Referendums are for taking historic decisions, not for letting off steam

In the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, as with the French referendum of May 2005, the real issue had nothing to do with the text that was put to the vote — the ‘no’ campaigners did not criticise it in substance — and nor was it about a so-called ‘divorce’ between ordinary people and the European Union, for the Irish recognise that no other nation has gained so much, financially, economically, politically and indeed historically, from membership of Club Europe. That is clear from all opinion-poll findings as recently as three months ago, and it will be clear again three months from now. So what is the problem?

The real obstacle we have come up against is the method of ratification, which has three crucial flaws.

The first and most glaring – although strangely the least discussed until now – is the requirement of unanimity. A European treaty cannot come into force until it has been signed and ratified by all the Member States. That was workable in a Europe of six nations. With 27 member countries the task becomes near impossible and the fate of Union hangs on the whim of the most Euro-sceptical, or simply the shakiest, government of the day.

The second flaw is the fact that each Member State is free to choose the timetable and method for its own ratification of a treaty. National leaders thus have to rise to the challenge in a state of disarray, ignoring the inevitable reality that each country is dependent on what happens in the other countries and that, conversely, each country’s decision will affect all the others. The result is, at best, a sense of unease with the process or, at worst, failure. The unease reflects the fact that all the citizens of the Union are not being treated equally: it seems as if those called upon to vote are casting their votes on behalf of all the others. Failure results from the inherent disadvantages of the referendum procedure.

Here we come to the third flaw in the system. It is no accident that dictators are so fond of referendums. There is no other procedure that so readily lends itself to misinterpretation of a popular vote either for or against a government.

The proper way to use referendums in a democracy is hold a couple of them every hundred years, or else a couple every year: in the first scenario, the voters clearly understand that their choice will be a historic one; in the second, the procedure is a familiar aspect of legislation by the people, and they learn to answer the question that is being asked, and only that question. In between these two extremes, referendums are used either as plebiscites or as tools in the pursuit of unrelated causes: the anti-European press campaign in Ireland focused on farming problems, the government’s lack of credibility in the wake of a financial scandal, and irrelevant debates about abortion, euthanasia and NATO! Similarly in France three years ago the ‘no’ camp rode a wave of discontent about the Bolkestein (services) directive, Turkey’s bid for EU membership and an unpopular government. Both the system and the context encourage the electorate to use their ballot papers as a means of sounding off, rather than participating in a decision, and the complacent received wisdom is that there will always be a ‘Plan B’.

Yet if there is one conviction uniting supporters of both federalism and national sovereignty it is that, while a country may be sole master of its own destiny, no country is empowered to determine the fate of another. The four million citizens of Erin’s green isle are free to decide whether or not they themselves will venture further with Europe, but they may not take a decision on behalf of the 495 million Europeans who live in the 26 other Member States.

Ought we, therefore, to renounce referendums forever as a method of advancing European integration? By no means, but we shall have to ensure that people understand they are being asked to take a historic decision, and not simply to let off steam. Which brings me back to my previous point. Either a European treaty is a legalistic arrangement without impact on the nature of the Union – in which case ratification by the national parliaments would be the logical procedure – or else it significantly alters the Union in terms of its substance (foreign and defence policy, for example), its ambition (with a genuine Constitution) or its composition (enlargement to include Turkey comes to mind here). In the latter case the decision can legitimately be put to a referendum: not in this country or that country but in every Member State, on the same day and on the understanding, announced in advance, that the treaty will apply if a substantial majority of countries (three-quarters or four-fifths) approve it. Those who reject it will not be able to prevent the others from going ahead. The issue will thus be a European one, the debate will be conducted at European level, and the outcome will indicate the only sort of Europe that is feasible.

This article by Alain Lamassoure appeared in Le Figaro on 16 June 2008.