It might not be the best thing to start a post with, but I’ve come to a conclusion: the citizens’ initiative, currently being fleshed out by various civil servants and politicians in Brussels, is not really all that much about citizens. My conclusion has been prompted by the changes that the Council of Ministers has proposed to the draft regulation that will set out how the whole thing will work.

“… and enhances further the democratic functioning of the Union by providing inter alia that every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union and that not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.”

Extract from the proposal for a Regulation on the citizens’ initiative.

A bit of background first: the Lisbon Treaty included a provision for a citizens initiative, essentially being a petition by individual citizens to get whatever the issue at stake might be, considered by the Commission. Lisbon however, left most of the detail for later. Now is later, and the details are here.

With the current Council proposals, a minimum number of citizens (in proportion to the number of MEPs from a state), in at least one third of member states, will need to sign the initiative for it to be accepted. I don’t know about you, but I certainly would struggle as an ordinary European Citizen to pull off something like that. Even with a movement of some form behind the issue being dealt with, it’d take a lot of international coordination (I’d say more than Twitter could achieve) to get the initiative off the ground, let alone successfully submit it to the Commission. There’s also a slightly sinister provision that, “the Commission should reject the registration of proposals which would be manifestly against the values of the Union.” From a legal perspective, that’s not too controversial a statement. It means that initiatives which contradict the positive and sunny opening articles of the treaties—where all the good things the EU wants to do and thinks are important are laid down—would be dismissed without the Commission having to publish the initiative on its website, or give it any serious thought at all. From a non legalese point of view though, the language is unfortunate. Politically, it could be thrown back at the EU, for it reserving the right to dismiss things based on values that it, not the people, decides. And to citizens thinking of organising an initiative, it is as clear as mud in its meaning.

The citizens initiative, as it is being proposed now, needs someone with a fairly well developed knowledge of how the EU works. Most people don’t have that sort of knowledge about their own political systems, but they aren’t barred at the door for that ignorance. In Scotland, ordinary people (am I using that term too much now?) can start or participate in a petitions system which triggers discussion on the topics in a committee of the Scottish Parliament. Knowledge of the intricacies of this system, and a reading of the Scotland Act to determine the details of reserved and devolved powers. or the ‘values’ of Scotland, isn’t needed. An interest in a political issue (and isn’t everything political?) and an understanding of how to get people to sign a petition means that any person in Scotland can “participate in the democratic life of the” country, to borrow a few words from the Council’s suggestions.

The Citizens’ Initiative will be pretty good for some though. Lobbying groups, NGOs, and campaigning networks will love this. It offers a way to get the EU to, at the very least, think about something. This is good to some extent, but it means that it is wrong to go about thinking that having this wonderful Citizens’ Initiative helps to lessen the democratic deficit of the EU. I still support the idea of the initiative, but it is not something that many ordinary citizens will ever have a chance of using to further a cause dear to their hearts.

Gordon Brown might have everyone (by which I mean, electoral-system-obsessed-politics-geeks of the sort who will happily engage in a passionate discussion down the pub of the merits of different forms of PR—and I would include myself in there) talking about electoral reform in the UK right now, but in terms of actual impact on the machine of politics, I’d be willing to bet that Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Treaty on European Union will be bigger, more significant, and, if we can tear ourselves away from d’Hondt versus Sainte-Laguë for long enough, subject to more geek analysis.

I like Article 11, paragraph 4, but I’m annoyed with it as well. Why am I annoyed? I’m annoyed because I signed a petition calling for the EU to raise its carbon emissions reduction targets from 20% to 30%; while that’s all well and good (why not head on over to the petition yourself?), it could be so much better if I was signing the form of petition found in Article 11: a citizens’ initiative.

A bit of digging revealed that the European Commission has consulted on implementing the initiative, and will be drawing up a regulation this year, before actually unleashing this little bit of direct democracy in 2011. I know it takes time to make laws, and it isn’t a job to rush, but Lisbon has been around for ages, surely the fleshing out of the text of the article* could have happened sooner?

*4. Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.

Article 11, paragraph 4, Treaty on European Union

You’d think I’d be writing something on the Irish ‘yes’ to Lisbon, what with this being a European politics blog after all, but I’m afraid you’ll have to wait until Wednesday evening, by which point I will have been enlightened by a panel discussion on the outcome of the referendum with an Irish barrister, and some professors from the Law Department of my university. It’ll also be interesting to see what is being said in the European Parliament on the matter.

Anyway, what I did want to briefly post about tonight is related to Lisbon: specifically, the presidency of the EU. I keep hearing a lot about how ratification of Lisbon will open the door for Tony Blair to become the first new-style President. Now I can’t imagine he’d turn down the job, but the feeling I’m getting from people I’ve talked to about this, and media I’ve read about it, suggests that he’s not really the shoe-in that the British press claim. Anyone have any ideas?

