Referendum on the European Constitution? - Perhaps, but ...

It is true that the referendum is an ancient and well-established method of democracy (Refer to Traité européen : Congrès ou référendum ? par Gilles Devers, TE, jeudi 24 janvier 2008). Second, it is true that the treaties now going to the parliaments are basically what was named a European Constitution earlier. There is indeed some structural similarity between the question of a referendum or another mode of decision-making regarding this constitution, and the same question regarding Turkey’s final EU-accession (although it’s not exactly the same). And it is equally true that, perhaps more than any other method, the referendum is open to populist misuse.

As to the French referendum back in 2005, I remember only some points of the debate I got to know in Germany. It was said that President Chirac had put the constitution to a referendum expecting it -and with it himself- to be acclaimed by the French electorate. However, in the end it appeared that Chirac had become, at that time, too heavy to be lifted by the high-flying hopes for a new European start, and instead was pulling the project down.

On the ground, different ambitions had been involved, according to various sources : for instance, to

 prevent globalization
 prevent invasions of Polish plumbers and Romanian taxi-drivers
 prevent Turkey’s EU-accession
 prevent cuts of European agro-subsidies.

Or finally to prevent another presidential candidacy of Chirac and give way for another hopeful candidate.

Yes, in the latter context the “Non” obviously did work indeed. The former issues are too unrelated to the constitution, and even the sum effect of chaotic disturbance can hardly bring about the desired results. However, what I want to remind here is something different.

Responsibility

The No of two nations derailed a project of twenty-five nations and more. There we meet another issue : the question of responsibility. I guess we may take both the cases of the EU constitution and Turkey’s EU-accession as suitable examples.

If governments and parliaments decide about it, we can recall the names of those who were responsible for this or that decision. They have to stand for it with their names, their reasons, or their excuses, and their carreers as well as fame. From the viewpoint of the electorate, they may be acclaimed or dismissed.

This is not the case when (at least nominally) whole nations decide. A nation may earn a bad reputation, but it cannot be dismissed. As a side effect, an important possibility of clearing the picture is also lacking. For instance, right now the worse side of the French image in Turkey is wearing the face of Nicholas Sarkozy. Once he’s out of office, a case which inevitably will occur, the image might become as bright as it once has been. But what would be the result if Turkey’s EU accession would one day be dismissed by the French (or Dutch) nation in a referendum? Eternal hostility ?

Well, hardly eternal, but probably longlasting.

We may have a structural error here. The idea of democracy is bound to a defined community, such as a state-nation. Here, everybody votes about the own future as a shareholder of the nation-state. Everybody may vote, and each is responsible to his or her offspring and to everybody else belonging to the respective nation. It works this way on a communal or regional level as well. But what about the European level?

Who decides about whom?

If the German people would vote the fate of the French, we would undoubtably have a problem. And vice versa. It’s not as bad if you have a problem with Schroeder’s policy; we’ll try a new start with Merkel, or with her successor. It’s of course no problem when the nations agree anyway. But once they disagree, and this disagreement is fixed in a referendum, we would actually find it difficult to replace those responsible and make a new start.

Therefore I think that national referenda about European questions should go out of use. It is a pragmatic argument, but also a question of principle. We have elected our parliaments and governments as well as the EU parliament. If we think they made bad treaties, we may vote them down and enter revision negotiations with new representatives. In the worst case, a nation may leave the union. They would decide that for themselves, thus it must be considered legitimate.

But it would not be legitimate if one nation decides on the accession of another one. This is the right of the acceeding nation only, the one who is going to link their fate to the Union.

Moreover, we must consider the legitimate interests of any shareholder of the Union. Cyprus for instance: On the surface of a map or coin they may remove Turkey and/or relocate Cyprus whereever they deem it appropriate. Some litres of Ouzo during an “Eurogroup” meeting may do the trick. But on the surface of the planet, they simply can not.

If you don’t believe me, ask Papadopoulos (review his past statements) about what is in Cyprus’, and indeed Greek Cyprus’ interest. It is quite similar with Greece, Bulgaria and Romania at least, though the issue is not geographic proximity alone. The most substantial interests relate to questions of economy and security in manifold respect; some of these increase in priority with geographic proximity; some increase with similarity of international position; some with demographical, cultural or historical relations; some may increase with specific investments or mutually complemental trade. Geographic proximity however may not be the worst sum-indicator.

Now, should France for instance monopolize a decision about vital Greek, Romanian and Cypriote interests? What would be the consequences?

Conclusion

Personally I think that on the part of the Union there should not be a national referendum at all about the accession of countries. The effect would amount to virtually nothing if the outcome is positive, but to longlasting inter-nation hostility if the outcome is negative. On the institutional side it can mainly delegate the responsibility of elected political leaders to the common public. Thus, political leaders ready to apply it must, unfortunately but naturally, be remembered as irresponsible.

And well, yes, I mistrust referenda generally, because of their openness for populisms, which is another term for political deception. In fact it’s the German experience with the less-than-favorable consequences of the rule of demagogy which restricted the use of referenda to virtually nothing since the Nazi regime.

In my opinion it is a method best suitable on the local level, where virtually everybody may know the real conditions and options first hand.

Nonetheless, a referendum would not be illegitimate if it were indeed the common sovereign of the Union who would vote about common subjects of European politics: the European Union’s electorate.

As to the constitution, it seems to be quite similar. Insofar as it affects the individual nation, these act through their elected representatives, wether they approve or demand revisions. And they may opt out, an option prescibed exactly in that quasi-constitution. All that belongs to self-determination of each individual nation. If there shall be a final solution via national referendum, the issue should be wether to opt out of the union, and not to determine the agreements of all the other nation-states.
In addition, we have the decision of the European Parliament. We may also discuss a referendum on the EU level, but as long as not every nation would agree on this procedure, the effect on European integration would probably not be positive. Thus, this possibility is itself at first an issue for intergovernmental and interparliamentary negotiations.