Tag Archives: EU Reform

Cameron, the Tories’ confusing EU politics, and a chance for reform

Posted on by

So, today’s the last chance for the referendumites, and all thanks to the Tories (yep, the self-same Tories who would have had several more seats in the Commons right now if it weren’t for the splintering of their vote by the likes of UKIP at the last general election – if the referendum bid fails by 19 votes, I’ll be giggling rather a lot…).

But the real question is, why is Cameron still backing a referendum? It naturally made sense after Labour had foolishly promised one on the old constitution – the Tories could do nothing but offer the same, or risk re-opening old eurosceptic divisions within the party. But once Labour and the Lib Dems backed down after the shift from being a constitution to a reforming treaty with more or less the same effect – likely the only way it could get past the decidedly misinformed British public* – what was Cameron’s thinking in continuing to back a referendum?

Cameron: Hunting for a coherent EU policy?Initially, I thought it was obvious – he reckoned there was no chance of a referendum being granted, so it would have been a great bit of anti-Labour propaganda to throw out to the primarily eurosceptic party faithful. But now I’m not so sure it’s that simple.

You see, if Cameron had any sense of international realpolitik, he’d realise that he needs to maintain good relations with as many EU political leaders as he possibly can if he’s going to have any hope of doing deals in Brussels when he becomes Prime Minister. It’s basic diplomacy – act nice towards people, they’re more likely to accommodate your wishes. (And this applies just as much, if not more, if you want to pull out of the EU – if you’re an EU withdrawalist, make the case to the people at home, don’t piss off our European cousins. Because they’re the people you’re going to have to end up making all those lovely bilateral trade agreements with when you get your successful pull-out, and you surely want to ensure you get the best deals for your newly “independent” Britain by not pissing them all off.)

Yet since becoming Tory leader all Cameron’s done, on the rare occasions he’s ventured into the field of EU policy, is indicate he’s all up for antagonism. First he started going on about pulling Tory MEPs out of the huge centre-right EPP group in the European Parliament (meaning, as far as I can tell, that they’d be able to have even less impact on proceedings and lose a number of committee posts), now he seems to have been going all out to get an amendment in today’s vote on the Lisbon Treaty to secure that blasted referendum again.

This all plays great to the eurosceptic crowd at home, no doubt (though not great enough to gain a great many prodigal UKIPers to return to the fold, it would seem), but pisses off everyone on the continent – even those who are sympathetic to Tory doubts over the current direction of the EU. If/when Cameron becomes PM, he’s going to have even fewer friends on the continent than Gordon Brown – who at least our European cousins have a certain amount of respect for, while distrusting him, considering him supremely arrogant, and being annoyed with his lack of participation in EU affairs.

But now, the day of the crunch vote, there is apparently a genuine chance that the sums could just add up and that Cameron could get enough bodies behind him (with Labour and Lim Dem defections and abstentions) to get the referendum amendment passed after all. (For the record: I think this is still unlikely, but with Lib Dems openly rebelling and a number of Labourites likely to vote with the Tories as well, you never know…)

This makes little sense to me. The EU is not a contentious enough issue to get real votes behind it at general elections – if it were, William Hague would have won back in 2001 with his “Seven Days to Save the Pound” scaremongering nonsense. This little fight over a referendum was a great idea for a bit of domestic political propaganda when there was no chance of winning, but Cameron seems to be genuinely trying to get this amendment passed.

If he succeeds, three things will happen:

1) The UK will not be able to pass the Lisbon Treaty, setting the EU back another 2-7 years (it took two years to renegotiate the old constitution into the Lisbon Treaty, and that was in any case the result of five years of negotiations following the failure that was the Treaty of Nice back in 2001, which was meant to sort out all the problems the Lisbon Treaty is only now tackling)

2) The rest of the EU will be mortally pissed off with the UK in general, and Cameron in particular

3) There will still not be any procedure in place for an EU member state to leave the Union

The last of these is the most important in trying to work out what Cameron’s all about. After all, he’s allowed William Hague to spout off about how any future Tory government would hold a referendum on not just the Lisbon Treaty, but any subsequent EU treaty. That, surely, should have been enough?

