Venceremos comment: Europe's angry men, the plucky Irish and the future of the European Union

By Richard Collie

When I observe the internal dynamics of the European elite as they desperately try to salvage the Lisbon Treaty, I am reminded of the movie 12 Angry Men.

In Reginald Rose’s classic screenplay, a 12-man jury is sent to begin deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused in the stabbing death of his father, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case appears to be open-and-shut: The evidence is overwhelmingly stacked up against the defendant and eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror No. 8 casts a not guilty vote.

Juror No.8 cites the basic principal of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and urges his fellow jurors to at least discuss the merits of the evidence before hastily delivering their verdict, much to the ire of the more headstrong, dominant members of the jury who plainly desire to return to their company jobs, grumbling that ‘time is money’ and ‘the kid deserves it anyway.’

Though it may seem macabre to compare a piece of EU draft legislation to a murder enquiry, it is the battle of principles in Rose’s jury room that merits a connection with the nature of the debate on Lisbon.

Clearly in this comparison, dissident Juror No.8 is Ireland, or rather the Irish people, who voted ‘no’ on the Lisbon Treaty at a public referendum last week. The other 11 members of the jury are the 26 member states of the European Union that have been quietly trying to force Lisbon through without a public debate or anything so trivial as the people’s mandate. Time is money after all, and there is plenty of it to be had if the European elite press on with their desires to ‘streamline’ i.e. centralise the mechanics of EU government.

The anger and frustration of the dominant jurors who sought a quick ‘guilty’ vote can be compared to the bristling EU leaders who thought the debate on Lisbon was over, then turned round to find Ireland was still seated at the table, defending that rather basic right: ‘Let the people decide.’

Of course, the real hero in this situation is not the Irish government, who fought a solid ‘yes’ campaign and would clearly have rather avoided upsetting those ‘angry men’ in Brussels by not having a referendum at all. No, the real hero is Raymond Crotty, a seasoned activist who forced the hearing at the Irish Crown Court, which in 1987 ruled that any EU treaties amending the Irish constitution would require the approval of a public referendum. A seemingly logical agreement, is it not? Yet astonishingly it is only Ireland of all the EU member states that has a mechanism for protecting EU legislation agreed on at summits across Europe, far away from the attention of ordinary voters, from permeating each countries sovereign constitution.

Though it dismayed the leaders of EU powerhouses: France, Germany, Italy and Great Britain, Ireland’s ‘no’ vote on Lisbon was a victory for democracy. It was a blow for European leaders who increasingly desire policy making to be drawn away from the pesky, interfering general public. It was a blow for those within Brussels who would like to abandon the multilateral nature of the EU and transform it into a unilateral competitor to the US and China that can negotiate more effectively with the WTO and multi-national corporations.

As neo-liberal leaders in France, Germany and the UK attempt to shape the EU in order to best serve the interests of big business in their own countries, the victory of the ‘no’ camp in the Irish referendum belongs to those who still hope to see a different kind of Europe.

Debates on the future of Europe are all too often stripped down to the black and white terms ‘Europhile’ or ‘Eurosceptic’, suggesting that you are either ‘with’ or ‘against’ Europe. Speaking as someone who falls into the ludicrously simplified pigeon hole of ‘pro-European’, I would say the debate is no longer about whether you are pro or anti-Europe, rather it is about what kind of Europe you want.

So the ‘no’ vote was a victory for those who still hope for a Europe that is a counter-balance to American Imperialism, a multilateral collaboration of strong nations that can be respected as a peaceful mediator in the Middle East and other conflict zones, as well as encouraging integration within European states and aiding the development of emerging eastern-European countries.

With the Lisbon Treaty effectively now lying dead in the water, Europe remains at a crossroads where her future can still be redefined. So where does Europe go from here?

The reaction to the Irish decision has been greeted with a mixture of arrogance and denial by many of the key players in Brussels. British foreign secretary David Milliband insisted the UK Parliament press on with their own efforts to ratify the treaty, despite the fact that it cannot come into force until all 27 member states have completed the ratification process, something which is now impossible in light of the Irish referendum result. The message seems to be push on without Ireland and hope that she falls in line eventually. Of course, no one is asking the obvious: Why did the Irish people vote ‘no’ in the first place?

But the scenario that is now emerging is proving to be slightly more worrying for those who continue to push through EU reforms without a public mandate.

In 12 Angry Men, the brave, dissenting voice of maverick juror No.8 prompted the other less self-assured jurors to raise their own questions, eventually forcing a debate that increasingly slips away from the ‘guilty’ verdict as the evidence is scrutinised in detail. All this is much to the dismay of the headstrong members of the jury who expected a speedy ‘guilty’ verdict.

And so it is that in the wake of Ireland’s rejection on Lisbon, other dissenters are slowly emerging and raising their voice. First, the outspoken Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek announced that his country was no longer prepared to ratify the treaty until a verdict has been reached in the Czech High Court regarding its constitutional legality, adding "I am not going to force MPs to back Lisbon and I wouldn't bet 100 crowns (£3, $6) on a Czech 'Yes'."

Later, and even more worryingly for the EU, British PM Gordon Brown announced that the process would be held up in the UK while the court assesses a similar legal challenge, albeit on behalf of a millionaire Conservative, which claims that the UK ratification process should also be subject to a public referendum. It argues that the Lisbon Treaty is more or less identical to the failed European Constitution, rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005, which the UK Parliament had pledged to put to the vote. Having failed to push reforms through the front door three years ago, they are now being rumbled trying to sneak the same content through the back door.

Basically the situation represents the worst nightmare for all those committed to centralising reforms outlined at Lisbon. The debate has entered the public realm and prompts furious debate and discussion across the continent, while frustrated EU politicians watch on impatiently, powerless to move forward until a unanimous concession has been reached. Ironically, It is exactly the situation the Lisbon Treaty was drafted to prevent. It is why the treaty seeks to remove each member states’ right to veto on more policy area; it is why it seeks to reduce the number of commissioners; why it seeks to abolish the principal of unanimous agreement in favour of majority rule; and it is why it seeks to create the position of a permanent, unelected President and Foreign Secretary.

Taking this into account, yes the reforms will make for a more effective central government in Brussels. Indeed, any pro-Lisbon article is laden with this gushing talk of a smooth, ‘streamlined’ EU. They fail to mention the cost of the democratic deficit these reforms would inflict. Such articles also tow what is clearly the EU’s official line, that Lisbon is intended to ‘help the EU cope with expansion into Eastern Europe.’ This may sound good in principal, but to anyone who reads between the lines, it is clear that by this EU leaders mean that they seek to weaken the voting powers of smaller member states in preparation for the deluge of new members further east of Poland and the Czech Republic. It is unfeasible that any more Eastern European countries can be admitted to the EU until the powers admitted to them reflect their lesser status as nations, and EU leaders have made this abundantly clear after the Irish debacle. This week Nikolas Sarkozy and Andrea Merkel stated that as long as Lisbon remains grounded, so too does EU expansion.

Perhaps this is not such a bad thing. Maybe it is better after all that Europe remains at the crossroads until it can find its role in today's world, an innovate role that does not necessarily march to the beat set by Washington and the neo-liberal consensus.

So as long as Europe remains at the crossroads, there can still be a debate in the public forum regarding Europe’s future. The lesson European leaders need to learn from the rejection of Lisbon is that any expansion or reform of this key institution cannot occur without at least attempting to engage the public of each member state. If they continue to attempt to smuggle EU reform through the back door, it will only serve to further damage people’s already weakened trust and confidence in the European Parliament.