[pp.int.general] PPI platform for EU Election 2009

[Reinier Bakels]

> That's a false dichotomy introduced by the EU bodies, /this one or 
> nothing/. No way, I prefer /option C/ -different process to make it,

Oh yes, I am (also) pro-Europe and against its democratic deficit.

> more usable, different contents in some issues, etc ... and of course, 
> having people ratifying it, like we in Spain 1978's Constitution was 
> ratified by *60 % of eligible voters* (not of cast votes, but of eligible 
> voters; and also with the /YES/ winning in all districts); there are 
> majorities and majorities, depending on their legitimacy, and 60 % of 
> eligible voters is indeed a legitimate majority-.

Referenda about the EU Constitution/Lisbon treaty are not obvious. There are 
imho several reasons to be opposed against referenda:
* Referenda only work for relatively simple issues - that can be answered by 
YES or NO. The Swiss who have a long tradition of referenda demonstrate a 
proper use of this mechanism. But the European Constitution/Lisbon treaty is 
too complex for the average citizen. No politician will ever admit this, but 
I as a lawyer am ready to admit that it is an utterlijk complicated thing. 
People - in particular in countries that do not have a strong constitutional 
tradition such as NL - are likely to believe that it is either nothing or 
"Lisbon" - while actually the issue is to replace the Nice treaty. As long 
as the EU exists, it needs a couple of rules for its ow organisation. Given 
such confusion, politicians can only guess why the treaty failed and what 
should be changed.
* Professional polticians are bypassed by referenda, but they do have a 
role. Firsly, politicans have the task to make *consistent* policy, while 
referenda naturally are single issue only. To give a simple example: 
everybody would like the taxes to be lowered while government spending is 
increased.
* Another role of politicians is to debate. Admittedly the EU Parliament 
does not have a strong tradition in this field. But politicians can 
articulate arguments and reasons.

> We in PIRATA also believe in liquid democracy -an issue dealt with in the 
> Berlin Conference-, so such issue -consulting people to know what the 
> society wants, thus, having the State branches doing it- is not only 
> related to left-winged or right-winged parties.

Frankly I believe that "liquid democracy" is pretty utopical. And state 
reform is a very complicated issue by itself. I am not sure whether PP 
should divert its attention to this realm. In NL, the progressive liberals 
D66 were founded with the explicit purpose to further such reforms, but the 
political support is disappointing. Now the issue has been embraced by 
populists, who argue that the government *TOTALLY* ignores "ordinary" 
people. They are prepared to distort the truth in order to prove their 
point, e.g. by frightening people about the alleged threat of "islamisation" 
(in my perception, all interference between religion and politics is 
dangerous - Christian Democrats obscure the real political issues in many 
countries).

I believe that political decision making is inherently slow - and 
disappointing to some people - because the essence of politics is to resolve 
controversies. And perhaps it even slows down (in NL at least) because there 
are lots of floating voters, and the support even of established major 
political parties varies enormously over time (according to opinion polls) - 
so politicians are desparately looking for ways to stabilise - Incidentally, 
the present financial crisis was a blessing in disguise for (some of) our 
politicians, because it allowed the to ct swiftly.

>> In my perception, "pirate" are intelletuals with naturally an 
>> international orientation.
> Sure. However, as I said before, it doesn't imply that we have to accept 
> this Lisboa Treaty in particular, why? If EU citizens agree on the need of 
> having a common /Carta Magna/, let's gonna have one ... though not that 
> one -and specially not, if to be passed needs such an embarrasing show 
> like some Member States menacing others (i.e., Ireland), and those and 
> others avoiding to consult people (just to avoid getting a /NO/ as the 
> answer to the Treaty, as the Irish answer and as the French & Dutch answer 
> for NIce Treaty ... a Treaty which was not nice)-.
>
I agree, the fight over "Lisbon" is disgusting. But if the question is asked 
what should be improved, there is no unanimous answer. Well, "more 
democracy" is an obvious argument, but - on paper(!) - Lisbon improves 
democracy, e.g. by strengthening the role of national parliaments. On oher 
topics, there is ore difference of opinions. For instance, some people feel 
that Europe (if democracy works properly!) should be strengthened, while 
others believe that "Europe" should be minimized.

In my opinion, a major problem is the communication. The EU is hardly 
visible at all. Few news programs on television spend attention to Brussels 
and Strasbourg: it is still mostly national politics. European elections 
effectively are national elections. For NL for instance, EU elections may 
show that our socialist (national!) minister of finance has gained a lot of 
popularity because he reacted very well to the present financial crisis.

So, if anything, the PP should inform inform inform inform inform inform 
inform inform inform inform inform inform people!

reinier