A sceptical view to euroscepticism

Fellow blogger Nosemonkey, probably the most experienced of all of us, has written a marvellous piece on why euroscepticism as it is widely practised is in no way helpful.

It's worth to read the whole article, but I'd just like to quote the most representative part:

[...] [E]urosceptic arguments still seem largely to revolve around vague emotional appeals to patriotism and national myths, topped off with objectively false misrepresentations of what it is the EU does and is doing. Anyone with half a brain who looks at these arguments for half a minute will write them off as the nonsense that they are – and the eurosceptic cause takes yet another hit.

Every time you make such wild claims – and they turn out to be unfounded – you are alienating potential allies. When Lisbon comes into force and life in the EU continues much as before, proving all the claims that this treaty is in any way significant to be objectively false (because no matter what many eurosceptics claim, Lisbon *is* just a tidying-up exercise) – when member states continue to run themselves, when the threatened abortion clinics and enforced involvement in military campaigns fail to materialise – then anyone with half a brain will be able to see that the claims of the eurosceptics were false, and so stop paying them any further attention. [...]

I fully agree with Nosemonkey, although I would point out to the difference of the terms "EU-sceptic" (being sceptic of the institutional set-up and functioning of the EU) and "eurosceptic" (being against any form of European political co-operation or democracy) when talking about the subject.

As you may have noticed, I call myself "a europhile EU-sceptic", meaning that as a convinced European citizen I am in favour of a common European political space and a democratic system underlying any form of European decision making while being critical or sceptic about whether the present set-up of the EU institutions is the best way to achieve that.

So what I think is necessary is to criticise the institutions for how they actually work, for how they fail to achieve the self-set goals or the goals we think they should be able to achieve.

In order to do this, we need to be thorough, we need to be precise, and we need to do research on real documents or real-life activities on which we base our criticism. We don't need to blame the Commission if the Council is to blame. We don't need to attack bureaucrats when European Parliament rapporteurs screw up.

What we need to do is to run targeted hits against the failures while highlighting the successes. We need to strengthen those who are bringing the EU forward while campaigning against those who are just more of the same old problems.

So EU-scepticism can be helpful for the European Union, but only if we take it to a level where our critique is heard by those who are able to actually change something - and if it is just their own behaviour.

Why we might need EU-sceptic parties

Nosemonkey has made a strong point for EU-sceptic parties, even though he dislikes them:

"[...] With the EU still seriously under-reported in almost every member state, and with so few sceptical voices around to form an opposition - one of the most essential elements of any healthy democratic system - little wonder that there is so much public frustration. The worries of the people are not, in the eyes of the people, being addressed. [...]"

In principle, I agree.

But I have made my point in a comment to this article:

"The problem is that EU-sceptic parties’ critique to anything the EU does can easily be discredited as if it was just done to harm the Union, as a matter of principle and not as a constructive approach to make the Union better, even when they are right.

I think we will need heavily EU-critical parties with a true love to the basic idea of such a supranational entity. So far, this critique too often comes from the extremes, but it needs to comes from the centres of the political spectrum, to make it more credible.

But maybe those political forces will first need the EU-sceptic pitbulls to smooth the way before they get their window of opportunity to make the EU a better polity than it is today…"

What do you think? Go to Nosemonkey's article and join the discussion!

High speed eurosceptics: Open Europe blog takes 4 month to notice Europarl.TV

Wow, Eurosceptics are so fast...

Open Europe reports today on something that the European blogosphere (not just me) has started discussing four month ago.

Getting sick of eurosceptic blog trolls - Join the movement!

A comment by Christos-eblana on EU Commissioner Wallström's blog about the reactions the blog gets from eurosceptic trolls:

This blogg has become an EU hate blogg (ok, i understand if you do not like EU) but also a Margot Wallstrom hate blogg…You people are sad… Haven’t you anything else to do than to pour your bile onto a woman that was appointed by her country to be the country’s commissioner in EU…??This is her job….

You may not agree with what she does or says but can you at least one of you, post anthing constructive in here….?? anything that it might make her or any other person that reads this, rethink some things and maybe even change something in EU….like all NO voters and supporters, when you are asked what should be the Lisbon Treaty including in order to be better, you reply nothing, you have nothing to say…just idiotic posts like the above “i hate EU” etc….

Get a life i advise you, and if you have any constructive critism to make please do, if you don’t then go and get some sleep….

