The European Union, in pursuit of an austerity agenda supported only by the elite, has now effectively suspended democracy in two European countries. We have now, within the space of a week, entered the age of the Technocrat government (described brilliantly by one writer in The Times as ‘a form of civilian junta’). It is unclear when this new era will be behind us.

Yesterday’s Independent provided an excellent and very worrying analysis of the extent to which Europe’s technocratic elite are almost a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs, providing yet more evidence – as if we needed more – that the austerity project is being carried out for the benefit of financial institutions. (“The [Goldman Sachs] Project is to create such a deep exchange of people and ideas and money that it is impossible to tell the difference between the public interest and the Goldman Sachs interest.” Read the full thing here: http://ind.pn/snfaQ7).

This is not simply an attack on democracy in the form of the suspension of the democratic process, but the destruction of any relationship between public opinion and government policy. The concerns of Europe’s citizenry – mass unemployment, public services, pensions etc. – will not be addressed until Europe’s financial interests start to share these worries, an unlikely contingency.

What I want to ask is: why is support for this institution still considered progressive? It doesn’t matter that many of the arguments against the European project are often cogent, reasonable and progressive; there remains a nagging feeling that its still all a bit too UKIP. The assumption remains that to be pro-Europe is to be a good progressive type with the correct opinions, whereas to oppose the EU makes you a reactionary Little Englander.

This makes little sense when you look at the politics of other European countries in which the assumptions are the exact opposite. Both Sarkozy and Merkel represent the main conservative parties in their respective countries. In Scandinavia, the tradition has always been protecting the institutions of social democracy from encroachment by Brussels. It is almost as if our politics concerning Europe are the wrong way around.

The case used to be made that even before we begin to argue about fishing quotas, butter mountains, sovereignty or the CAP, we had to concede that the European Union has been a bastion of peace and stability for the continent after the horrors of the Second World War. It is an argument with which I had much sympathy. But is it not now perfectly clear that the European elite, by bypassing democracy and condemning millions of European workers to years of austerity, threatens that very stability? The EU may once have protected peace in the continent – it is now its principal threat.

Well the results are in, and the motion calling for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU was defeated by 413 votes to 111 – courtesy of all the major political parties. The political classes have, in other words, lifted two fingers to those whom they are supposed to represent. It has been clear for years now that if Britain’s EU membership was put to a referendum, the no-camp would win hands down. Meanwhile 70% of people want a referendum. And yet this majority opinion finds no expression amongst any of the major parties.

The powers that, every 5 years we lend to parliament are not theirs to give away at will . And yet give them away they have. In 2008, none other than Nick Clegg remarked that nobody under 51 had been asked their opinion on Britain’s relationship with Europe. In the meantime we have reached a situation in which 15-50% of our laws (depending on who you believe) are handed down from the only faintly democratic institutions of Brussels.

It is often said by demos- fearing Europhiles, that referenda are “not a part”of the British constitution, and that our relationship with Europe therefore need not require one. According to one commentator, a referendumon the EU “could potentially undermine the very foundations of how our political system works”. Things are in fact not so black and white. Before the Liberals curtailed the power of the Lords in 1910 they were compelled to hold another election – the second in the year – precisely on that issue. THe principle here was that when it comes making “organic change”, that when it comes to actually changing the rules of the game a simple parliamentary majority does not suffice (in the same way tht it would be constitutionally legitimate for a government to assume power and then vote through 50 year electoral terms).

Since Britain was last asked to join the EU the rules of the game have changed and changed again – as Economic integration morphed into partial political union. When various European publics delivered their negative verdict on the European constitution, it was repackaged as the Lisbon Treaty. We now have an EU president upon who we were not merely denied a vote, but denied even the opportunity to express an opinion – since his candidacy was not even announced to the public. It is a tremendous understatement to say that it is high time that the British given a say in how, and from where , they are governed.

