Don't bet on Klaus caving in

The consensus out there (FT Blog, Daily Telegraph, the very interesting Seifert/Litobarski podcast, Centre for European Reform) seems to be that Czech president Václav Klaus will cave in to pressure from all quarters and complete his country's ratification of the Lisbon Treaty ahead of a general election in the UK. The election is likely to put a Conservative government into office that is deeply hostile to the treaty and has promised to hold a referendum in the UK if it has not been fully ratified.

Klaus is the last hope of the anti-Lisbon community, now that the Irish have voted Yes. But all over Europe, people are interpreting his latest pronouncement on the subject as doom for the No camp. Here it is:

"I am afraid that the British people should have been doing something really much earlier. There will never be another referendum in Europe"

Now in my book, that is pretty Delphic at best. He pointedly did NOT say that he was going to sign off on the treaty. He made a tangental allusion to a possible referendum "in Europe". Quite apart from the fact that many Brits don't consider themselves to be in "Europe" at all, this is not a clear or robust statement by any means. And don't forget that there is a court case ongoing in his country that could potentially put paid to the whole thing without his intervention. My own reading of this oracle is that he'd love to kill the treaty off himself before the UK election, so that there would be no need for a referendum.

I am no great Klaus expert, but everything I have read points to him being both a consummate maverick and a "troublemaker", always keen to be controversial. He loves the limelight.

Take my advice. Don't go out to the betting shop and put any money on Klaus signing before the Conservatives win the UK election next year. At the very least, he'll want to keep us on tenterhooks.

Open Europe is failing

I for one joyfully welcomed the creation of Open Europe, a eurosceptic think tank funded by leading UK business people. "At last", I thought, "a serious think tank, funded by serious people, taking an objective but critical approach to the EU, and challenging the more traditional Brussels think tanks like the European Policy Centre, the Centre for European Policy Studies, and others. Take a look at the vision statement. While I would criticise it in some minor respects on the substance and style, it optimistically (and I mean that positively) describes a realistic and not unattractive version of the Europe of the future.

But I have been very disappointed by Open Europe's anti-Lisbon Treaty campaign. Whereas the bulk of the organisation's research throws some light, albeit with a strong eurosceptic bent, on real issues and proposes real solutions, the pieces on the Lisbon Treaty, as well as the blog, seem to have been written by a political party and not a serious think tank. The most recent piece of research focuses on the amendments that the Irish government sought, but failed, to get included in the Lisbon Treaty. On the surface, it is detailed, well-researched, and powerfully argued. But anyone with the slightest interest in objectivity would immediately ask whether the Irish experience of treaty negotiation was so different from that of other Member States. Open Europe is a British outfit, so you would have thought that at least some UK material wouldn't be too hard to find and use. But this question does not appear anywhere in the paper. It's clearly meant more as a direct appeal to Irish voters in the context of the second Irish referendum than as a piece of research on how (un)satisfactory the process of treaty negotiation was for various countries. In fact, I can't find a single mention of any other Member State in the whole paper. In other words, this paper boldly takes the Irish experience of the negotiations out of all context, with a transparently tactical objective: getting the Irish to vote No. If Open Europe had been true to its ostensible mission, it would have provided such research for more Member States. OK, so you could argue that it was only worth investing the necessary resources in a paper on the Irish case because only Ireland was voting. But then they should at the very least have included some comparisons with other countries' positions.

In the months leading to the second Irish Lisbon referendum, the blog has plumbed the tabloid depths. Apparently the end (getting an Irish No vote) justified the means. Because I don't know how a serious think tank can take an honest look at its blog and not cringe with shame. Take a look at this piece on a Labour candidate's criticism of the UK government for failing to hold a referendum on the lisbon Treaty. It's fairly factual, but it does stray from a discussion on the merits of the Treaty into politics.

Then there's this post on the organisations that campaigned for a Yes vote in Ireland, seeking to discredit them by pointing out that they get funding from the Commission. When I questioned in a comment why funding from a body that has a treaty mandate to promote European integration should be considered improper, the Open Europe blog team was silent. Only an anonymous commenter accused me of being an "apologist". He/she obviously hasn't read this blog or my comments elsewhere.

