The European Union was established as a natural consequence of deepening cooperation. The main purposes, as far as I understand them, were to remove barriers–which were counterproductive and unnecessary for human freedom and prosperity–and to facilitate effective implementation of projects which had previously been unrealized on the national level. To achieve this goal, centralized institutions have been established to redirect power to the supranational level. So far so good.
But what if different countries within the Union have different interests?
Democracy applies. The majority decides and the minority has to follow. This is perfectly fine, but today´s situation in the EU reminds me of a famous quotation of James Bovard, "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." Obviously, interests of the Union states differ. It is much easier for bigger countries to follow their interests than for smaller ones. If the interests of small countries differ from those of bigger ones, then they simply get outvoted. Perhaps also worrisome is what occurs when a small country faces trouble. Will the EU stand behind its smaller members in all situations? It is unlikely in cases where supporting a small country directly contradicts interests of the larger states. I find such a setting very unfair and inefficient for the smaller members.
One example will suffice. Canadian authorities imposed a visa requirement on Czech citizens. Reason? Many Gypsies entering Canada from the Czech Republic and abusing their generous social system. Since the Czech Republic is a quite small country and Gypsies are in the minority there, the total number of people immigrating to Canada was not large. And of course, the majority of Gypsies did not leave nor intended to leave. However, Canada coped with it on their own and now the cost has to be paid by all Czechs. The worst part about this situation is that Czech authorities can do absolutely nothing about it. Because the Czech Republic is an EU member, they are not allowed to act alone by imposing visas against third parties. In this case, the EU should work to resolve this situation. However, they failed to act.
Why? The reason is more than clear! Because of the different interests mentioned above. The larger members of the EU are reluctant to disrupt relations with such a good partner like Canada! And who cares that citizens of such a small country need visas to go there. No big deal. True, no big deal for the European Union. But it is a big deal for the Czech Republic. By approval of the Lisbon treaty more national powers have been centralized, and in 68 cases the right of veto has been abolished. Only the qualified majority is sufficient to pass a rule or regulation. Because of this, any small country can be easily outvoted even in cases which are in direct contradiction of their national interests.
One more thing I would like to say about today´s EU. I don´t want to speak about the criticism such as the lack of democratic accountability, bureaucratization of decision making and so on. What I want to point out is the problem of discussion. I have the feeling that there is only one alternative to the promotion of integration and whoever is considering other alternatives, is automatically considered as an opponent or even enemy of European integration. On the 19th of February 2009, the Czech President Václav Klaus gave a speech about the European Union in the European Parliament. The speech was very critical and somewhat controversial, but I could not believe what happened during the speech. Members of the Parliament began to leave the meeting room! Not agreeing with criticism is one thing, but not even being willing to listen to it is inexcusable, especially in a democratic establishment.
As a former socialist country, citizens of the Czech Republic are very sensitive to reductions in freedom and national powers, and regulation by centralized authorities. Fifty years of communism have taught them a terrible lesson. They have experienced how it feels when someone tells you what is right without an alternative and without the possibility to defend yourself. All the signals today´s European Union is sending to their citizens make me feel that the EU has not chosen the direction leading to support of freedom, democracy and sovereignty. Do we really want this?
Ondřej Prachař
3 comments:
Hey Ondrej,
I thank you for taking the time to write something for our blog. I should be posting the results of the previous fepadebates soon as well.
I don't know how it is in English but in German the word gypsy is (rightly) frowned upon. I didn't change anything in your article but maybe a native speaker (Kristin?) could tell us more about this.
2. I think it is terrible, that many in media and politics don't accept criticism of the EU and its institutions. Look how the British conservatives are treated by continental European media and European politicians !
However, I think that once you join the EU, knowing how it works, you have to accept the rules laid out. You spoke of democracy and yet you criticize the qualifies majority rule. What would you like to have instead? A situation where any member country can take the whole union hostage with its veto? This can never work!
Maybe what we need is an Exit scenario from the EU, so that it becomes possible for countries, that no longer see the benefits of the EU can quit and just join the E. economic community like Norway or something.
Have many more thoughts but I guess I should go study and have already taken to much space here :).
Thank you for your comment Ahmed. I would like to respond, point after point.
1. You are right, I should have used the word Roma instead.
2. You say "I think that once you join the EU, knowing how it works, you have to accept the rules laid out." Of course, but here the problem is that rules are changing during the game.
3.About the qualified majority: Democracy doesn´t only mean that the minority has to follow whatever the majority says. This would be called "tyranny of the majority". Democracy also means that the majority is committed to respect for the inalienable rights of minorities and individuals.
I don´t agree with seeing the right of veto as a tool for taking the whole union as a hostage. This right is the only way for small countries to prevent the bigger ones from implying policies which might be harmful for them. I see the right of veto more as a tool for signalling. When some country uses this right, there is nothing wrong with the country, but with the rule. Of course a few rules can be beneficial for everyone, but non should be harmful for anyone.
4.I totally agree about the exit scenario. Such a thing is really missing.
Hi Ondrej,
Nice article!
I'd like to add something to your point 2. Accepting the rules as they are would be fundamentally wrong. The EU lives from the constant improvements brought by its members, and the new countries are bringing new ideas and perspectives and help shape those rules.I think the Czech skepticism was constructive and helped the Union rethink some aspects.
Referring to the Czech president's speech, I would like Romania to have a daring president like that. More critical analysis of EU decisions would do many small countries some good. Being shy and submissive doesn't help anyone.
Post a Comment