October 18, 2002
More on European enlargement.
An
article about enlarging the EU in the
Economist perfectly illustrates the elitist attitude the European leadership is taking. Amazing arrogance. The language used displays an incredible contempt for Irish voters, and apparently for the rest of the people in Europe. Check these examples out (emphasis mine).
Every EU member except Ireland has ratified the Nice Treaty. The Irish government has worked hard to try to ensure the vote goes the right way this time. ... The government is taking nothing for granted, but will surely be hoping that, as in Denmark, Irish voters see the light the second time around. ... Supporters of enlargement will therefore be hoping that Irish voters get the message and vote yes.
The "right way", "see the light" (echoes of a religious, messianic fervor here, reminiscent of American "manifest destiny") and "get the message." Why don't they just go all out and say it's "evil" to be against the EU?
The statement that "every EU member except Ireland" has ratified the treaty gives the impression that all of the other nations strongly support it and that only the Irish are against it. Actually, the statement, "Every EU member that has had the option of voting for it has rejected it," would be more accurate.
What's even more abominable is the clearly expressed intention of the elite to simply go ahead with their plans, regardless of the vote. They'll just find another way to do it, the people be damned. Call the lawyers! I guess they're the ones running things anyway.
"The European Commission has said there is no plan B if the Irish reject Nice for a second time. Behind the scenes, though, it is clear that those in Brussels have been thinking carefully about how to take the enlargement process forward if that were to happen. ... Technically, the Nice Treaty is not the only means of admitting the ten applicant countries who expect shortly to get the green light for membership in 2004. Most experts reckon that the treaty©–s provisions could be incorporated into each individual Treaty of Accession. That would be cumbersome, though. Another possibility which has been aired is for the Irish parliament to issue a declaration in favour of the Nice Treaty. It would be for the lawyers to decide if this was an acceptable way out."
The technical term for people who go around make incredibly expensive and complicated plans involving the lives of hundreds of millions of people without having any backup plan or strategy is "incompetent." Just the fact that they do this is a rather strong argument for NOT increasing the power of the folks in charge.
The suggestion that the Irish parliament would vote to go ahead to do it anyway after two negative votes is absolutely hysterical. Two no votes, and every politician in Ireland will jump on the bandwagon. But supposing they do. What happens if, after the politicians that did that are naturally voted out of office, the next parliament votes to repeal it
I think I detect some English superiority here: the Irish parliament is commonly referred to as the "Dail" (short for Dail Eireann, actually just the House of Representatives), which along with the Seanad Eireann (Senate) form the Oireachtas. Not the "Parliament," unless you're under the impression that England still owns and runs Ireland. But even after 80 years, the old English money at the Economist can't bring themselves to say the word.
Another example of the arrogance is their assumption that the problem is that the Irish voters just don't understand what's going on. They simplistically report that there are just two reasons the Irish may vote against it, the attitude seeming to be that those silly peasants just don't appreciate larger concerns.
"Irish opponents of the Nice Treaty seem to have two main objections. One is the threat they say it poses to Irish neutrality, partly because of references in the treaty to plans for a European defence force. To assuage these concerns, Brussels has issued a clear statement that Ireland©–s neutrality will be unaffected by the treaty©–s provisions; Bertie Ahern, the Irish prime minister, has said the treaty is the strongest possible guarantee of this. ... The other objection stems from fears that Irish influence in Brussels will be diluted by an enlarged EU."
Don't understand the part about how they can be part of a common union, while simultaneously not being part of that union. The Irish reluctance is quite understandable. This is a major step, it definitely involves surrendering at least some sovereignty and neutrality, and should only be done if everything is clear, and a very strong consensus has been formed to do it. Basically, the EU leaders seem to be saying that we'll just have to work things out later, make up the policies as we go.
Suggesting that the EU can have a defense force while individual nations remain neutral is obviously absurd. How does that work? Do Irish soldiers in an EU army get to pick and choose where they serve? Or is it the government that does the picking and choosing? Imagine if the people in an U.S. state voted that they didn't want anybody from their state serving in Iraq.
And pretending this won't dilute Irish influence is also silly. Of course it will. They'll go from having 1/15th of the vote to 1/25th. No question about it. They'll be less than one percent of the total population. That's really where the folks at the Economist are missing the boat. Maybe the Irish simply don't _want_ to be part of that big a union. Even if it's for their own long term benefit. Why is it that the powers-that-be can't seem to grasp this essential part of democracy: the voters don't have to give reasons for what they do, and they have the right to do anything at all, even if it's utterly stupid and ridiculous. People like to run their own lives, even if they screw them up.
Enlargement may be a good idea, but clearly they don't feel "comfortable" with it. So what's the rush? Ah, maybe the need for politicians to increase and maintain power, and for Corporate Europe to acquire more markets. The only "problem" here is that the EU went ahead and committed itself without checking with anybody first. And what's saddest is that their desire to force a larger Europe before its time could possibly derail the whole thing.