To contact Reuben email reuben@thethirdestate.net

Egemen Bagis

Guest post by Christos Loutradis

Yesterday, Egemen Bagis, Turkey’s chief EU negotiator, gave a speech in Greece on strengthening ties between the former rivals, Turkey’s EU candidacy and how to resolve the thorny issue of Cyprus. Press-Gr’s Christos Loutradis reports for The Third Estate

It was a speech of lifting taboos. Egemen Bagis, chief EU negotiator and Turkish Minister of State, spoke for the first time to a Greek audience in a lecture that was organised by the International Centre for Black Sea Studies. The audience comprised the political, academic and diplomatic elite of Greece and the rest of the world. From the Government side, the Member of Parliament Michalis Katrinis, from the previous Government of New Democracy, the ex deputy minister of Foreign Affairs Giannis Valinakis, and Giorgos Dendias, a personal friend of Egemen Bagis and the former minister of Justice. The most surprising presence, however, was that of Giannis Karantis, ex chief of the Greek Intelligence Service and MP for the ultra-nationalist party LAOS.

Bagis began his speech with a moving opening, stating that he feels proud “to be in the birthplace of Democracy”. In addition, he argued that “today’s event, your presence shows the great potential for the betterment of the relations between the two nations.”

“Turkey and Greece share a common fate and a common future,” the chief negotiator of Turkey added.

The Greek audience responded with satisfaction when Bagis proclaimed that “a new era has started in the relations of the two countries, with the Government of Papandreou willing to build a peaceful future with Turkey.”

The Minister added that during this period, Erdogan’s Government has demolished the taboos of the Turkish Society, by addressing the Kurdish problem and dealing with all the open disputes with Armenia. “It is time to talk to Greece, too.”

The most interesting part of Bagis’s speech, however, was the revelation that Greek Prime Minister, George Papandreou and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan agreed to the formulation of a co-operation council between the two nations that will discuss at the highest level all the disputes that may arise in the future. In addition, Bagis said that Erdogan plans to visit Athens in the near future.

EU-Turkish Relations

The chief negotiator suggested that accepting Turkey into the European Union would be a win-win situation. The EU will benefit from the role of Turkey as “a bridge between different civilizations, religions and cultures”. In addition he added that Turkey’s bid to join the EU serves as “a source of inspiration for the deprived of the world such as the Muslim community.”

Giannis Ioakeimidis, professor of International Relations at the University of Athens, asked Bagis if Turkey will accept a special status relationship with European Union. Bagis replied that “Turkey is a candidate for full membership of the EU and any alternative is not accepted.”

Moreover, Egemen Bagis argued that “the European Union should prove it wants to be an alliance of civilisations… We will part of the solution and not part of the problem of the EU.”

Cyprus

With regards to Cyprus, the Minister expressed the official view that Turkey will support any solution that is agreed by the leaders of the island’s two sides. Furthermore, he praised the efforts of the two Presidents, Talat and Christofias, and stressed that Greece and Turkey should support the two presidents sooner rather than later. “Their term is limited and we do not know who will govern next. We must help these guys.”

Another interesting point arose from a question raised by a citizen with regard to the presence of the Turkish Army in Cyprus. Bagis said that the Turkish Army protects the safety of the Turk-Cypriots and it will not withdraw unless all the other armies withdrew too.

Quite clearly, there’s still a long way to go.

From a journalistic and more personal perspective, Egemen Bagis’s most interesting moment was when he praised the Greek citizens who contribute to the Turkish newspapers and the Turkish Citizens who contribute to the Greek newspapers.

In conclusion, Bagis left Greece with a strong impression of a political personality committed to peace.

For those, like me, who have lived all their lives in a democracy, the impending coronation of Europe’s president is a rather strange affair. We can leave aside the fact that the people of most of Europe were given no say on the creation of the post. We could even leave aside that – for whatever resons, good or bad – there will be no mass voting for the new post. Yet what is particlarly jarring is that this important decision seems to be almost completely outside of the public sphere.

You might think that – at the very least – those who are aiming at the presidency would, within a democratic culture, seek to appeal over the heads of national prime ministers, to build a bit of public support and maybe even leaverage a bit of popular pressure. Yet the front runners have barely even done as much as put themselves forward and tell us – the public – that they want the post and that they think they’d be good at it. Instead we – the British and European public – have been reduced to keeping our ears to the ground, to watching out for rumours in the newspapers about who is doing deals with whom, as though the race for the presidency were a game of chess.

Indeed the EU in general is structured around a contempt for democracy. Earlier in the year we were treated to the spectacle of EU commissioners – accountable to nobody – telling Britain’s elected government that it must exacerbate problems of mass unemployment by reining in its fiscal deficit.

