The Lisbon Treaty from an different perspective…
Read more about: Lisbon Treaty 
With the blurb coming from the “yes-camp” and the very regretful stepping back by Declan Ganley (at least he kept his promise) one might think that it is the Irish “No to Lisbon” campaigners against the EU. Fortunately that isn’t true. In the run-up to the recent EU elections I got talking on Twitter with the top candidate for Libertas in the Netherlands; Eline van den Broek. She pleasantly surprised me by her openness and her excellent use of social media to communicate her position to potential voters. Eline uses Twitter, Hyves, Facebook and probably more social media networks I don’t know of.
So while thinking of a good topic to write on regards the 2nd Lisbon referendum I thought it might be interesting to ask Eline a few questions on this topic. Following are her answer to a number of questions I asked her recently; In my opinion, it illustrates her insight on this topic and her ongoing work to reject the Lisbon treaty.
- What is your current position in Dutch & European politics: It’s simply that of an interested spectator. I have in the years previous to becoming a Libertas candidate always been hands-on involved with politics. In The Hague as well as Brussels. But always as an opinion-maker. The advantage of that position is that one is not subject to party politics or the “trend of the day”. I have, as a member of various think-tanks and as political advisor, always put my own opinion and ideology first. And I’ve kept on subject and to the point. This is something that is hard for a lot of politicians. A good and relevant political agenda does not always win the hearts & minds of voters. Now, since I unfortunately did not make it into the European Parliament with Libertas, I am again active as an opinion-maker. I’m writing reports & opinion pieces on health-care (which is my area of expertise) for US based think-tanks. I’m currently in Curacao, where I am living for the moment, writing articles on the political relationship between the government in The Hague and the former Dutch colonies. And last but not least I am still getting involved with the Lisbon Treaty on a daily basis. I will support anything that can stop this undemocratic monstrosity from being ratified. I am currently researching, together with a number of Dutch lawyers, to what extent the Lisbon Treaty infringes on peoples basic human rights. We hope to find a legal basis, just as in Germany’s Constitutional Court, to show that “Lisbon” has been pushed through in an undemocratic fashion. Against the will of the Dutch people (and unfortunately, we don’t have a constitutional court to “test” the Treaty). That cannot be allowed. I wake up with this thought and it’s the last on my mind when I go to sleep at night. The battle isn’t over, no matter what some people might say…
- What moved you to campaign for a seat in the European Parliament: I wasn’t really interested in a seat in the EU Parliament perse. I was looking for a group of people who, just like me, thought that the EU should be organised in a more democratic manner. When I heard that there was such a group of people and that they were organised in Libertas I immediately became enthusiastic. So enthusiastic that i immediately took a plane to Brussels from Curacao where I had recently moved to together with my husband. I decided that if there was a pan-European party who was going to fight the established political “elite” in Brussels I wanted to be part of that!
- Are you still a Libertas candidate & what does the future for spell for Libertas on both Dutch & European level: I am no longer a Libertas candidate as the European Parliamentary elections are over. We took our losses. But as you always see in politics: “you win some and you lose some”. However in the case of Libertas it is the reverse: “we lose some and we win some”. I am not sure what the immediate future will bring but I do know that in the next European elections there will be another pan-European party running with as it’s primary goal to make the EU more democratic. Which means: get rid of the political elite in their cosy positions. It should be the people of Europe who rule Europe.
- What are your three main objections to the Lisbon Treaty: First and foremost; my primary reason for organising the “no to Lisbon” campaign in the Netherlands was the loss of a veto. The veto might “slow down the political decision making process” but in the EU in it’s current state, with 27 member states it is of a vital importance. 27 countries with 27 cultures & 27 values. Not 4 or 5! If swift political decision making was the primary goal than maybe the EU shouldn’t have expanded. Secondly: The EU was originally founded ro promote economical cooperation. Recent history has shown us that the original “targets”: freedom of goods, services, people & capital, has only partially been realised. There is, for example, the “services directive”, initiated by the Dutch commissioner for Internal Markets (Frits Bolkenstein), which was very harshly rejected by the European Parliament. National interest were obviously more important that European interests. With that in mind I can only conclude that Europe is not ready for political unity. The EU needs to show that it can achieve 27 member states to work together in economic areas. Only then do I, as an European citizen, have faith that they can work together as a political entity. Last but not least: the fact that the Europeans did not get to decide if this “constitution under a different name” was allowed to be ratified. A treaty that will have such far reaching effects on people in their day-to-day lives and on the powers of the national parliaments should first be ratified by ALL European citizens. Only then can I accept that such a far reaching agreement has sufficient democratic grounds for it’s existence.