But, of course, EU referenda are a slippery slope. Have one on a treaty, the next thing you know you’ll be having ones on membership – just as the likes of Jimmy Goldsmith’s old Referendum Party and their longer-lasting rivals UKIP have been pushing towards for over a decade, and as the pro-EU Lib Dems under Nick Clegg are now calling for in the hope a (likely) victory for the pro-membership lobby will shut up the sceptics once and for all.

Cameron’s cranking up of the rhetoric over the EU (not actually saying he’s against the Lisbon Treaty, you’ll note, but not saying anything in its favour in the full knowledge that the entire Tory press is against the thing) has been keeping the referendum campaign the most high-profile it’s been for years. Yet, unlike during the referendum campaigns in France and the Netherlands, there has not been a concurrent increase in public debate about the EU itself, or of public knowledge about the thing the referendum is meant to be about.

It’s all about the referendum itself – the casting of votes. The illusion of participation. It’s populism, plain and simple. The thing the referendum is about doesn’t matter in the slightest.

But wait – what if he succeeds and the referendum is called? The likely result is a big “no” to the Lisbon Treaty, based on brainwashing and/or misinformation by the eurosceptic – and euroignorant – press (see * below again) combined with the public’s lack of real interest in the EU.

And therein lies the cunning plan. Because that would enable Cameron to draw out the whole populist process for years with countless follow-up referenda. It would also provide a handy buffer against the withdrawalists by taking away the Lisbon Treaty’s introduction of procedures by which a member state can quit the EU**, meaning he can safely play around without the threat of having to take the EU-bashing to the logical extreme and giving up membership.

Of course, this would still piss off all the other EU member states no end. Cameron would position himself as the pariah of Europe, pissing everyone off by his obstructionism and stalling EU reform yet further.

But this could, in itself, be a good thing. Back when the Lisbon Treaty was still called (and still was) a constitution, from time to time I would hope that the thing got completely rejected time and again, forcing the EU’s bigwigs to take a step back and start again from scratch – preferably building some kind of multi-speed or multi-tier union in its place.

And although Cameron’s barely said a word about his real thinking on the EU, he did drop a few hints that he was after radical reform a year ago – albeit very vague hints that met with almost no response bar criticism, except from the usual suspects.

Cameron’s approach even at the time struck me as (almost) an advocation of a multi-tier Europe – exactly what I’d like – and his obstructionism over the Lisbon Treaty (and all subsequent EU treaties) could be just what we need to get real reform.

Because for the last decade or more, the debate over EU reform has been dominated by one goal – how to make the existing EU structures work after the expansion to 27 member states? This has always been the wrong question. It shouldn’t have been “how do we get what we’ve got to work?”, but “is what we’ve got the right option?” – and I’ve long been of the opinion that it’s not. I am, after all, pro-EU – but not pro-this EU. The only trouble is, no one with any influence has been advocating such an approach, and everyone with any power has apparently been happy to just go with the EU flow – muddling along and making do.

Of course, this is reading far too much into what Cameron’s been up to. He’s not a chap to make his aims clear, as anyone who’s been trying to keep tabs of mostly nonexistent Tory policy over the last year or so will be more than aware. But sod what’s best for Britain, a British referendum – and a no vote in that referendum – could well be the best thing for the EU…

* Not elitism (for a change) – the old constitution was 250-odd pages of complex legal jargon that was almost impossible to follow; the Lisbon treaty is a similar number of short paragraphs referring to numbered sub-clauses in umpteen previous European treaties in order to amend them, and thus even more difficult to comprehend. Plus, of course, the dishonesty of the eurosceptic press and hyperbole of eurosceptic campaigners is hardly making life easier.

