Libertas.org

Ignoring the will of the vast majority of Europeans to have a vote on this treaty is inexcusable and denies it any shred of legitimacy. It is, in fact, an illegitimate document. Let’s be clear – this viewpoint is not about Euro-scepticism, narrow nationalism or xenophobia. It is not even about any particular clause, article or protocol in the Reform Treaty. It is about the legitimacy that must derive from Europe’s original and most important export - democracy. Democracy is an imperfect mode of government but it remains the best we’ve come up with so far and, frustrating though it may be to Europe’s political class, it requires that citizens make informed choices on issues vital to their lives. The important word here is “informed”, bearing in mind that, according to the FT Harris poll, a staggering 60% of these polled were “not at all familiar” with the contents of the treaty; while only 34% claimed to be “somewhat familiar” with its provisions.

The vital importance of consulting the people of Europe on this treaty is related not just the simple act of voting in a referendum but rather to the open and informed debate provoked by a campaign. Citizens should have a chance to parse and analyse the provisions and their effects upon them. They need this in order to make an informed decision through which they can choose to either confer genuine democratic legitimacy on the treaty or deny it. The growing disquiet in the UK and calls for a referendum ahead of this weekend’s Lisbon summit to agree the final draft of the treaty has been addressed by such members of the European political class as EU Ambassador to the US, John Bruton who stated that “complicated matters should not be decided by referenda”. In other words, you can’t trust the people to understand or decide. Former EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland has also been defending the various provisions of the treaty against attacks from a Euro-sceptic media. This is good, healthy debate but it seems oblivious to the fact that it is taking place over the heads of the vast majority of Europeans who are being denied a voice on the matter.

Moreover, the arguments of the European political class against the holding of referenda do not stack up. It is claimed that the holding of referendums on the Reform Treaty is unnecessary since we elect national parliaments in order to take such decisions on our behalf. This may be true of decisions taken at national level where members of parliament derive a mandate from the people based on a clear manifesto on core national issues but, in reality, most voters will have little, if any, idea of the positions of those same members of parliament on such a supra-national issue as the Reform Treaty. Furthermore, the electoral cycles of 27 member states mean there could never be a truly accurate and fair democratic measure of the treaty since members of national parliaments cannot be held directly and simultaneously accountable on a pan-European basis as they would on a national basis. Therefore, the Reform Treaty can never hope to claim any genuinely democratic legitimacy from ratification in this manner.

Let’s not forget that the origins of this treaty lie in a declaration made at Laeken in 2001 which acknowledged that support for the European institutions among its citizens was waning and that something needed to be done. One of the solutions was the Convention to establish a Constitution for Europe intended to address the perceived crisis of legitimacy and the lack of engagement with citizens. The resulting European Constitution was rejected in referenda in France and the Netherlands, partly for reasons of domestic politics, but also because the issues were not discussed and a proper debate was not enjoined. More than 90% of that document drafted under the chairmanship of Valéry Giscard d’Estaing has made it back into the Reform Treaty and yet only voters in Ireland will get to put it to a democratic test. Is this not tragically ironic? As none other that Giscard D’Estaing himself said recently commenting on the lack of referendums on the treaty: “the EU will reinforce the idea among European citizens that European construction is a mechanism organised behind their backs by jurists and diplomats”. This is exactly the problem the original Constitution sought to solve.

Democracy may be frustrating and slow but without its expression through referenda, Europeans will not feel as citizens or stakeholders but as subjects. The EU did not fall apart when the French and Dutch voters rejected the Constitution in 2005 and it’s not about to fall apart if Ireland rejects the Reform Treaty. However, if the lack of legitimacy and democratic accountability continues, the citizens of Europe will become increasingly distant from the European project and if and when they are presented with an issue which is a matter of life an death to Europe, they may well not assent and a real catastrophe will ensue. Europe has largely been a hugely positive force in the past 50 years but we need to go back to the drawing board to earn the citizens’ direct democratic legitimacy and accountability for the institutions. The European Parliament elections in 2009 provide a perfect opportunity for all candidates to stand on a solid platform of their proposed constitutional framework for Europe. A convention derived from those elected could then draft a new Constitution which could be ratified in a pan-European referendum giving it a double-lock of legitimacy and democratic accountability.

To the members of Europe’s political elite and the bureaucrats of Brussels and beyond we recall the words of James Madison, a founding father of the much neater constitution of the United States: “The censorial power is in the people over the government and not the government over the people.”