Hannan's post ends with him endulging in some wishful thinking:
If the Dutch were allowed a vote, several of their neighbours might become restive. British voters might ask why the Netherlands should be allowed to vote on Britain’s future.But there is no danger of any restive Britons anytime soon. Besides the political make-up of the Dutch Parliament as outlined above, a second circumstance will serve to block any plebiciscite. Any change to the Treaty of Lisbon, or any other EU treaty for that matter, will normally require the consent of all member states. However, if push comes to shove, the EU leaders will without a doubt - read about it here - activate the Passerelle Clause in the Treaty to change the voting requirements on the issue in question. From then on only a qualified majority of states will have to agree for the change to be enacted. Hannan, normally a man well versed in the myriad ways of politicking in Brussels, has to be aware of this fact.
Holding a referendum in any EU member state at the moment on such a relatively minor issue would also be an impossibly intricate operation. A referendum should only concern that issue for which it is being held - in this case a very complicated set of rules for the financial relationship between the states. But any plebiscite on the European Union will undoubtedly become more about the entire project of European integration than about the issue nominally at stake. If a referendum is to be held at all, in Britain or the Netherlands or anywhere else, it should be about the continued membership of that country in the EU. Only by asking the people to vote on such an all-encompassing issue will the referendum be about that which it is supposed to be about and nothing else.
Interesting Post.
ReplyDeleteI have a question, though: what is the solution to force non-complying countries, like Greece etc. to act more responsibly, at least as far as their finances are concerned?
It definitely appeals to me, for example, to take away the voting right of those members that do not comply. And, I think it might work, too, if only because of the psychology of such a punishment.
As an add-on:
I do not believe in referenda (anymore): I think our respective governments should make the decisions. That is why they are elected.
In other words, I do not think the voters in Holland, the UK or anywhere else should be asked in a referendum whether they want out or not or what punishment to mete out to Greece, Ireland etc.
E.g.: if the Dutch want out of the EU, they should vote for a party that wants out of the EU.
Conclusion: no referenda and our elected leaders decide.
Wence, the solution you propose - taking away voting rights from non-compliant states - would certainly be a powerful deterrent for continued fiscal irresponsibility, but I think it is politically impossible to push through such a measure. A large number of states would oppose such a move based on the fear that they might in the future find themselves in the predicament Greece is in at the moment.
ReplyDeleteAccording to this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/oct/29/angela-merkel-wins-euro-deal) in the Guardian, Merkel is looking to set up a system of 'orderly insolvency'where the private sector takes the hits alongside the countries and the voters. This will force "creditors to share the losses in the event of a sovereign debt rescheduling or default will make lenders less reckless, expose profligate countries to higher risk premiums, and encourage fiscal rigour."
As far as your second point is concerned, I'm, like you, rather unsure about the desirability of referenda. In theory they could function as a check on politicians running roughshod over the 'will of the people' in the years between elections.
However, in practice the voters are fickle and cannot always be relied on to make the best of decisions. That is why representative democracy works so well. Voters elect their representatives to speak on their behalf and do that in the full knowledge of the effects. To then turn around and let the people constantly second guess their elected leaders will be the death of representative democracy as politicians will never dare take a position without first holding a referendum on every issue. So like you said: "Conclusion: no referenda and our elected leaders decide."