‘Full of Sound & Fury, Signifying Nothing’: The EU ‘Constitutional’ Referenda

by Liberty and Power

The subjects of the European Union continue to hand over vast sums in tax revenues to their Eurocratic rulers in Brussels. These payments of tribute began (effectively) in the early 1960s, when the subjects of Franco-German Empire started to be taxed to provide direct & indirect subsidies for French farming corporations & small French farmers. (These massive & unconscionable subsidies are known by the soothing name, ‘Common Agricultural Policy.’ Ha.)

The Eurocracy necessarily erected in Brussels for the purpose naturally insinuated its tentacles further & further. Vast cascades of ‘regulations’ now pour out, covering evermore areas of subjects’ lives. Their lives are even endangered: EU directives are preventing the development of remedies for the superbug MRSA (see The Guardian 27 May 2005; http://society.guardian.co.uk/mrsa/story/0,15825,1493861,00.html). Thus the reach & power of the intermediate bureaucracies in each component state, are continually extended -- as they administer this growing variety of EU decrees.

Political dramas divert subjects’ attention from this solidly-established reality. One such circus is the recent farce over the EU ‘constitution’. This was cobbled together, from existing inter-governmental treaties & the like, by an august committee including HM Giscard d’Estang. Some 14 parliaments ‘ratified’ the document (surprise, surprise.) In two referenda, however, French voters said ‘non’ & Dutch voters said ‘nee’. So politicians & senior Eurocrats are now at centre stage, wringing their hands, gnashing their teeth, bemoaning & generally carrying on, accompanied by a chorus of journalists & ‘commentators’. President Chirac sacked his old PM (what was his name?) & replaced him with another -- quelle horreur!! The entire cabinet was also replaced. Chancellor Schroeder gloomily conferred in Luxembourg. And so it goes: ‘don’t panic, all is well’. Or: ‘this illustrates the gulf between the elites & the people’. Voters say proudly: ‘We’ve shown them’ (what?).

Queen Victoria was always careful to dine regularly with her Prime Minister, so the people would know he had her full confidence. But real power had quite departed from the monarch; it already lay with Parliament & the burgeoning body of govt officials. The EU storm in a constitutional teacup likewise covers up the real seat of power -- those who levy & receive taxes, spend revenues, & issue orders to their subjects.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Sudha Shenoy - 6/6/2005

1. Voting has to be on a party basis because the leader of the winning party becomes Prime Minister. He/she too is an MP. One knows one's own MP, however, because he/she is the person who helps when the bureaucracy get too much.

2. Not just demographically, but culturally, historically, & _linguistically_-diverse Continent. What language would such a hypothetical candidate use? There are at least 10-11 languages in the current EU. And what sort of political culture would he/she campaign in terms of? The French? the British? Dutch? Scandinavian? Southern European? Why 'unify' anyway? As it happens, the Eurocracy in Brussels are solidly-entrenched & can't be dislodged. 'Elections' & the like are simply a sop for the masses.

E. Simon - 6/5/2005

..if I could re-phrase the last sentence, I'd say "serve as a necessary attempt to identify consensus within a demographically compartmentalized continent."

E. Simon - 6/5/2005

Why would another election "only underline the farce"? It seems Americans care more about who they elect president than which candidate wins their congressional seat. What's more and in contrast to this, elections for the European parliament, as I understand it, must be done on the basis of party lists. Now this might be initially helpful in defining the initial ideological currents important to voters (those who _choose_ to vote) in European parliaments, and establishing a partisan system, by encouraging transnational coalitions, obviates the chance of races by single seat nationalists in each country. Irregardless, I think - as anti-Bush European sentiment shows - sometimes the opportunity to cast one's vote for at least one individual personality, instead of for only faceless parties, might help them to feel a more personal stake in Europe. Directly elected presidents would also encourage candidacies that reach out to multiple national constituencies, impelling candidates to reach out and speak to broad currents in European politics, and serve as a necessary attempt to unify a demographically compartmentalized continent.

Sudha Shenoy - 6/5/2005

1. There is already a 'European Parliament', so-called, complete with elections & 'MEPs'. This arouses not a scrap of interest. No one knows the elections are on, the turn-out is farcical, & of course no one knows 'their' MEP (who that?). The chief accomplishment of the European Parliament is to allow MEPs ample scope to fiddle their 'expenses'. Another election, of whoever, could only further underline the farce. In any case, the Commission is notorious for the corruption of certain Commissioners. Overall, the auditors have refused to sign the Commission's accounts for the last nine years or so. Not that anyone cares.

The real problem with the EU is that it's _too_ free-trade for the French (who are the chief -- perhaps the only -- beneficiaries) & too restricted for the British.

E. Simon - 6/5/2005

Being removed from the people was certainly one consideration. The most accessible precedent for correcting this, given the current EU structure, would be a U.S. style Commission President, somehow popularly elected rather than nominated by the Council and approved by the Parliament.

The other consideration - actually the larger consideration, whether libertarians like it or not, was a lack of socialist labor and lifestyle protectionism. What the French especially feared was what they called 'neoliberalism,' or what others might call competitive markets, eg. capitalism.

Sudha Shenoy - 6/3/2005

The seat of power _is_ the Eurocracy in Brussels. All the rest is just a show for the masses. (See also my comments on the UK election.)

William Marina - 6/3/2005

Sudha,
Of coiurse, there are obvious differences, but, take, for example, the last sentence of your piece, "The EU storm in a constitutional teacup likewise covers up the real seat of power -- those who levy & receive taxes, spend revenues, & issue orders to their subjects." One might easily substitute for EU, the US circa 1789, which was also exactly a question of where sovereignty-power would ultimately reside, and who would have the power to tax and spend those revenues while issuing order to their subjects.

Sudha Shenoy - 6/3/2005

I was not referring to the American political situation in the late 18th century. Rather, I addressed myself to _European_ circumstances, in mid-2005. -- The differences are entirely obvious & also mind-boggling.-- The question I asked was: what do the EU referenda signify -- in general terms, for _everyone_?

William Marina - 6/3/2005

The French and the Dutch refused to allow sovereignty to pass to the Union bureaucrats as the Americans unfortunately did in 1789. Too bad for the Hamiltonians amongst them.