** Despite the eurosceptic attacks on Nick Clegg over his calls for a vote on EU membership, after the Lisbon Treaty is ratified this would give them their first ever chance to get what they want. Their lack of enthusiasm for his plan is, I reckon, largely because they know that they can’t win that battle just yet…

In defence of MEPs

Posted on by

Yes, I’ve been slagging them off a lot over the last couple of days – but there are always two sides to everything. Jon Worth makes a lot of sensible points about the current expenses scandal:

MEPs get the same pay as MPs in Westminster, have to work in 3 places in 3 countries… The MEPs’ expenses total about £100 million a year, but there are 785 MEPs, each of whom pays normally 4 staff… The total staff of the EP as a whole – MEPs, assistants, secretariat – is similar in size to a small-ish UK government department… while the UK’s Department of Work and Pensions employs more staff that all the EU institutions in total…

No facts, no figures. Neither [the Times] nor Chris Davies MEP have listed how much of this £100 million is supposed to have been used in a fraudulent manner. The Times – lazily – just assumes all of it is.

All very fair, all very valid. Go read the whole thing.

The only addition I would make is to stress that the apparent lack of transparency in MEPs’ finances is hugely damaging to both the European Parliament and to the EU as a whole. The perennial eurosceptic claims that the EU is riddled with corruption are, I hope, an exaggeration (after all, the lack of sign-off on the EU budget year after year is always due to irregularities on the part of the individual member states, not the EU itself). But without complete financial transparency and openness, there’s no way we can tell.

As the EU’s token bit of democracy, the European Parliament should be setting an example. An update to Annex I of the EP’s Rules and Regulations, specifically Article 4, would seem to be necessary:

Pending the introduction of a statute for Members of the European Parliament to replace the various national rules, Members shall be subject to the obligations imposed on them by the legislation of the Member State in which they are elected as regards the declaration of assets

These current regulations, it would seem, are not good enough. Where is the promised statute replacing the mish-mash of evidently inadequate national rules? Every MEP should be subject to a detailed register of interests. Every MEP should have to give an account of what they are using their expenses for.

We don’t need an account of every paper clip and biro bought. We do, however – especially after these latest accusations – need a proper, watertight reassurance that our representatives aren’t ripping us off. We need confidence that we are being properly represented by hard-working, committed and honest men and women, or the whole system falls down. As Mill noted,

representative institutions are of little value, and may be a mere instrument of tyranny or intrigue, when the generality of electors are not sufficiently interested in their own government to give their vote… Popular election thus practised, instead of a security against misgovernment, is but an additional wheel in its machinery

Turn-out in European elections is low enough already. Give the electorate the impression that their MEPs are corrupt, it will become even lower. And without the people, the whole project will fall down. Mill again:

Political machinery does not act of itself. As it is first made, so it has to be worked, by men, and even by ordinary men. It needs, not their simple acquiescence, but their active participation

Come on, EP/EU – get your act together. The majority of MEPs are undoubtedly hard-working and honest. Give us some way of seeing that this is the case, and give it to us sharpish.

Update: Certain Ideas of Europe brings up something I’d forgotten to mention:

most people inside the European bubble blame the scandal on the astonishing differences in the salaries currently received by MEPs, who are paid the same as their counterparts in their respective national parliaments. That will change after the 2009 elections, but for the moment that means some ex-Communist nations pay MEPs some €850 a month, while the best paid deputies, from Italy, receive more than €12,000 a month.

On free speech in the European Parliament

Posted on by

Quick question: why is there so little condemnation from the pro-EU camp of the European Parliament’s recent actions in trying to stifle eurosceptic proponents of referenda on the Lisbon Treaty?

To redress the balance: I’m pro-EU and I’m anti-referendum – and I think this is an absolute disgrace.

The evidence of double-standards is palpable – people and MEPs protesting against things the EU machine wants to do are stifled and harassed; those who protest about other issues are allowed to continue on their way.

