The Treaty of Lisbon

The Treaty of Lisbon is one more step on the road to a Federated Europe, but I would not see it as the final one. At the moment, the UK still possesses a measure of economic independence (taxation, interest rates) and we have still not joined the single currency.

As far as an ideal goes, a federal Europe has a lot going for it; as far as the reality goes, just look at the Auditor's signing off the European budget for the last 10 (or more years); they won't because the accounting is so bad.

Looking at the Danes and the French the last time there was actually any attempt to find out what ordinary people wanted - rather than impose it from above - a lot of other people do not like the idea of a vast Federated Europe with even less democratic checks and balances than it has at present (which are few enough).

As Tony Benn noted:

"Of course Europe must cooperate for the benefit of all its peoples, and the world, but that cooperation must be on a democratic basis that underpins and entrenches the rights of all its citizens to govern themselves through their own elected parliaments, harmonizing their policies slowly and by consent in line with the wide variations in the conditions that each face."


The EU fails the defining and fundamental test of democracy, because the people have no power to sack their rulers. This is how the European Commissioners get elected:

http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_3935_en.htm

On 29 June this year the EU Heads of State or Government nominated José Manuel Barroso to succeed Romano Prodi as head of the Commission. Mr Barroso's nomination was approved by the European Parliament on 22 July by 413 votes to 251, with 44 abstentions. The President-elect then put together his team of 24 Commissioners, one from each Member State, and allocated them their portfolios.

Not much scope for the bod in the street to have their say....

So, in summary, I think some of the negative comments about the EU are justified by the facts, for instance:

a) controls on the EU budget so poor the auditors won't sign them off
b) unelected commissioners making law and policy decisions
c) Poor democratic checks and controls

Regarding "sovereignty", I find it interesting that the unity of geographic areas under one "state" umbrella is so often taken for granted; it is, of course, largely the result of accidents of history, some involving land-grabbing territorial invasions, others involving accidents of inheritance by rulers (e.g. James I of England=James VI of Scotland).

On definition of the State , according the philosopher David Copp ("The Idea of a Legitimate State.") is that state is "a system of animated institutions that govern the territory and its residents, and that administer and enforce the legal system and carry out the programs of government"

But given that this has arisen by historical accident, it often has no mechanisms or means of dealing with dissent, and peoples who have been - in the past - welded into the whole, to the detriment of their own minority culture; equally, separatist movements have no well-thought out mechanisms for withdrawal. The result is often a power struggle, sometimes a violent one, which is really not the best way for intelligent people to work things out.

With the EU - looking at that definition of State, it is clear that the EU is moving towards a kind of State - "a system of animated institutions that govern the territory and its residents, and that administer and enforce the legal system and carry out the programs of government" - and is thereby coming into conflict with the smaller States which make up its geographical base. Again, the same power struggle - played out in terms of sovereignty - comes into play through want of any better means of making decisions and respecting cultural diversity.