The European Union has just lived through a moment of high democratic intensity. “We debated CETA passionately in cafés, at office and in the markets. Who could have imagined that?” asked delighted Minister-President Paul Magnette, adding that Wallonia would for ever be changed by this “CETA moment”. The epicentre of the seismic political shock that so gripped institutional Europe was, indeed, Wallonia and, more broadly, the French-speaking part of Belgium (see EUROPE 11658). In reality, however, voices of discontent were raised in every country of the Union. Probably not in the mainstream and only in small segments of the population but, nevertheless, there was not a single media organisation in Europe that did not give wide coverage, in their main bulletins, to the stubborn resistance put up by the representatives of fewer than five million European citizens. Thanks to them, a genuine European issue – rather than some window-dressing to demonstrate how well a national leader is doing on the European stage – was headline news in every country of the EU. That’s major progress! And the fact that the issue was discussed not just in the cafés of Wallonia is a clear demonstration that it takes very little for the “European people that does not exist” – as many national political leaders like to claim – to become interested in European construction. And also to say what it thinks of the way that European construction is being abused.
For some, having the Union stymied by 1% of the population of Europe was quite simply wrong and was leading the European project along the road to perdition. They aren’t totally wrong and, in fact, they may be right. But herein lies the rub: that the elected representatives of some five million citizens can be criticised for thoroughly examining the potential implications that an agreement with Canada could have on those citizens and, in so doing, inspire genuine public debate is, in our democratic countries, simply nonsensical. “We do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business: we say he has no business here at all”, Pericles told the people of Athens. The French-speaking elected representatives in Belgium did their duty, and the public debate that resulted in Belgium and beyond, stretching across the Atlantic, is helping pave the way to a more democratic Europe, and more closely supervised globalisation. That the wind of revolt rose within sub-state assemblies is of absolutely no importance, each member state being free to determine its own constitutional make-up. Jean-Claude Juncker knows it and he knows, too, that the 500,000 Luxembourg citizens could quite legitimately have acted as a state in exactly the same way as Belgium’s French-speakers. And here we begin to see developing in today’s EU, like a sort of democratic dislocation, the idea that, sooner or later, we will have to come to the point where, within the EU, the voice of each and every European carries the same weight.
Former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt suggested, when there looked to be no way out of the impasse, that the Council of Ministers could easily get round the problem by deciding that the free-trade agreement with Canada was, after all, simply a trade agreement (see EUROPE 11654). That would mean that it would fall within the exclusive competence of the EU, only the European Parliament, therefore, having to approve it. He is correct since external trade is and has long been reserved to the EU – Article 113 of the Treaty of Rome stated so – and is not a matter for the member states. Why, then, did the member states accede to the demands of Germany and France that it be seen as a mixed agreement, thereby requiring ratification by thirty eight parliaments? No doubt because such agreements now go beyond trade alone and look to harmonise partners’ standards. The problem is that this excellent reason led to a collision with the ever more present reality of “democratic fatigue”.
The principle underlying trade negotiations conducted by the Commission in line with the mandate given to it by the Council of Ministers is secrecy. Nowadays, however, secrecy breeds suspicion. Professor Mario Telò is not wrong when he says that the “stiff opposition” to CETA occasioned above all “a ‘democracy versus technocracy’ discourse”. In short, rightly or wrongly (and the Barroso, Kroes and now Oettinger “affairs” can serve only to increase doubts and suspicion), the people of Europe no longer trust their political leaders, and national leaders face even greater opprobrium than those in the European institutions. “The crisis in politics is first and foremost a loss of trust in those whose responsibility it is to look after the common good and the general interest”, French bishops recently observed, in light of the way politicians in France conduct themselves. Their conclusion holds true for elsewhere, too. It is these same politicians who are making Europe, with the results we can all see. They are the ones who are responsible for appointing Barroso (Juncker a little less), they are the ones who forged the Commission along their own partisan lines. That is why Europe is rudderless, and ever less credible. Less and less esteemed by citizens who no longer see themselves reflected in it. That is the key message of the CETA saga. And the lesson to be drawn is clear: wanting to continue to deprive people of the right to say what Europe they want and the direction they want it to take can only lead them, one day, to revolt against it – as one, like a single people! Michel Theys