowed to vote on the Lisbon Treaty. Similar demonstrations took place in 12other European capitals.Photos: Michael von der Lohe.

perhaps deserves to be rejected for that reason alone. In the case

of Ireland there is empirical evidence of an attitude of rejection(see above), which may well have been reinforced by the knowl-

edge that the pressure on the country as the only EU country tohold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty to vote Yes was at its

maximum to date.The positive aspects of the reforms are not automatically suf-

ficient for a Yes-vote to be seen as the only sensible option. On

the contrary, the route taken for the reform and ratification of thetreaties reveals a repeated denial of democracy. To begin with,

some governments allowed their citizens a measure of effective

decision-making influence, but when the voters did not producethe desired outcome, their further participation was deliberatelyblocked. Are the voters to blame if they then withhold their ap-

proval in the referendums?

Part 1: Problems 1. European Integration


22/81


23/81


24/81


25/81


26/81


27/81


28/81


29/81


30/81


31/81


32/81


33/81


34/81


35/81


36/81


37/81


38/81


39/81


40/81


41/81


42/81


43/81


44/81


45/81


46/81


47/81


48/81


49/81


50/81


51/81


52/81


53/81


54/81


55/81


56/81


57/81


58/81


59/81

118

cupies a position which is still largely the exception in Europe. It

is to be hoped that more like minded organisations will come intoPart 2

Part 1: Problems


60/81

is to be hoped that more like-minded organisations will come intobeing in other countries of the EU and join networks such as De-

mocracy International. But of course the organisations with a po-litical agenda are also indispensible for the achievement of greaterdemocracy. What is important is that we all recognise the valueof democracy and that we refrain from the practice of scoring (po-

litical or other) points against each other to the detriment of our

own interests and those of the European Union and those of de-mocracy itself.

Solutions


61/81


62/81


63/81


64/81


65/81


66/81


67/81


68/81


69/81


70/81


71/81


72/81


73/81


74/81


75/81


76/81


77/81


78/81


79/81


80/81


81/81

book europe not without the people

Documents