NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY OR A EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY: WHICH WAY FORWARD IN THE FINANCIAL CRISIS? |
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ |
The Montesquieu Institute and the Information Office of the European Parliament and European Commission Representation in the Netherlands organized 7 December 2011 a debate on the selection strategy during the financial crisis in Europe. The debate was initiated by Dr. Daniel Mugge and was followed by a discussion based on a number of hypotheses on the subject.
Euro crisis: A crisis of democracy in Europe? The European Union is in crisis and its outcome is unclear. Perhaps the EU Summit on 8 and 9 December will offer clarity, although at previous stops Europe and its citizens stayed often in the dark. While the Eurocrats in Brussels catacombs keep trying to solve this ever growing problem, especially among European citizens anger is growing. How did they come to this impasse? Their argument is as follows: If European officials and politicians had not pushed for an economic and monetary union, Europe today should not be burdened with a crisis. At the time the European project, the biggest test so far to pass, thus stirring several national movements. National parliaments, trade unions and disgruntled citizens claim their voice in Brussels politics, where they once were happy to others deciding to leave. |
Who would not disintegrating Europe, must find a balance in a difficult trade-off: narrowly defined national interests on the one hand, and acceptance of European political institutions, with all their imperfections, on the other.
This includes criticism of the current pan-European democracy is often too far. The question is not whether a particular community - whether it's the Germans, the Greeks and the Dutch - can determine its own destiny or extradited to the vagaries of decision makers elsewhere in Europe. |
In a globalized world, nations have long since their fate is no longer in control. Therefore, the impact of developments outside their borders too big. The closer we make decisions to citizens, the less impact these decisions will have on the world they live. The actual trade-off between the degree of direct representation, which can achieve a democratic body - its representativeness - and the extent to which the body can make a difference in the world - its effectiveness.
Seen from this approach perhaps the European Union do not suffer from a democratic deficit, but the national governments. In the year 2011, European citizens only achieved something together. For example, what gives the Italian people more control over its own socio-economic environment: a strong European democracy with all its shortcomings, or solely rely on the National Assembly without any interference in the affairs of the rest of Europe? |