This piece came back to the theme of the alleged "issues" with the Commission "paying organisations to come up with policy ideas to feed back into the Commission". Hang on a minute. So are they saying they would like the Commission to receive feedback only from business or from privately-funded think tanks like them? And why do they assume that the feedback the Commission is going to get is going to be "pro-EU", as if the pro- or anti-EU debate was really what people in Brussels spent their time worrying about every day? Why ignore the fact that a lot of the Commission's funding goes, for example, to environmental NGOs? The Commission does indeed get policy ideas from such organisations, and they have indeed been used in Commission policy-making. But these NGOs overwhelmingly provide input on policy, and not on an obsessive questioning of the EU's structural problems.

Here, Open Europe accused Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary of double standards for changing his mind on the Lisbon Treaty, conveniently ignoring the fact that its own white knight, Declan Ganley, had sworn he would retire from politics if snubbed at the European elections (which he was), only to return to the fray despite himself. A pretty obvious case of double standards in my book.

A really appalling example of tabloid journalism was the repetition of the claim made by the Irish Times that Commissioner Wallstrom had told Irish voters that the Lisbon Treaty was going to improve childcare. When Wallstrom's spokesman pointed out that the irish Times had got it wrong and that she had been talking about the Lisbon Agenda and not the Lisbon Treaty, did we get a retraction or an apology from Open Europe for the precipitous overreaction? Not a bit of it. We simply got more aggressive questions implying that the Commissioner deliberately sought to confuse Irish voters by making statements about the Lisbon Agenda in Ireland during run-up to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Don't expect people to treat you as a serious partner for discussions if you question their good faith.

There are plenty of good reasons to reject the Lisbon Treaty. In my opinion, the worst thing about it is that it is so unreadable. The significance of the changes it makes are lost in a morass of legalistic text that no voter could ever understand. It also marks a failure by the Member States to grasp the nettle of reform as tightly as they should have. Some of the positive aspects, such as the simplification of the legislative process or greater involvement by national parliaments, seem like cosmetic changes when set in the context of grandiose new positions and the extension of QMV.

But sadly, here, Open Europe cast aside all pretence that it actually believed that the Irish should be persuaded to vote against Lisbon because it is a bad treaty. Instead, it expressed the hope that posters urging the Irish to vote No in protest against the government would be successful. Is this the message of a serious think tank taking a fresh, oprtimistic look at how the EU can be reformed? No. It's the voice of the worst sort of political cynicism. Shame on them.

“It’s anybody’s right and privilege to change their mind”

So does the No camp in the Irish Lisbon referendum debate really believe that No means No? Just weeks after promising the Irish that he'd leave them alone if they didn't support his Libertas party in the European elections, Declan Ganley is singing a different tune. He says that he simply cannot stand the lies being told by the Yes camp. But weren't they largely the same things the Yes camp were saying last time around?

What I'm most curious to see is if he returns to his own old arguments about abortion, neutrality, and tax, or if he changes his tactics.

For the record, I am no great lover of the Lisbon Treaty. I'd just rather the debate be held on the basis of facts (on both sides). And in all objectivity, Ganley's first referendum campaign was the most striking example of a concerted effort at deception of the electorate.

WWII and nationalism

The anniversary of the start of the Second World War has been fairly extensively covered in the media and in the Brussels blogosphere. You can see some examples here, here, and here.

As I get older and wiser, I am increasingly struck by the way states use history, and the history of war in particular. To put my remarks into context, I'll start with what seem to me to be factual observations about WWII. Some can be applied to war in general:

1. War was/is declared by governments and not by popular votes.

2. Most countries involved in the Second World War experienced a degree of internal societal division about it, ranging from which side to fight on, to what form of political organisation to create to cope with the new reality.

3. Individual men and women have radically different personal circumstances and make personal choices for accordingly radically different reasons.

In this context, it is striking to see how many nationalists from the victorious countries (UK, Russia, and USA in particular) are seeking to use the anniversary to promote an image of their countries that distorts reality. Equally, commentators from "victim" countries such as Poland or France, seem to be promoting interpretations that emphasise the injustice of what was done to them and the sufferings that their people endured. Commentators from "losing" countries, such as Germany, it seems to me, have a health and objective approach to the role of the state in the war and the sufferings endured by "victim" countries ("we feel bad about it"), but are rarely seen to discuss the sufferings of their own people. While it is good form for a Pole to bemoan the sufferings of his people at the hands of the Nazis, it is not such good form for a German to bemoan the sufferings of his people at the hands of the RAF or the Red Army. Note that I am talikng here about civilian populations.