- What is your opinion on the fast that most European citizens never got an opportunity to vote on the Lisbon treaty?: I think I covered that in the above answer already. I would like to add that what happened shows complete disregard for the opinion of the people of the Netherlands. 62% of the Dutch citizens said “NO” to an European constitution in 2005. So what does the Dutch government do? It goes in cahoots with Brussels to word some sentences different, gives the agreement a different name (the Lisbon Treaty) and then tells the Dutch people that there is no need for a referendum! All because it is now a “completely different agreement” which has “absolutely no constitutional character”. I do not know what their definition of a constitution is, but in my definition it is indeed a constitution. And so the Dutch people should be allowed to vote on it, even if the ladies & gentlemen politicians in the Hague do not like the outcome. No means No! And the Irish people now have the chance to show this!
- The Irish government has decided to run a 2nd referendum on the Lisbon Treaty because they didn’t agree with the outcome of the first referendum. What is your opinion on this?: Haha, I only noticed that question now. I think I’ve covered my position on this in my previous answer.
- The Irish government has received certain “legally binding guarantees” from the EU government with regards to it’’s autonomy on decisions pertaining taxation, abortion and defense issues. Do you consider these guarantees to be legally binding and if so why?: Of course those guarantees are NOT legally binding! They’re just sweeteners. There is now legal basis for these promises because the treaty itself removes that basis (subsidiarity & proportionality). The Irish people have only one way to guarantee their autonomy in areas such as taxation, abortion and defense and that is by voting NO to the Lisbon Treaty! If it will be helpful for me to come to Ireland and explain this in more detail I will do so! On October 2nd the Irish people will have the future of Europe in their hands. YES for a dictatorial rule or NO for a Europe with a future for Europeans. A democratic Europe that we and our children will all benefit from.
So one of the reasons that she opposes Lisbon is that it isn’t democratic enough. And yet she cites the rejection of a proposed directive by the democratically elected European Parliament as a major problem with the EU. That just doesn’t make sense on any level.
As to everything else….I’ll refer her to Jason O’Mahony’s updated Spoofers Guide. So far its pretty much the only decent literature produced by either side in the debate
Aoife,
You might want to read that again.
Eline actually uses the example of “services directive” as an indication how national interests seem to supersede pan-European interests. This shows that while the EU might work as an economic & trade entity it is not (yet) ready to become an economic entity. It has nothing to do with her argument that the EU is or is not democratic.
If you fail to read the post properly it will off course fail to make sense…
Evert.
Nice interview. She sounded quite reasonable until I read her answer to the last question – familiar No hyperbole about abortion, dictatorial rule, etc… on safer ground with arguments about vetos and the services directive.
I’d be happy for more non-Irish Europeans to get involved, but I don’t think it’s a vote-winner for either side (Sarkozy, anyone?).
By the way, I’m surprised there’s no mention of her claim that she is owed money by Libertas? Is she still pursuing them over that? http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0612/1224248690587.html
I know exactly what she’s saying….what I’m saying is that you can’t use contradictory arguments to support your claims. Its just silly to say that your main problem with the EU is the lack of democracy and then also condemn one of the institutions for working in a democratic manner.
It simply exposes her as someone who is entirely anti-EU. She should just own up to that and not express the rubbish of being ‘pro-EU but wanting to improve how it works’
Aoife, I disagree. They are not conflicting arguments as they deal witht wo separate issues…
The argument that “No to Lisbon” campaigners are anti-EU is entirely fabricated by the yes-campaigners.
Evert.
Lorcan,
You should ask her that yourself. It had nothing to do with the post so I didn’t ask her about it.
Evert.
Whatever it might be it’s not really from a different perspective. It’s just the same old arguments with a Dutch accent.
