With Lisbon Treaty, the European Court of Justice widens its jurisdiction; it will drive the path through a broader judicial avenue that will likely grant the EU institutions new rights and more power to regulate certain policy areas. Another aspect that should be underlined is the Lisbon Treaty’s provision that enables the “self amendment” of the treaties. This is again crucial for the future of checks and balances between the nation states and EU bodies. Because it enables the possibility of transferring more mandates and new competence areas to the hands of the Institutions, and poses a risk of erosion in the sovereignty of nation states in the future.
Grim Prospects for European Citizens
Grim Prospects for European Citizens
Some could argue that the transfer of power form the nation states to the Union is a choice of policy makers, in our view the problem is the finalization of a comprehensive agreement in an undemocratic way and through forcing indirect democratic mechanisms, namely the national parliaments. As a major dilemma, a legal text –Lisbon Treaty- which has almost 95 percent in the same content and repetition of legal text a rejected in referendums – the Constitutional Treaty- was intentionally not taken to the referendums again and besides the European citizens were deprived of voting for the future of their nation state and provisions that would affect their daily life.
This blog believes that the Lisbon Treaty has transferred power from the hands of the nation states to the hands of the civil servants in Brussels by limiting the influence of the European citizens and without asking their consent. The Treaty turns legislative powers into executive powers and together with its enabling “self amendment”, the Treaty jeopardizes the sovereignty of the nation state more.
We think that the European citizens would have few opportunities to say on the EU’s decisions. The Union becoming a policy maker in the field of social policy poses a risk over the social rights of many European citizens. The ordinary citizen is under the risk of losing some of its rights at the expense of making the Union more efficient. Ironically and as a central dilemma, the Lisbon Treaty does not attach any interest to resolve the contentious issue of reforming farm subsidies and protectionist Common Agricultural Policy. The energy liberalization and the dominance of the energy monopolies which have the potential to affect the lives of many people in the future were not addressed in the Treaty.
For the future of the Nation state, it would be fair to argue that the federalist dynamics of the Lisbon prospects the emergence of new rights and mandates for the EU institutions. The mandates and competence of institutions such as Euro just, Europol and European Central Bank has the potential to limit the mandates of the nation states in the future.
The Treaty and its provisions might also take the EU policy makers -delineated from the national/citizen level – to a position of questioning the need for a “social state” in Europe. The market based policies becoming the mainstream idea might accelerate the limiting of the nation state further and finally we could witness the questions raising in Europe on whether there is a need for the Nation State.
Implicitly or explicitly developing dilemmas and growing paradoxes between the realist and constructivist idea emerged during the adoption process of the Lisbon Treaty. Actually, the early symptoms of this crisis were felt years ago in several occasions. Denmark, whose voters once rejected the Maastricht Treaty, remained dubious about further integration. Ireland, often presented as the finest example of the merits of membership of the EU, shocked Euro-enthusiasts by voting against the Nice Treaty, which was designed to pave the way for enlargement. Besides, the prospect of a dozen or so mostly poor new members caused irritation in Germany and Austria and even Italy now has a government that judges to place nation-state before co-operative enterprise. It is precisely the Union's wealthiest and most stable members who are often most attached to their own institutions and most likely to resist having a new “Constitution”.
The Demise of Nation State
Furthermore, as the traditional “builders of Europe” were experiencing paradoxes of nationalism and seem to be keen to build up supranational institutions at the expense of the nation-state, many of the central Europeans are still reasserting their own national identities after decades of Soviet domination. They saw membership as an assertion of their European identity, as well as a ticket to prosperity and some protection against any threat from a resurgent Russia. But they are also much less enthusiastic than western European federalists about an “ever closer union” for Europe as spelled out in the Treaty of Rome. Vaclav Havel, the hero of the Velvet Revolution and former president of the Czech Republic, explains that for countries that have recently thrown off Soviet domination, “the concept of national sovereignty is something inviolable”. (see here) On the contrary, European federalists still tend to be highly idealistic. They are usually driven by the belief that political union is the best way of ensuring lasting peace and prosperity on the continent.
Furthermore, as the traditional “builders of Europe” were experiencing paradoxes of nationalism and seem to be keen to build up supranational institutions at the expense of the nation-state, many of the central Europeans are still reasserting their own national identities after decades of Soviet domination. They saw membership as an assertion of their European identity, as well as a ticket to prosperity and some protection against any threat from a resurgent Russia. But they are also much less enthusiastic than western European federalists about an “ever closer union” for Europe as spelled out in the Treaty of Rome. Vaclav Havel, the hero of the Velvet Revolution and former president of the Czech Republic, explains that for countries that have recently thrown off Soviet domination, “the concept of national sovereignty is something inviolable”. (see here) On the contrary, European federalists still tend to be highly idealistic. They are usually driven by the belief that political union is the best way of ensuring lasting peace and prosperity on the continent.
The real problem is actually, most Europeans feel much more loyal to their nation-state than they do to Europe. Europeans speak many different languages, watch different television programs, respond to different politicians and draw meaning from different traditions and memories. They also share many common interests and values, which can form the basis for fruitful co-operation, not least within the EU.
On the other hand, European leaders believe that the EU is unworkable without the institutional reforms in the Lisbon Treaty. The fact is that, this is one of those moments when the EU's integrationist impulse is overriding both democracy and natural caution. EU that is increasingly remote is also a threat to the diversity of Europe's nations and thus to national identity. It is clear that the EU's future will depend on both permitting and exploiting the democratic deficit at the second level, caused by a transfer of many functions of the state to the Union. Nation states are no longer allowed to regulate some areas which leave those areas uncontrolled and undermine the very quality of democracy and the continent's diversity.
Articles you might also like;
> A Constitutional Europe
> Uncharted Waters Global Politics in Disarray
> Anatomy of Upheavals: A Comparison of Greek and Libyan Crises
Articles you might also like;
> A Constitutional Europe
> Uncharted Waters Global Politics in Disarray
> Anatomy of Upheavals: A Comparison of Greek and Libyan Crises