Yes, a bunch of eurosceptics dressed up in chicken costumes to highlight calls for referenda because they mistakenly think that the Lisbon Treaty is in some way more significant than Nice, Amsterdam, Maastricht, etc. etc. is ridiculous and stupid. Eurosceptic MEPs launching long speeches and using the regulations of the European Parliament to try and get their point across may be frustrating. But both of these are perfectly within the rules.

And, of course, most importantly it’s why they were elected. You don’t vote for a eurosceptic MEP for them to faithfully go along with everything the EU wants. You vote for them because you want them to oppose things you disagree with – even if that does include the entire EU project.

Yes, they may be irritating. Yes, many of them may be tits (Kilroy, I’m looking at you). But they are elected representatives who are doing what they were elected to do. Preventing them from doing this is not only to breach the rules of the European Parliament – it is effectively to disenfranchise their voters.

What happened to Friends of Europe Secretary-General Giles Meritt’s eminently sensible advice for the EU to start engaging with eurosceptics to help identify areas for reform? What happened to the European Commission’s supposed plan to the promise to listen that came with the “New Commission approach to dialogue and communication with European citizens”?

If the EU is ever going to get widespread and active popular support, it needs to show that it is democratic and that it listens. This is something I kept returning to in my dLiberation coverage for openDemocracy last year. It’s something that various EU bodies have said themselves countless times over the last decade or so. Yet time and time again, the EU gives the impression that it will only ever listen to those who agree with it.

Stifling dissent is not the way to win support – it’s the way to harden opposition and drive more people into your opponents’ camp. Shame on you, European Parliament.

Update: Oh, and this. If you want people to support the political system you’re trying to build up, you need openness and transparency – not secrecy and corruption – from your elected representatives.

The European Parliament is meant to be the jewel in the EU’s crown – constantly referred to as the proof that the organisation is democratic and accountable.

It needs to get its act in gear, if you ask me…

Brown, Miliband and the EU

Posted on by

Well, he may have ignored it for months, but now it’s finally taking shape – although it hardly seems to be overly well thought-out.

So, was Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s choice of Bruges to deliver his first EU policy speech symbolic? It is, after all, the scene of the moment when Maggie Thatcher allowed her (entirely understandable) irritation with the then EEC to bubble over into hyperbole and hysteria back in 1988, inspiring the formation of the staunchly anti-EU thinktank the Bruges Group in the process.

Well, considering Miliband quoted the Iron Lady at length in a subsection to his speech headed “Twenty Years on from the Bruges Speech”, you can be certain that he was at least aware of the potential symbolism. But how different is his language, his approach?
Continue reading →

The problems of democratic reform

Posted on by

Ah yes – that’s a nice easy thing to try and summarise, isn’t it? Nonetheless, I gave it pop – trying to wrap up the dLiberation blog I’ve been writing/editing for openDemocracy for the last few weeks. Warning: it’s a bit long, and probably rather confused in places…

Other recent pieces include: European opinion (or the lack thereof), Better the devil you know? (on the impracticalities of constant referenda, and the compromises needed for democracy to function), Scientific representation and democracy (on how no representative system can ever be truly representative).

And, on a different theme, these may be of interest: No one cares about the EU (on the “referendum rally”), A distinct lack of interest (yet more about how no one cares about the EU).

Or, of course, if you’ve missed me that much you could just go and check out the rest of the coverage.

Posting is likely to be light here for another week thanks to insane workloads, but back soon.