And if there is one word I am sick of reading right now it is ‘Europhobe’. Over at Liberal Conspiracy – and indeed throughout much of the liberal left – it seems to be deployed as a catch all term to describe any skepticism about or opposition to the EU. Its a language that implies that skepticism about the EU is primarily the domain of irrational Little Englanders, driven by xenophobia towards continental Europeans and petty nationalism.

And this in turn offers a clue as to why sections of the soft left are so bizarrely supportive of the EU. For some time now I have felt parts of the left are more interested in fighting ‘culture wars’ than politics wars, more interested in sniggering at relatively disenfranchised people who read the Daily Mail, or fly the British flag than addressing the big questions about the distribution of economic and political power. Thus when it comes to the EU it seems that some people think it more important to define themselves in opposition to nationalism and patriotism, than to take a stance in defence of basic democratic values.

There are certainly advantages to a federal Europe. But if it is going to be a modern day version of the Holy Roman empire – where princes ‘elect’ emperors – or an enlightened bureacracy in which huge power is excersised by unaccountable comissioners – then, as a democrat I say that we are better of out of it.

EU phases out inefficient light bulbs

Not content with telling us that bananas and cucumbers must be straight, milk chocolate must be called vegelate¹ and hula hoops are round, they’re staying round and they’ll be around for ever, the evil EU is now dictating what kind of light bulb hard working Brits are allowed to use in their own home. Apparently, those pesky policy makers think they can save a million tonnes of CO2 a year by 2020 and save the average household £37 if they phase out the inefficient old 100W bulbs. Under new rules which are to be implemented this week, shops will only be permitted to sell their existing stocks of the old bulbs. From now on they will be required to buy the new energy-saving bulbs which use 80% less electricity and have already become ubiquitous in British homes. In doing so, the EU hopes to help you save money and the environment. You couldn’t make it up!

¹ You couldn’t make it up, but it turns out the tabloids did. To this day these ridiculous myths are repeated verbatim in the right wing press without ever having had any basis in truth. The EU has its flaws, but the regulation of bananas isn’t one of them!

It’s hard to get away from the reality that most people who are virulently opposed to the EU are twats, who probably shed a tear while watching videos of the queens coronation on youtube.

Yet when the elections come round in a couple of months I will be officially joining their ranks when i offer my vote to the NO2EU coalition.  The NO2EU is a new left wing euro-skeptic trade union backed organisation.  On their about page they say the following:

We want to see a Europe of independent, democratic states that value its public services and does not offer them to profiteers; a Europe that guarantees the rights of workers and does not put the interests of big business above that of ordinary people. We believe the current structures of the EU makes this impossible.

Personally speaking I have never had any great interest in defending British sovereignty in and of itself, and in abstract terms have no problem with the idea of nations pooling sovereignty. Yet the real issue with the EU is that of democracy. The point is that, whether we like it or not, it is within of nation states that democratic power – insofar as it exists – can currently be brought to bear. The real problem with policy decisions being made in Brussels, or by the European Court of Justice, is not that they are made beyound these shores. Rather it is that they are made outside the realm of mainstream public debate.

Today we have witnessed the ridiculous spectacle of the unelected EU commission telling the elected governments of France, Greece, Ireland, Spain and the UK  to rein in there fiscal deficits. Deficit spending, of course, is a crucial tool through governments can ameliorate rising unemployment, and lessen the enormous pain caused by recession. Reining it in, meanwhile, means cutting public services. It should be obvious to absolutely  anybody with an ounce of commitment to democratic principles that decisions on public spending should be taken by elected and accountable politicians.

But could the EU be democratised? The answer I would give is it possibly could in formal terms, and that it absolutely couldnt in real terms. Arguably it is impossible  for a territory in which 20 odd languages are spoken to operate as a democracy in any real sense. Pressure groups, political parties, civil society, the popular press will necessarily find it difficult to operate on a truly transnational level. It is a structure far more conducive to negotiations between elites, between bureaucrats carrying around armies of translators, than to popular action spanning the scope of the territory. Meanwhile any social and industrial gains that can be won within a national framework are necessarily imperilled by a structure enforces absolute mobility of capital, goods and services.

So, as somebody who has no interest in British patriotism, but does have an interest in making popular interest and popular action the centre of politics, I will be voting ‘NO’ to the EU.