The main problem with vetos isn’t that we can’t adopt new legislation but that we can’t amend the stuff we already have. This makes for a glacial speed of reforming EU laws, many of which were passed years ago. It also creates a (sometimes accurate) impression that EU’s institutional framework is much less responsive to normal democratic pressures than it should be.
Moreover the EU treaties just set up a system to deal with the challenges of an ever more interconnected world. It will make some good decisions and some bad ones, but without it either we simply wouldn’t be able to make any decisions or somebody else would make them for us. What does it matter that the European Parliament voted this way or that way? Lisbon is just about making the EU do, what it already does, better. It’s really not that complicated.
Whatever went on in the Netherlands or France is hardly relevant for making an informed and rational decision in Ireland. Voters in Spain and Luxembourg voted yes, why doesn’t their opinions count? We were never even offered an opportunity to vote on the European Constitution, why should we just blindly follow what other people think?
In any case, how come she gets to be the mouth piece of democracy when she couldn’t even get enough votes to get elected as an MEP in a national list system! If the Dutch care about Lisbon, they clearly don’t care that much!
Michael,
1) It shows it from a Dutch perspective. It might not come to a different conclusion than the one already voiced by myself and other “No” campaigners but it is a different perspective nonetheless.
2) One of the issue with the removal of a veto is that it is a nonsensical way to expedite policy making. If it is too difficult to get 27 member states to agree on a single issue maybe there is a reason for that. Removal of a veto might make the EU more efficient and expedient to operate but it doesn’t make it more democratic. It’s again a point of form over function.
3) Lisbon might be “about making the EU do, what it already does” but what is that’s not a good thing? The EU has developed from an economic cooperative entity into a more and more political & legislative entity something that is not a welcome development at all. The EU member states are just too diverse (in so many areas) that it simply cannot and should not be centrally governed. Ergo; if the Lisbon Treaty makes this central government more efficient in it’s operation it would not be a good or welcome development. The raft of legislation, directives and policy decision emenating from Brussels over the last few years clearly shows that it’s top down governing without consideration for the citizens who populate it’s member states.
4) When making a decision to vote in the upcoming 2nd referendum it is important to realise that our vote will affect the whole of the EU so what happened in France & the Netherlands is very much relevant. Do not forget that prior to the first referendum the EU stated that the treaty would not be put in place if it was not ratified by all member states. Following on that decision not only is Ireland being strong-armed into a 2nd referendum, it has also become clear that, even if not ratified by all member states, the Lisbon treaty will still be put in place.
5) Your last point is just plain ridiculous and spiteful: just because she did not achieve sufficient votes to make it into the EU parliament she is not allowed to voice her opinion?! Is that the kind of “democracy” you support? I didn’t even run for a seat so should I also be silent? Last time I checked we (as in all EU citizens) still had a constitutional right to freedom of speech.
Evert.
“as a member of various think-tanks and as political advisor” quick where is Future Taoiseach to condemn her for membership of the political elite!
Evert, Aoife is correct. She has decried the lack of democracy one moment and then bemoaned the outcome of a decision from the most democratic of existing EU institutions the next. She is arguing that more democracy would allow us to move forward but then ignores the fact that national considerations have, can and will impinge on national decision making too. The French rejection of the Constitution has as much to do with giving Chirac a bloody nose. And here there will be people, though I would prefer it was otherwise, who will vote No to give Cowen a boot up the jacksie. Hell, even the Vote No campaign has admitted as much.
As for the veto, “The veto might “slow down the political decision making process” but in the EU in it’s current state, with 27 member states it is of a vital importance. 27 countries with 27 cultures & 27 values.”
Vetoes are inherently undemocratic, and it was the progressive reduction of vetoes that allowed for amongst other things reform of the CAP to be introduced, for the single market to be created.
It might astound her but there are many more than 27 cultures or 27 sets of values in the EU. Yet in Ireland say, we ignore the values of the Labour party or SF because they are in the minority when it comes to forming a government. Yet to take her view to its logical conclusion, we should allow SF or Labour to veto what we do because they have a separate set of values. In the EU at present it is just the 27 values of the governments of member states that are represented at the council of ministers, under Lisbon with more powers to the Parliament even Joe Higgins gets more of a say.