On the reform treaty and a referendum (again)

Posted on by

The European Parliament last weekend

So, the deal’s been done – and it would be rather amiss of a blog focussing on European politics not to have another quick look, even though we’ve all known this was pretty much inevitable for months now. The only real wildcard was Poland – once they got placated, nothing was going to be allowed to get in the way. So now the only question is will the people of Europe (by which I mean us dear Brits) kick up enough of a fuss before the formal signing to throw a final spanner in the works of a treaty that’s been almost a decade in the making? (The reform treaty, after all, is designed to rectify the self same problems that 2001′s Treaty of Nice was originally supposed to solve…)

Matthew Parris gets it pretty much spot on on the whole issue of a UK referendum. He’s very good indeed on why suggesting a referendum in the first place was a fundamentally silly and unnecessary idea (like many of those from the government over the last decade, in fact), before going on:

“it’s my belief that though you can get some of the British angry about constitutional questions for some of the time, and a few of them angry for most of the time, you will never get many of them angry for much of the time. We are not hugely interested in constitutions. That’s why we don’t have one. We tend to drift away from arguments about abstract reasoning.”

A very vocal minority of EU-sceptics would have us believe that ordinary men and women on the street genuinely care about loss of sovereignty, or about being called “citizens” as well as “subjects”. Yet the vast majority simply don’t care.

What most people care about is how much money they’ve got in the bank, not strange arguments about whether decisions are best taken at a national or European level – because most people have just about as much connection to and understanding of what goes on in Westminster and Whitehall as they do the workings of the EU. (Plus, if you start getting het up about Brussels passing laws without sufficient scrutiny, sooner or later you’re going to have to face the fact that this happens in Westminster far more often than in Brussels. If you start arguing that the EU is too far removed from the people of Britain to take decisions for them, you’ll end up with people in Yorkshire or Cornwall asking why a bunch of people in London should have a say over their lives.)

As Parris notes, you ask people if they want a say, they’ll say yes whether they really care or know about an issue or not. That’s where the support for the referendum has come from. But now that the reform treaty is a done deal, the momentum will fade. If Gordon can last out to the formal signing next year, public interest will have drooped so significantly that everyone will instead be wondering what all the fuss was about. As Mark Mardell points out, Brown “calculates that while the Conservatives’ charge that he doesn’t trust the people may do some short-term damage, it’s unlikely to still be hurting him come the time for an election”.

And so the EU project continues its sluggish reform. Because despite the whoops and yells from the usual suspects, the reform treaty if anything reduces the EU’s ability to further integrate. Yes, qualified majority voting is extended in some areas, but so is the ability of the European Parliament – and national parliaments – to influence legislation, and – for the first time – it brings in ways for member states to actually leave the union. The proverbial six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Because, you see, that’s what happens when you try and get a compromise between 27 different interest groups on a document designed in committee – the end result is bland and uninspiring, with little of any real substance or radicalism about it. Which is precisely why opponents of the EU have had to shift the argument on to the referendum issue – a simpler, easier to understand issue on which everyone thinks they know what they’re talking about, and about which it’s a lot easier to get excited than a massively long legal text that hardly anyone really understands, and that’s deliberately so vague it can be interpreted in any number of ways.

(Apologies for the lack of posts here of late – they’ve all been going up at dliberation, where I’ve spent the last few days trying to do statistical analysis to work out the representativeness of the Tomorrow’s Europe poll, and increasingly coming to the opinion that the EU will never and probably should never be a democracy… On which more, no doubt, later…)

Posting from Brussels

Posted on by

If I’ve been a bit quiet recently, it’s because I’ve been insanely busy. This is being written from a hotel alongside the European Parliament buildings in Brussels. I’m slightly tipsy on free wine, and yet rather wishing I was back in Blighty, tucked up in bed with a nice single malt and awaiting tomorrow’s France/England semi-final grudge match with relish, rather than with the vague trepidation that I might miss it.