Start from this…..Why Lisbon is wrong, and how it could be better…any suggestions….?? anyone….??how can you ask for more democratic EU, but when we try to enpower the euro-parliament the base and source of a more democratic EU and give peole a voice (Mrs Wallstrom first of all with the citizents’ consultations and debate europe forums) you are full of bile and anger…

I am disgusted by your manner of your posts, i am wondering why they are on display since EU is undemocratic and does not allow people to express themselves…Is that what you call undemocratic…?? how much more democracy do you want…??

EU is here to stay, get used to it, get over it..instead of fretting and going hysterical about it, better think ways to make it work better for all of us…EU is a political and should be a political organisation as well,not just a big bazaar for trade only…otherwise only market and multinationals’ rules and laws will apply to us all,and how can this be good..??…Europe should unite politicaly in order to deal with challenges that we are facing already or we will face in the future.

I'd like to have more of that!

Get angry about bloody euroscepticism, and fill the European blogosphere with constructive approaches to reform the Union. Let's start to reform Margot's blog, and then spread the message of hope all over the place.

Come and join our movement, europhiles and eurorealists, eurohopefulls and euroreformists, euroenthusiastics and europrogressives, euromobiles and euroregionalists - come and join our movement!

Come and join!

Come and join!

Come and j...

...

(Oups, I woke up.)

The Czech EU-Council Presidency (3): The Eurosceptic President Václav Klaus is not the country

In a rather long article titled "The legend of the Eurosceptics" ("Die Legende von den Euroskeptikern"), the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), a major German quality newspaper, covers the alleged Euroscepticism of the Czech EU-Council Presidency that will take over the responsibilities from France in January 2009.

What the author Karl-Peter Schwarz is trying to prove is that Václav Klaus might be a Eurosceptic, as many report (e.g. here, here, here) but that this does not reflect the position of the Czech Republic as whole.

After citing opinion polls which confirm that Czech are even more positive towards the European Union, he remarks:

Indeed, quite frequently the declarations of Václav Klaus are distorted beyond recognition, just to be able to condemn them as populist and nationalist. But it remains without questions that he is an expressed opponent to a continued European integration. The debate on the goal and end of the European Union he wants to start is just an issue of minorities, also within the Czech Republic. And there is not much reason to conclude "pars pro toto" from the President to the "Czechs", their parliament or their government. However, it would also be wrong to neglect that the popularity of the Czech president consists in him being a trustworthy representative of the national interests [of the Czech Republic].

(own translation)

So if there is a divide between the popular opinion and the presidential declarations, a difference in the positions of the president and the government, we might face a situation in which unclear priorities within the Czech presidency might prevent the Union from moving on. This will not bring forward the Union, it will slow down politics and policy developments. In this sense, the Euroscepticism of Václav Klaus will be a problem for all of us, no matter how europhile "the Czechs" are.

I don't have a problem with debates on the future of the European Union, I am in favour of criticising undesirable developments (i.e. "eurocratism", "eurospeakism", "CAPism"), but I prefer to hear them from Europhiles than from hidden or even overt nationalists. But I am afraid we might get the latter rather than the first - and that the legend of the Eurosceptics will become a true story...

Member states vs. EU Commission on transparency and access to documents - updated

According to EUobserver, member states, and especially Finland and Sweden, are fighting against an EU Commission proposal that aims at reforming the public access to EU documents.

The Finnish Minister for EU affairs, Astrid Thors, is quoted (update: full speech, via Wobbing Europe):

"Our interpretation is that the commission proposes to exclude certain documents, such as documents related to the commission's own inspections. [...] The justification for this exclusion is that it would ease the workload of the commission, releasing them from the duty of assessing the documents one by one. But on the contrary, we believe that considering documents one by one is a cornerstone of this legislation. What we may lose in the end with a little bit more work, we win by having a good and sound administration"

In the Green Paper "Public Access to Documents held by institutions of the European Community - A review" of the Commission this reads as follows:

"Experience has shown that the handling of requests can be burdensome. The purpose of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 being to disclose information in the public interest, the institutions have to balance the interest in disclosure against the workload entailed by the handling of a request. A situation where important resources are devoted to a limited number of voluminous, complex or otherwise burdensome requests would not be in the public interest. Therefore, it might be useful to define criteria with regard to the proportionality of access requests."

I hope that Finland and Sweden will not remain the only countries who will rally against any move to restrict access to EU documents.

It is amazing how a supra-state organisations that is already almost totally intransparent for the wider public is still trying to limit external access to its documents. We need to act, because if we keep quiet, we will lose more and more democratic elements of the European Union, and in the end, the only things remaining will be a number invisible Eurocrats and the priggish cries of pan-European eurosceptics...

I would like to see the European parties to give a very clear position on these issues. I won't vote for anyone who doesn't make access to EU documents and EU transparency a major goal!