The problem with Moravcsik’s argument is that it is backward looking. It says that the EU does not need democratic legitimacy because the issues it decides are of minor political saliency, for example minor technical matters related to the functioning of the common market. However successive treaties on European Union have given the EU more and more powers in areas that are politically sensitive. The people living under EU law are not a single polity that will agree to be bound by pan-European majorities on politically sensitive issues that a majority of their nation (which is a polity) disagrees with. This inherent lack of democratic legitimacy was previously hidden by the triviality of the issues decided by the community method, but is now exposed as the EU decides more and more of the sensitive political issues that used to decide general elections. Following your suggestion of making EU politics more salient by politicizing the Commission would mean the EU exceeding its legitimacy base even further.Med andre ord: Når EUs autoritet udvides til at omfatte politisk følsomme områder (i modsætning til kedelig, teknokratisk handelsregulering), stejler folk, til dels pga. "det demokratiske underskud", der jo netop i politisk følsomme områder ville få alvorlige konsekvenser (tænk indvandring herhjemme - vi husker Sass). Folket stemmer nej, hvorefter politikerne gør underskuddet endnu større ved at forsøge at smugle udvidelserne udenom de forhindrende folkeafstemninger.
Lige nu tror jeg ikke et eneste land ville stemme ja til Lissabon-traktaten. Og det er stadig EUs egentlige krise.
0 kommentarer:
Send en kommentar