Anyway, I’ve been covering my escapades today over at dLiberation – and excitement they do make. As such:

Off to Brussels – this morning’s confusion. Random quote: “I’ve still had no confirmation that I’m registered to attend, and have had no confirmation of the schedule, location, or anything”

On not having the foggiest – written on Eurostar on the way over. Random quote: “the events of the coming weekend remain about as clear to me as the view from the train”

Utterly unscientific first impressions – written from the bowels of the European Parliament’s press room. Random quote: “A form of torture by multilingualism.”4

Other than that, there’s been some good stuff on dLiberation over the last few days, if I say so myself (to those who aren’t aware, that’s what I’ve been busy editing for openDemocracy for the last few weeks). To wit:

A real compromise on the EU presidency – the first of a four-part series from the Director of the European Studies Centre at St Antony’s College, Oxford

The cosmopolitan problem – a look at European identity from Our Kingdom editor Jon Bright

The problems of deliberative polls: legitimacy – another critique from Professor Lupia of the University of Michigan

“The Linchpin of democratic consent” – something from me on William Hague’s speech to the Tory Party Conference

The purpose of deliberative democracy, part 2 – legitimacy – more from Professor Thompson of Harvard and Dr Guttmann of the University of Pennsylavnia

The EU and national identity, part 1 – something from me on, well, the EU and national identity…

Democracy for the sake of it? – the first part of a series on how the European Parliament functions, from Paul Davies – a fellow Sharpener type, and formerly of the Electoral Reform Society’s Make My Vote Count blog

Deliberative democracy: pros and cons – a handy overview from Professor John Gastil of the University of Washington, the editor of The Deliberative Democracy Handbook

The European Commission’s communications headache – the Commission’s new communications strategy in brief

Democracy’s risky return – Dr ian O’Flynn, Lecturer in Political Theory at the University of Newcastle, on the deliberative democracy debate

Why the nation state? – a brief piece by me on a pet topic – why are we so obsessed with national boundaries for units of governance?

A discovery about the European public sphere – me again on an interesting statistic that suggests there’s more of a European demos than we’d been led to believe

Deliberative democracy and efficiency – 30-year veteran of the European Commission and Visiting Professor at the Central European University in Budapest Thomas Glaser looks to history for some clues about the chances of deliberative democracy making an impact

The purpose of deliberative democracy, part 3: public spirit – Professor Thompson and Dr Guttmann return with more easy-to-understand political theory

The subsidiarity problem, part 1 – something from me at an idea that’s meant to lie at the heart of the EU, but rarely seems to

Decisions must be taken as closely as possible to the citizen” – more on subsidiarity’s failings

The purpose of deliberative democracy, part 4: respect – Thompson and Guttmann’s penultimate part

“Substantially different” vs. “Substantially equivalent” – who’s right on the Reform Treaty, the government or the European Scrutiny Committee? I have a quick gander

Democracy for the sake of it? Part 2 – Paul Davies returns with more accessible European Parliament goodness

The EU in microcosm? Comparing the Tomorrow’s Europe poll with another recent investigation – which revealed something I reckon’s rather significant

The purpose of deliberative democracy – conclusion – Professor Thompson and Dr Guttmann wrap up

Trying to bridge the gap – Tip-top Poland blogger The Beatroot on the clash between local, national and European concerns

Two days to go – the topics for discussion – some oddness in the Tomorrow’s Europe poll’s focus

Citizens’ consultations or deliberative polls? – The organiser of the British wing of last spring’s UK citizen consultation weighs up the pros and cons

Publicity, apathy and ignorance – Me on the problem of creating effective PR campaigns for EU initiatives

The problems of deliberative polls: effects – Professor Lupia returns

The problems of deliberative polls: Representativeness – Professor Lupia identifies more potential pitfalls

Deliberative polls: the basics – Professors Fishkin and Luskin outline their technique

Deliberative polls: Representativeness – Professors Fishkin and Luskin again

Deliberative polling: Practicalities – Professors Fishkin and Luskin once again, wrapping up their overview

See? I’ve been a busy boy.

dLiberation – EU democracy latest

Posted on by

Lots of goodness over at dLiberation since my last roundup:

The problem of public ignorance, continued – more from me on the difficulty of asking the public for its opinion on something as complex as EU reform

A real compromise on the EU presidency, part 1 – an intriguing argument for an alternative reform from the Director of the European Studies Centre at St Anthony’s College, Oxford – to be continued…