The result is more than a passing atmosphere of triumphalism in the victor countries every 5 or 10 years, a passing atmosphere of the culture of victimhood among occupied or persecuted populations, and a passing atmosphere of humble introspection among the Germans and Japanese in particular. It is in fact a fundamental divide in how war is viewed in our countries.

In France, they tend to talk about the suffering experienced, but gloss over the political leadership that founded Vichy France and the crimes of the collaborators. In Poland, they talk about the terrible destruction of the country and mind-boggling loss of life, but try not to discuss the fact that millions of Poles fought for the Soviets and for the Germans as well as for the Allies.

As someone with a background primarily rooted in the victor countries, I can remember being taught and believing that "thousands and thousands of our countrymen died so that we could have a free country", or "died for democracy", or "sacrificed their lives for us" or "died on the battlefields in defence of our allies", etc. Every Memorial Day in the U.S. and Day in the UK full of speeches about national heroes. They glorify "our brave soldiers", and by implication, "our great nation". No one asks why individual men actually fought. Many many thousands undoubtedly fought for money. Many fought because they wanted a good fight. Many fought because their mates were fighting. Many fought because they were afraid of the Germans or the Japanese. Many fought for the British Empire. Many fought against their will. Many fought because they had nothing better to do. Most of them probably had some sense that they were fighting for their families and their communities, and in maney cases even some sense that they were fighting "for their country". I'll wager that nothing but a tiny minority consciously fought "for democracy". Indeed, we entered the war because of an existential threat, and not because we already had a blueprint for a democratic post-war Europe. We didn't. And yet here we are, 70 years later, effectively hijacking these peoples' lives for political ends. We are de-humanising war.

Only the Germans publicly take responsibility for the massacre of Europe's Jewry, for the terrible crimes of the SA, SS, Gestapo, the Wehrmacht, and other arms of the state, as well as thousands of individuals. No conquering war heroes in German schoolbooks - only warnings about the horrors of war. There is no introspection in British or American schools to speak of about the crimes committed by "our boys". Crimes? What crimes? They were liberators!

The fact is that WWII, like any war, was a horrible, individual human tragedy on an unimaginable scale. People died, were made homeless, witnessed the stuff of nightmares. And those people had to live or die with their choices. The choices were forced on them by states. And yet in many cases, those same states have the audacity to claim the right to interpret and advertise those individual tragedies as part of a national narrative without the consent of the individuals concerned.

I have lost count of the number of times hat I have heard Brits express suspicions that the EU is really a clever way for the Germans to take over again. The reality is that the threat to peace in Europe comes from those countries who have sold a distorted version of their history to their people for political benfit, but at an enormous social price. It certainly does not come from Germany.

Germany has managed to re-discover a cultural and political identity that does not need the glorification of the state through long-dead war heroes who can't express their views. Germany has grown up in a way that most other European countries (and te USA) have not. And for that, Germany and the Germans deserve our special thanks and respect.

Turnout

The problem of voter turnout at European elections is debated ad nauseam every 5 years. And every 5 years, we get the same, tired old arguments. The fundamental problem with this debate is that there is no agreement on what the problem really is. In other words, the problem is that defining the problem is problematic. This is important because we can't find solutions until we know what problem it is we are trying to solve.

Let's look at the candidates. The problem is:

1. The low level of turnout

2. The fact that turnout is falling

3. The causes of low turnout



1. The problem is the low level of turnout.

I don't really buy this. Lots of strong democracies around the world have low voter turnout at elections. Low turnout does not per se threaten democratic government. Some countries (Belgium is among them) take the view that voting is a duty as well as a right, and make voting obligatory, so turnout is always high. They are not stronger democracies for it. Indeed, there is intuitively someting to be said for the argument that high voter turnout is a negative reflection on how the voters feel they are being governed. Iran is a good example. Turnout has suddenly spiked - not because Iranian democracy is fundamentally healthier and stronger than it ever has been, but arguably for the exact opposite reason. In the French presidential election before the last one, turnout rose dramatically when it became clear that there was a risk that Jean-Marie Le Pen would be elected. Again, high turnout was associated with a problem, and not with enthusiasm for Jaques Chirac. I am not saying that high turnout is always to be seen in a negative context, but it is clearly simplistic to say that high is good and low is bad.



