The days after two national referendums delivered a strong “no” to the proposed European Union constitution have seen renewed calls for that form of democracy that is alien to some - letting the people, rather than the politicians decide. Just consider Estonia and Germany as two nations that can make a case for vox populi to be heard. The first has yet to ratify, the second already has.
In the case of constitutional reform citizens, rather than parliaments should have the final say. The difference is one between ratification, rubber stamping by parliament or assembly - or approval/rejection by referendum. Which should be binding, rather than the non-binding "pulse of the people" type of poll that most often directs governments.
But first, some background, with a look at the Poles as well. Britain decided this Monday to shelve their plans for a constitutional referendum. The Brits would not have gone to the polls until 2006, and perhaps are waiting for the results of the EU summit June 16-17, to see which way the wind is blowing. Some Members of European Parliament are eager to freeze the process. However several EU member states have continued with their plans to have a referendum. Among them is Poland.
The Polish case is interesting. The largest recent EU inductee and prominent in the "New Europe", Poland's Foreign Minister Adam Rotfeld believes delivering an unambiguous yes in favour of European integration "given through a referendum will greatly strengthen Poland's position."
However, Poland's parliament, the Sejm has yet to formally decide whether to hold a referendum or not. And, according to polls, Poland would be likely to return a 60 percent no vote, if the referendum were to be held today. Hardly what Rotfeld is hoping for.
Now consider what was said in Estonia, after the French and Dutch strongly rejected the proposed constitution. The Chairman of the Riigikogu, Ene Ergma, said at a meeting with the Finnish Parliament's Speaker, Paavo Lipponen that the ratification process in EU states must continue. Finland is going the ratification route through Parliament next year. The Estonian Government submitted the constitutional treaty to the Riigikogu for ratification exactly a month ago, on May 10. The issue was slated to be decided in the fall session.
But, Ergma seems to have conveniently forgotten a key point in the coalition's pact. In April, Eesti Päevaleht Online published the entire 94-point agreement, of which #23 states that while the coalition government supports the ratification of the EU constitution treaty, the coalition will also call for a referendum for changing the Estonian constitution. That is legally a necessary step, for the Estonian constitution, based on the declaration of independence in 1918 and the ensuing legal continuity of statehood does not recognize any power as being greater than that of the Estonian citizens: power lies with the people.
The coalition, however, is still anticipating that ratification will rule the day. An unnamed Estonian Foreign Ministry spokesperson told press on June 2 that the handling of the bill of ratification of the Constitutional Treaty "will continue in accordance with the arrangements laid down earlier." That seems to be clear: no referendum.
Then consider what is happening in Germany. The German Bundestag and then Bundesrat, Germany’s Lower and Upper houses ratified the treaty in late May. Many in Germany are now hoping that a freeze will indeed be placed on the ratification process, and are expressing dismay in how the issue was handled in their country.
Germany's Der Bild, a mass-market newspaper, while not quite in the yellow journalism class of the British tabloids, but similarly built on sensationalism, chose to poll its readers on the constitution after the Dutch delivered their resounding "no". Granted, the poll reflects only their readership - not that of the more sober Frankfurter Allgemeine, which serves a more discerning and literate readership. Yet, Der Bild's results were staggering.
A phone-in poll of over 390,000 people resulted in 96.9% of respondents being against the EU's constitutional treaty. Only some 12,000 callers would have voted yes. This poll and the way the results have been aired in Germany have left many demanding a referendum, one that the politicians had denied them.
Der Bild's poll may not have been as scientific as a standard blind Gallup-type telephone poll, but the incredibly high percentage of respondents voting "no" , expressed by well over a third of a million people cannot be lightly dismissed.
The balance of the EU countries who have still to tackle the proposed constitution will be doing so by referendum - to date, of the 11 who have said yes, only Spain has done it based on public opinion, rather than by Parliament. That is a telling fact. Luxembourg’s referendum is next, in July, should the ratification process continue. The Czechs, Danes and Portuguese have scheduled their referendums for later, the, Brits, as noted, may put the kibosh to the whole deal. The Poles and the Irish simply have not decided.
Divisions in the future EU are clearly marked - one on side the ruling elite, on the other the voice of the citizen.
No matter one's leanings, the referendum results have brought Europe a mixed blessing. As Peter Lavelle noted in "Untimely Thoughts" June 2nd, Europe's no has strengthened Moscow's foreign policy hand. Dissatisfaction with the pan-European treaty and ensuing European self-doubt allows Russia to benefit. Now Moscow can attempt to continue its role as balancing European capitals with or without Washington, as was seen during the diplomatic war of words over Iraq at the outbreak of Operation Freedom.
For the Baltic nations, there is an upside in that Moscow, which prefers dealing with Brussels rather than Riga or Tallinn, must in turn become more sensitive to nationalities issues, such as are at the heart of the Mari peoples concerns. And New Europe can continue what Lavelle calls the "gambit of playing off Brussels against Washington."
Surely most people would feel best if the constitution issue is decided democratically, thus by referendum. The Estonian people should be given that right and PM Ansip reminded of a key point in the coalition agreement, that allows for just that democratic principle.
Democracy 101: the referendum (8)
Archived Articles | 10 Jun 2005 | EWR
Viimased kommentaarid
Kommentaarid on kirjutatud EWR lugejate poolt. Nende sisu ei pruugi ühtida EWR toimetuse seisukohtadega.
Thanks illuminati for your perceptive response. Anonymous will leave me waiting till Christmas at this rate, but as I suspect, he/she doesn't have a clue how to respond! I understand that the two most important reasons for not agreeing with the Constitution in its present form is that it threatens to further unravel the present quality of life achieved through much hard work, as financial and political resources will be thrown to all and sundry in the coming years, dragging the standard of living back by a good 10-20 years at least. If this is the case, I would be voting NO as well. Does anyone else have firsthand info about why the YES vote should be supported?
each european governemnt is looking at how they can avoid a referendum so that they can quickly ratify the constitution in their government chambers, where members are committed to selling out national interests to the money lenders for their personal gain ...... if i am incorrect, please provide one example
OK-let's be positive-and go much much further in this discussion than Naelapea had dreamt to take it. Assuming that you've heard much more about the European Union's constitution (which, I take it you have, since you are so calm and collected about everything...) what exactly are the pro's and cons that have resulted in the election outcomes thus far, and do you think the Estonian government has done all it can to enlighten its voters in a way that will help them vote either yes or no?
Archived Articles
TRENDING