And so Lisbon stumbles and limps onwards towards that hopeful day when it might finally be ratified. Tomorrow could see the lower house of the Czech parliament having another go at voting on the treaty, though given their past record I don’t hold out much hope of the vote actually taking place. If it does though, it will have to be in reference to the news from Ireland that with 51% of voters now supporting Lisbon, the second referendum may be moved to June, to coincide with the EP elections.

I’m generally in favour of Lisbon, though my understanding of exactly what it says is marred by the fact that it is an amending treaty, rather than the originally coherent constitution, and is filled with paragraphs such as:

the words ‘this Treaty’ and ‘the present Treaty’ shall be replaced by ‘the Treaties’, the verb, where applicable, shall be put in the plural and any necessary grammatical changes shall be made; this point shall not apply to the third paragraph of Article 182 and to Articles 312 and 313; 

Now clearly this makes sense, but only if you happen to have copies of the Treaty on the European Union, and the Treaty Establishing the European Community to hand, coupled with a lot of patience. To be fair, the protocols later in the treaty are more readable, but European citizens are still presented with a largely incomprehensible and highly technical document. Of course, as with most legislation, citizens themselves rarely see the raw material. But the barrier to entry on something as important as Lisbon means that the alternative way of participating in the political discourse—through the media—is vulnerable to the sort of lies and scare-mongering which was seen in the Irish ‘no’ campaign, and which will likely be seen again in June or October, and in any referendum held in the UK.

The aims of Lisbon are frequently ignored in debate on the treaty, and should it ever be fully ratified, we’ll be able to enjoy a better and more democratic Union, but I’m certain the legitimacy of the treaty will be called into doubt after so much of a muddle has been made over its implementation.

I just can’t help but think, that despite all the will in the world, the European Union might be nearing defeat on the Lisbon Treaty, just as it did with the Constitutional Treaty. Two things have prompted me to come to this opinion: the state of Europe’s economy, and yesterday’s decision by the Czech lower house of parliament to postpone its vote on Lisbon until the 17th of this month.

As well as the growing strength of more extreme forms of politics, as I mentioned the other day, I think that the economic woes we all currently face across Europe cause states to reconsider how strongly they value their sovereignty. The European project relies on the pooling of sovereignty for common benefit of member states. Without this, we may as well scale European integration back to the cosy intergovernmental confines of the European Free Trade Association and the Council of Europe. But naturally, pooling of sovereignty means that a number of decisions, primarily economic, are taken from the hands of national leaders, and placed in Brussel, Strasbourg and Frankfurt. When people are easily manipulated by the far-right, and member states’ governments seek an ‘anything which could save us’ approach, as many are trying to do now, distancing of decision making, in what are perceived to be the hands of foreigners, just won’t wash with a lot of the electorate.

I personally hope that something of Lisbon’s ilk, eventually passes. But I can’t see Lisbon itself being ratified. The EU should start afresh and (I shudder as I borrow a term from the Scottish National Party here) promote an ‘international conversation’ on how to proceed with the European project. Not a debate solely between national governments and policy wonks, but a debate which includes all European citizens. Discussing the facts of the matter, without recourse to plainly domestic affairs (sending messages on the popularity of the present government, and similar), or scare-mongering as was seen in the Irish referendum.

The only way forward for Europe, which will ensure a sustainable future for integration and strong partnership between member states, is for European citizens to wake up, and realise what Europe is, and what it means. What benefits it brings, and how it needs to be improved.

Georgian War

The European Green Party has called for unconditional ceasefire in Georgia. The Co-operation & Development Network of young greens in Eastern Europe has also spoken against the conflict, and plans an action in Hungary to call for peace and remember those killed in the fighting.

Berlin Neo-Nazi Parade

A Neo-Nazi group in Berlin has announced plans for a protest march through an immigrant district, against the construction of a Hindu temple. Derek Wall blogs about it here, and a Facebook group has been formed also.

Party News

Ireland

Questions over the Lisbon Treaty rumble on in Ireland, as an email is sent to Party members, asking for their views on the controversial treaty. The Irish Times covers the story.

Meanwhile, there are concerns over changes to the student-finance system, with a demonstration being planned, involving the Irish Young Greens. Again, the Irish Times have the story.

UK

Caroline Lucas MEP featured in an article in The Independent on Monday, in which she answered questions from members of the public (and a few party members).

Europe

The European Green Party has criticised the attendance of European leaders at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Beijing.

France has laid out plans for progress on environmental measures during its presidency of the European Union.

The EU is in the early stages of examining a ‘supergrid’ electricity distribution system to bring solar power from the Sahara to European states.

László Kovács, EU Taxation Commissioner, has supported the concept of windfall taxes on oil companies, to compensate the poor for high fuel costs.

Rules limiting power consumption for some electronic devices while on standby are expected to be approved by the EP later this year, probably taking force in 2010.