The cosmopolitan problem – a look at the difficulties of forging a pan-European sense of identity from the editor of openDemocracy’s Our Kingdom

The problems of deliberative polls: Legitimacy – Professor Lupia of the University of Michigan returns with part two of his critique

“The linchpin of democratic consent” – a look from me at the Tories’ odd reasoning behind their support for a referendum on the EU reform treaty (with more to follow…)

The purpose of deliberative democracy, part 2 – legitimacy – Professor Thompson of Harvard and Dr Guttmann of the University of Pennsylvania return with the second part of their introduction to the theories underlying deliberation

EU democracy round-up

Posted on by

It’s begun to get all exciting and hectic over at dLiberation, so what have you missed if you’re not popping over there already?

First, academics being academics, a bit of a fight’s broken out, with the chaps behind deliberative polling – James Fishkin of Stanford and Robert Luskin of the University of Texas – coming back to defend themselves in vehemnet style: part 1 and part 2. More to follow soon – but it’s an interesting debate, and one that goes to the heart of the matter – if you claim a scientific basis for your methods, you need to defend them to scientific standards.

There’s also an interesting defence of EU democracy from Richard Corbett MEP, which makes a good case for the democratic deficit being a myth.

Plus a quick look from me at Margot Wallstrom’s latest calls for a wide-ranging debate on the future of the EU which will apparently have “no preconditions, no taboos”.

Then there’s a nice piece from Giles Merritt of the Friends of Europe on the need for more euroscepticism, with some well-considered arguments that struck quite a chord with me. In fact, it looks like there could well be a long-needed shift towards introspection and sensible, constructive criticism coming in to some sections of the pro-EU community. Which can only be a good thing. I hope.

Finally, for those who still aren’t too sure what deliberative democracy is all about, the first in a series of posts explaining the thing from Dennis Thompson of Harvard and Amy Guttman of the University of Pennsylvania.

More coming soon – including, to redress the balance a bit – something from Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP and co-chair of the eurosceptic Independence and Democracy Group in the European Parliament.

More European democracy goodness

Posted on by

First up, a lovely interview with me and openDemocracy‘s Editor-in-Chief Tony Curzon Price, explaining what we’re trying to do, is up now at the Tomorrow’s Europe site.

And now, a handy round-up of dLiberation posts over the last few days:

How to reform Europe without asking the French – an intriguing proposal from reader Alex Burr, and not one that I’d heard before. Well worth a look.

Turkey and democratic majorities – a quick look at the perennial problem of democracy: to what extent should the majority view be followed?

The EU’s democracy problem – an interesting take on voter apathy and disillusionment in the EU, from reader “mcconeb”

The democratic risk – pondering why, despite an EU-wide desire for a referendum on the new reform treaty, most EU member states are not going to give the people a vote

The EU: More democratic than the US? – an argument I’ve made before, comparing the European Commission to the US presidency and cabinet

The problems of deliberative polls: Outcomes – Professor Arthur Lupia of the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research launches an attack on the Fishkin model of deliberative polling at the heart of the Tomorrow’s Europe poll. Part 1 of 4.

Reforming the European Parliament – EU blogger and former President of the Young European Federalists Jon Worth has a proposal to make the European Parliament more representative

The problem of public ignorance, part 1 – the first in a four-part series from me, looking at the difficulty of the public reaching informed decisions about the EU

Coming soon, Fishkin responds to Lupia as verbal fisticuffs break out in the world of academia, and Richard Corbett MEP weighs in with a sterling defence of EU democracy.

EU referenda and reform

Posted on by

A couple of new posts from me over at dLiberation:

Jens-Peter Bonde and EU referenda, looking at the reformist take of the leading EU-sceptic Member of the European Parliament

and

Giuliano Amato and democratic EU reform, giving a handy overview of the unusual approach of the Italian Interior Minister (and former Vice-President of the Convention on the Future of Europe, which drafted the controversial constitution)