2. The problem is the fact that turnout is falling.

This makes more sense because there is meaning in the trend, but is not all that convincing either, because it boils down to a similar argument about low turnout being undesirable.



3. The problem is the causes of low turnout.

Ah, but what are those causes? I can think of four, or perhaps five, main lines of inquiry:

a) Are voters so satisfied with the way they are governed that they don't see the point in voting?

b) Are voters so dissatisfied with the way they are governed that they protest by not voting?

c) Are voters so ignorant of the importance of European elections that they don't see the point in voting?

d) Are voters, whether satisfied or dissatisfied or ignorant, so convinced that their vote will not make a difference that they don't see the point in voting?

e) Are voters so bored by European elections that they don't want to vote?



a) is an argument that doesn't get much in the way of media coverage, but is worth taking a look at. It does seem possible that in some countries, where support for EU membership is very high (especially new Member States), voters don't want much to change and therefore aren't motivated to vote. It must be remembered that voting is not a long-entrenched social habit in many of these countries, and that they have been through two generations of a political regime that did not encourage political activism. Voter turnout rose during the years of political strife that accompanied the fall of the system. Could it be that old Communist-era habits are returning, encouraged by the new-found comfort and stability of EU membership? I am not convinced by such arguments, because it seems to me that they boil down to d) rather than a). After all, you might just as well argue that people who are happy with the way they are governed would be expected to vote for the status quo.



b) is the argument that gets most attention in the media. Low turnout, we are constantly told, is a reflection of the poor regard in which the EU is held. As a protest against the EU, people don't vote, or vote anti-EU - hence the rise of the BNP, UKIP and Conservative vote in the UK, for example. But this argument, while intuitive, seems to me to be just as flawed as a). As shown by the Iranian and French examples, a serious crisis of government would result not in low turnout, but in a spike in turnout. People vote most when they want real change. Real change is not achieved by abstention. The political message sent by voter apathy is apt to be misunderstood and misinterpreted by politicians bent on achieving their political ends. Voters know this, and will send clear messages in times of crisis.



It is hard to deny the truth of c). Voters don't know much about the EU system. They don't understand what role the European Parliament plays in that system. This seems likely to be partly because of the complexity of that system, but partly also because of the failure of politicians and the media to explain the importance of the elections to voters. However, I am not left satisfied with this argument either. If voters voted more when they understood the system better, then why do they vote in U.S. presidential elections, with the ludicrous electoral college system? Why do they vote in Iran, with its unfathomably complex political system? In my mind, this argument is really powerful only when linked with d).



So d) also has an undeniable element of truth to it. Voters will be much more likely to vote if they believe that their vote can make a difference. This is the dynamic that drove the Chirac landslide vs Le Pen and drove Iranians to vote for change in their tens of millions. And totalitarian systems tend to produce apathetic voters, because there is no realistic prospect that the elections will change the system. But this argument is not sufficient by itself either. Firstly, the EU is clearly not a totalitarian system. Furher, why, then, did voters in Iran not vote in such great numbers in earlier elections? Indeed, does a vote for the president of Iran really make a big difference to the system? In France, why did voters not vote in the earlier round of the presidential election?



To me, e) is the most convincing argument. Voters will vote when there is something exciting going on - a change in government, an extremist to kick out of office, an exciting new Obama figure inspiring hope and promising a fresh approach. As shown by these examples, excitement is not always about supporting a popular incumbent or system. It can just as easily be a negative reaction. And excitement is not dependent on lots of information, or a realistic chance of change. Excitement is intangible and not scientifically measurable. It is emotional, human. And the failure to produce excitement lies not with the structural flaws of the EU system, or with the security that comes from EU membership, or voter ignorance. It lies with those whose functions are capable of producing excitement: politicians and the media.



In summary, if low voter turnout is a problem (and I think this is not as clear as it seems to be to many), then the cause is not one that can be easily identified. Commentators are always eager to explain the motivations of voters, but rarely take a systematic approach to analysing the problem or its causes. These will be different for different countries, and indeed, for different individuals. But I have not seen any press reports of low turnout in countries that nonetheless experienced a high degree of public excitement about the elections. Until we have politicians who can inspire us and media that are willing to break with the tradition of talking down European elections, we will doubtless continue to have low turnout, and more depressingly, the rather pointless and sterile debates that go along with it.