Despite appearances this isn’t a eurosceptic blog. But transparent and honest government is good government.
Furthermore Lisbon was trying to achieve certain things that were necessary.
With that in mind, this post presents thoughts on a way foward. My suggestions will seem absurd, radical, even childish to anyone who enjoys intellectual games based on political theory taught at university. They’ll seem impractical to those who don’t understand what politics can do. They’re the result of reflection based on some knowledge of the EU - not deep expertise, but awareness of the realities from observation.
1) Generate honesty and trust. The sleight of hand with which each step of the EU project is executed arouses indignation. This is natural. However, it’s pointless trying to persuade the elites to confess to dishonesty and deception in the run-up to the referendum. Their arrogance - encapsulated in Giscard d’Estaing’s suggestion that everything must proceed by stealth - is too pronounced. They have been dishonest. Cowen did not read the Treaty, McCreevy said voters would be insane to read it, Wallstrom clumsily attempted to manipulate public opinion, and many others exaggerated the consequences of a No vote. The Commission failed to publish a consolidated version of the Treaty until after January this year.
Recriminations are tempting, and futile. Instead it’s enough to request that the duplicity be stamped out before the future arrives. Further progress cannot be made on the basis of lies. There is political expediency, in which certain truths must sometimes be suppressed or avoided, and there is gross dishonesty. The first is necessary at times. The second must now be avoided.
2) It’s important that the project have a declared end point. The amusing analogy of the EU as a bicycle that will fall over if ever it stops is false. The existence of harmonious nations arranged as federations elsewhere is proof that constitutionalism is not a bicycle. There must be an end point and there must be clarity and directness about what the EU project is seeking to achieve. If the eurocrats don’t know, then they should find out, using their expensive educations. If the end-point allows the continued existence of the nation state, fine. If it is a deeply federal Europe, fine too. But it must be fixed, set out on paper, and signed, because the EU is not a theoretical game devised for the entertainment of policy wonks and Internet debaters.
This will be painful to fans of open-ended ”ever closer Union”. But it’s not a demand to legislate for our children and their children - the end point can be changed in five or ten or twenty years time, only it must be clear what is being changed. Is this a reasonable request? In the sense that it will never be granted, it is not.
3) The Treaty, or constitution, must be short and understandable. It’s bad faith to present a 300 page document then complain about the quality of the debate.
Justice Brewer in 1880: “The laws of Rome were written on tablets and posted, that all might read, and all were bound to obedience. The act of that emperor who caused his enactments to be written in small letters, on small tablets, and then posted the latter at such height that none could read the letters, and at the same time insisted upon the rule of obedience, outraging as it did the relations of governor and governed under his own system of government, has never been deemed consistent with or possible under ours.”
In the midst of a blizzard of petulant comments about the Irish No, Daniel Cohn-Bendit echoes this suggestion: “a short Constitution focusing on selected points that are understandable and relevant to citizens”.
No eurocrat has yet explained why something so obviously a constitution can’t look like a real constitution such as Germany’s, France’s, or even the USA’s. Incoporating half the acquis in the treaties has been a dreadful mistake so far. Clarity and succinctness is needed. It will free Government ministers from the need to lie.
The EU expands and thrives on the wooliness, lack of clarity, and lack of accountability that would be removed at a stroke by such a short, meaningful document. But bring legal certainty to the project, and you bring accountability. And by doing so, you provide a significant chunk of the democratic foundation the Commission and Parliament earnestly desire.
4) Clarify the powers of the bodies that legislate, and make plain the relationship between them. Policy and law doesn’t simply emerge from discussions between governments, Commission and Parliament. Contributions come from the external agencies, the EESC, independent NGOs, the ECJ, lobbyists, expert groups and comitology committees. If that method of legislating is acceptable, then set out frankly the rules by which it can happen and the relationship between these bodies. If not, change it. Don’t conceal it and make us mad.
Conclusion: As promised, these suggestions are absurdly straightforward. They will seem alien and impractical to individuals who have learned and inwardly digested “the way it’s done in Brussels”. Equally, I point out that if the citizenry really apprehended how the EU does its business, if they discovered what is “the way it’s done in Brussels”, they would not only find it alien, but the institutions would be a heap of smoking rubble.