(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Friday 13. June, fittingly enough, it became clear that Ireland had voted no to the Lisbon Treaty. The result did not come unexpectedly, on the contrary. Such has been the process, an Irish yes would have been almost surprising. The Irish issue gives reason to reflect on whether decisions on the EU treaties are suitable for referendums, and whether the process of reforming the EU has been done in an orderly and democratic manner.
The starting point for the EU's last treaty has been that the EU needs to be reformed in order to become the arena people want; an arena where you solve the common problems you have in Europe. By expanding cooperation in both the number of countries and the number of policy areas, the EU has grown out of its original form. Both the original Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are intended to solve this problem by providing the EU with a new framework. A framework that opens up for new enlargements and enables the EU to solve tomorrow's challenges.
The Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty were the result of very compromise-oriented negotiations between the 27 countries. So far, the process has been orderly and democratic. The problem arose when the Member States were to ratify these treaties. It is up to the countries even if one wants to make this a decision for parliament or whether it should be put to the referendum. Unlike in 2005, this time all countries, with the exception of Ireland which has the Constitutional Constitution that a referendum is necessary, chose to vote for the Lisbon Treaty parliamentary.
Putting something to a referendum, and using direct democracy, is perceived as democratic. But direct democracy becomes undemocratic when there is only the right answer. It has only been possible to solve the institutional problems and reform the EU by voting yes to the Constitution in 2005 and yes to the Lisbon Treaty now. A no to the treaty has been a yes to a status quo, which means downtime and a host of unresolved and inhibiting institutional problems.
It was this that made it imperative to continue the reform work when the Dutch and the French voted no in 2005. The EU needs a new treaty. Because even if they said no, the institutional problems had to and must be solved. Of course, politics should be rooted in the people, but there is no point in voting when there is only one possible solution on the table. In this way, it becomes tempting to ask whether representative democracy is appropriate in institutional decisions.
Whatever the EU now chooses to do after the Irish refusal, the EU will be criticized for not being democratic. It is a paradox in itself, considering that what is the starting point for the debate is a treaty that will make the EU more democratic by giving the elected officials more power. But the thing is that if they move on with the Lisbon Treaty and drive across Ireland, the EU will be criticized for not listening to the people. If the process stops, they will be criticized for not listening to the rest of the people in Europe. In the five countries (Spain, Luxembourg, France, the Netherlands, Ireland), which have had referendums on the Constitution or the Lisbon Treaty, a total of 27.305.915 votes are cast, against 23.530.238 no votes. So a yes majority of four million. Taking into account that 19 countries have so far ratified the treaty, it is hardly an expression of democracy if 100 Irish people prevent the Lisbon Treaty from coming into force.
