Ratifying the Lisbon Treaty: Much Ado About Nothing?
By Michaela Davidova
On Friday 02 October (2009) the Irish had a second chance to decide on the Lisbon Treaty. Following the first referendum - which resulted in a rejection of Lisbon - the Irish government provided a guarantee stipulating that the EU would not decide, on a supranational level, on Irish neutrality, its independence in taxation or abortion. This second referendum resulted in a clear ‘yes' vote (with 67% of eligible voters) begging the counterfactual question of whether another failure would again result in another referendum? In other words, would the Irish keep voting until Lisbon was passed?
Despite the Irish referendum, which essentially approved Lisbon, two EU countries have still not ratified the treaty - the Czech Republic and Poland. Poland's President, Lech Kaczynski, agreed to ratify the Treaty following a successful Irish vote. The remaining constraint on Lisbon therefore falls to Czech President Vaclav Klaus. To understand Klaus's position, it is necessary to briefly view Czech history and geopolitics. The Czech Republic is, and has always been, a relatively small country situated in Central Europe, and has tended to be overshadowed or incorporated into regional and international empires (for instance the Holy Roman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the NAZI Third Reich, and the Soviet Union). The Czech Republic does not seek regional or international hegemony and has not attempted to consolidate its influence within EU institutions. Theoretically, it may emerge as an important EU member compelling its partners to consider it position with earnest respect. This would be conditioned on its international influence and the sad truth is that Czech policy is not taken seriously and the current Czech President does not simplify this dilemma.
According to the Czech constitution, the Czech President represents - in a symbolic manner - the Czech Republic in international relations; implying a representative and not decision-making role. The President is sanctioned to ratify international treaties, not approve them. In terms of the EU, Klaus is well known as being a strong Euroskeptic. Indeed, in an interview for the Washington Times (22 September 2009) Klaus announced that "I live now in a much more regulated, controlled society than I expected 20 years ago, at the moment of the fall of communism." Twenty years ago the thought of freely travelling throughout Europe seemed unimaginable as the ‘iron curtain' was still deeply rooted, forming an unnatural boundary through the heart of Europe. Presently, Europeans - those citizens of the EU - can travel, work, study and conduct business and personal affairs freely in 27 EU members. Additionally, the EU is based on extremely progressive values of respect for human rights, the rule of law, respect for diversity, democracy and the social market economic system.
It is difficult to see the rationale driving Klaus's scepticism and one may ask what his expectations were; some form of capitalistic anarchy? When joining any organisation a state or individual should anticipate the submission of some freedoms and limited short-term advantages for long-term prosperity and order based on enhanced, and deep, levels of cooperation. When the Czech Republic sought membership in the EU it also recognised the acceptance of some disadvantages though, if compared to the prosperity of the Czech Republic today it is clear that the disadvantages pale in insignificance when compared to the advantages of membership.
The exact benefits gleaned from EU membership may be openly debated, and until now there is no wide agreement however, when Euroskepticism of the magnitude displayed by Klaus retards the political decision-making of the Czech Republic and, by extension, the EU, one may ask where the line between representing public goods and populism lies. Ostensibly, Klaus is waiting for the decision of the constitutional court. It is a matter of speculation over what he will wait for after the court's pronouncement. For better or worse, Lisbon has now been decided throughout the EU and it is a distressing commentary that Klaus's resistance has cast a negative shadow over the Czech Republic at a time when the Czech people, in increasing numbers, are reaping the benefits of the EU and enjoy the additional freedoms which it offers.
While this does not imply simply accepting every treaty produced by the EU, it should be noted that, within a representative democracy, governing accountability should trump artificial political punditry and those occupying the highest positions must measure their public words and muffle their private sentiment to allow for democratic processes to continue unrestricted. The Lisbon Treaty is not a magical formula that will solve all the problems facing the EU or create a European ‘super-state,' and open and continuous dialogue and debate is needed to build a reflective EU since, in its present form, the EU requires reform. Lisbon should be considered a first step, not an end result, and it is from this first step that others may be taken.
13 October 2009
