has just been
signed. Apparently, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown had to stay home and wash his hair, but everyone else showed up. The "No-Really-It's-Not-The-Constitution" Treaty, would still create the equivalent post of EU Foreign Secretary, and still transfer important powers concerning police and justice affairs from unanimous voting to "qualified majority" voting, and still would give the
Charter of Fundamental Rights legal authority. As the Washington Post puts it, "European leaders insist the treaty is substantially different from the failed constitution, but they also assert it is substantively the same." It continues with a quote from Valéry Giscard-d'Estaing, who wrote the Constitutional Treaty: "They have taken the original draft constitution, blown it apart into separate elements, and have then attached them, one by one, to existing treaties...The Treaty of Lisbon is thus a catalogue of amendments. It is unpenetrable for the public." Of course, that was the point. Giscard-d'Estaing has noted that it is
far too complicated for the average European citizen, and
Giuliano Amato, who helped to draft the treaty, admitted that the point was to fool Europeans into thinking that nothing had changed.
Set aside the fact that the "reform" document is almost 200 pages long, and intentionally indecipherable. Set aside the fact that European leaders are actively advocating lying to the constituencies who elected them. Set aside the the condescension, arrogance, élitism, and hostility to the great unwashed that characterizes politics in Europe. Let's actually
look at the document.
First off, let's look at the Charter of Fundamental Rights, alluded to above. This document was solemnly signed in Nice, France in the year 2000. Every nation within the EU in theory has incorporated it into their national laws, but this would enable any case where these rules were violated to be heard by the European Court of Justice (an EU organization). The Professor is not a legal scholar, so he's not sure if the ECJ would have original jurisdiction; nevertheless, it amounts to a substantial increase in the powers of the Union.
So what "rights" are fundamental? Is it really so different than other declarations of rights?
The section on "
solidarity" seems to give a substantial role to the State. Indeed, these are not rights concerning the protection of the individual -- they include the "right" to a state job agency, a "right" to environmentally sound policy (as defined by the state itself, of course), and a "right" to consumer protection. Mostly, the state has the right to treat its citizens like children.
The section on "
equality" is also helpful. Every politically salient grouping of the identity-politics parade is here and marching, there is a right to what the US refers to as affirmative action, and discrimination of anybody for any reason is illegal. No one can predict what would happen to a
gay imam if he was fired from a mosque.
Of course, those old-fashioned rights of "freedom of expression" are in the document too, though Germany's and Austria's laws about Holocaust denial, the various laws cited in the cases of
Oriana Fallaci in Switzerland, France, and Italy, and the comprehensive body of law that make up slander and libel offenses in the UK (wherein the publisher is frequently "guilty until proven innocent") may undermine this provision.
Finally, in all these rights, from the right to preventative health care, to the right to sustainable development, to the right to collective bargaining, there remains one right missing -- the one that prevents States (or supranational Unions) from overstepping their bounds, turning the majority into a despot, turning the state against its citizens (it's happened in Europe before a couple of times), and strangely,
that right is nowhere to be found. At the end of the day, Europeans are still at the mercy of Europe.
But enough about the "rights" of Europe. What else is in the absolutely necessary treaty that doesn't change anything? First, of course, is the undermining of nation-level security and foreign policies by the augmented powers of the High Representative /Vice President of the Commission. This person, combined with the formal implementation of the EU as a legal personality, would coordinate Europe's voice on foreign policy. This means that the EU would be able to "represent" other nations in international fora such as the WTO and the UN, (though no one is sure how this would work out in the Security Council, for example.)
Next concerns the change in voting -- from unanimity to "qualified majority voting" -- on a number of topics, including the delicate topics of police and "home affairs" i.e. terrorism. This is a double-edged sword, because for every leader in Europe who believes that terrorism is a threat (and would foster cooperation on intelligence across borders, making a sort of European MI5), there is another who believes that the jihad is a result of not enough diversity training. QMV would also be increasingly used in "
energy policy, public health, civil protection, climate change, services of general interest, research, space, territorial cohesion, commercial policy, humanitarian aid, sport, tourism and administrative cooperation." Did they leave anything out? Tourism? Sports? Nope.
Finally, the EU reassures us that it is finally strengthening democratic procedure: "A strengthened role for the European Parliament: the European Parliament, directly elected by EU citizens, will see important new powers emerge over the EU legislation, the EU budget and international agreements. In particular, the increase of co-decision procedure in policy-making will ensure the European Parliament is placed on an equal footing with the Council, representing Member States, for the vast bulk of EU legislation."
The EU consistently puts the European Parliament out for display with the idea that advertising its democratic features will make it so. If the EU Parliament is "put on an equal footing with the Council," however, it is still rather besides the point. The Council is already the heads of government of European nations (or cabinet ministers, when the head of government needs to wash his hair). These people are already elected. As it stands, the unelected European Commission, where the true power of the EU lies, will continue to be the sole originator of European legislation, and indeed will become
smaller. This is not exactly the stuff of liberal democracy.
So we are left with a treaty that is essentially the same as the old treaty, only less organized. The same problematic points exist, the same drifts away from personal freedom, the same added layer of bureaucracy, the same reduced opportunities for the little platoon. Only this time, Europeans don't have to be asked about it. Perhaps they will be too busy washing their hair with
EU-regulated shampoo.
Labels: European Union
