TOPIC 2. Governments negotiations : Do we risk losing EU citizens again?
Notre Europe, in collaboration with Professor Andrew Moravcsik of Princeton University, has invited prominent thinkers, actors and observers of the EU to join a debate on the following topic: “Legitimising the EU through Participation and Deliberation: Mere Wishful Thinking?”.
Pr Moravcsik believes that deliberation will not increase the EU’s legitimacy: join the discussion!
You will find below some "Food for Thought", articles selected to help you enter the discussion.
Give us your point of view !
NB : please note that your comments are moderated and will be published after validation as fast as possible
by Andrew Moravcsik
The draft European constitution sought to legitimate the EU by inducing more popular deliberation about Europe’s future. This strategy was doomed to failure because it is inconsistent with basic empirical social science about how advanced democracies work. Salient political rhetoric and increased opportunities to participate do not, as a rule, generate more intensive and informed public deliberation or greater public trust, identity and legitimacy – particularly where the issues in question are not highly salient. Two conclusions follow. First, the failure of constitutional reform is, paradoxically, evidence of the success and stability of the existing “European constitutional settlement.” The rhetoric of federalism has not changed to reflect this new reality. Second, prescriptive analysis of real-world constitutional reform requires that normative theorists draw more heavily on empirical social science in order to ascertain to what extent institutions actually have the consequences ideally ascribed to them.
ARTICLE TO DOWNLOAD : What Can We Learn from the Collapse of the European Constitutional Project?
4 May 2006
What Can We Learn from the Collapse of the European Constitutional Project? (2/2)
8 specialists answers to Andrew Moravcsik’s article
5 May 2007
FORUM (21 messages)
by Arverns, 20 May 2007
"
I just want to say one thing : Why does this forum is in English ? Because Europe, like otherwise this constitution (that I rejected of course), is that of England.
What we need in France is clearly to get off as soon as possible from this illegitimate organisation.
regards..
"> Answer this
"TOPIC 1. Legitimising the EU through Participation and Deliberation: Mere Wishful Thinking?"
by Michel Monette, 21 May 2007
"Je suis tout à fait d’accord avec vous. Il est incroyable que ce site soit en anglais seulement !!!!"
> Answer this
"Pourquoi un site web en anglais?" Chers Michel et Arverns,
nous vous remercions pour vos commentaires et le message que vous avez voulu faire passer : s’agissant d’un projet impliquant des citoyens sur l’Europe, il est en effet légitime de proposer des discussions dans plusieurs langues, autres que l’anglais. Nous attachons de l’importance à cet aspect et prochainement, le site de Tomorrow’s Europe (titre qu’il s’agira aussi de traduire pour information, mais qui demeure le nom officiel du projet) proposera du contenu dans un maximum de langues. Cependant, à l’heure actuelle, notre projet ne se trouve pas dans sa phase opérationnelle, et si le site est ouvert à tous, il est pour l’instant principalement destiné à nos partenaires ainsi qu’aux milieux scientifiques intéressés à la démarche; or l’anglais est une langue de travail que partagent l’ensemble de nos partenaires. Ce qui n’empêche pas aux citoyens de participer aux débats que nous proposons - et nous en sommes très heureux. Nous savons d’ailleurs à quel point l’internet français et la blogosphère française sont particulièrement actifs et réactifs. Ne vous inquitez donc pas, le maximum sera fait dans les temps à venir pour favoriser le multilinguisme (en particulier concernant les aspects clefs du projets et les présentations générales), dans la mesure, naturellement, de nos moyens (nous ne pourrons malheureusement proposer l’intégralité du contenu dans les 21 langues officielles de l’Union, ni en esperanto). D’ici là, nous vous remercions pour votre compréhension. Bien cordialement Dear Michel and Arverns,
We thank you for your comments and the message you want to address. This project involves citizens from all EU member states and it seems normal to propose debates and content in other languages than English. We also think the issue you are raising is important. Soon, Tomorrow’s Europe(the name of the project remains however its official name even if its meaning will be translated) website will display content in a wider range of languages. Nevertheless, our project has not yet started its operational stage and the website is mostly dedicated to partners and scientific stakeholders. In this context, it is a fact that English is a working language shared by all our partners. However, this should not prevent citizens from participating in debates – we are very glad they do as you do. In addition, we know how active and re-active are the French internet and “blogosphere”. Thus, please don’t worry: We will do our best to encourage multilinguism (especially regarding key aspects of the project and general presentations), considering our means (we will not be able to propose the entire website into the 21 EU official languages nor Esperanto). I am sure you’ll understand. Thank you for the interest you showed in the project. Best Regards
by Mathieu COLLET (Tomorrow’s Europe team), 21 May 2007
"
— -> ANSWER IN ENGLISH BELOW
> Answer this
"Pourquoi un site web en anglais?" I agree with the global comentary about the linguistical part of this forum. I think there´s so many people interested in European construction taht it can be easy to find some volunteers to traduce the main ideas, articles, comments. The Babel tower is ou great succes because it enables us to be more human trying to go over the linguistic’s bareers. Estoy de acuerdo con el comentario general que se ha hecho respecto al aspecto linguístico del forum. Creo que hay tantas personas interesadas en la construcción europea que se podrían encontrar algunos voluntarios para traducir las ideas principales, artículos o comentarios. La torre de Babel es nuestra mejor obra porque nos permite ser más humanos cuando tratamos de superar las bareras linguísticas. La tour de Babel est notre plus belle oeuvre parce qu’elle nous rend plus humain en tentant de dépasser les barrières linguistiques. More Culture, Más Cultura, Plus de Culture! Ubik Europa
by Ubik Europa, 14 June 2007
"
> Answer this
"TOPIC 1. Legitimising the EU through Participation and Deliberation: Mere Wishful Thinking?"
19 November 2009
"Cloud
Config
CSV"
> Answer this
"TOPIC 1. Legitimising the EU through Participation and Deliberation: Mere Wishful Thinking?"
21 November 2009
"replica necklace
Concord watch
fashion cufflink
necklaces wholesale
replica Bvlgari watches wholesaleBvlgari AssiomaBvlgari ErgonBvlgari B.Zero1Bvlgari DiagonoBvlgari SolotempoBvlgari-BvlgariBvlgari RettangoloJaeger LeCoultre
replica earrings cartier wholesale
cartier replica earrings
replica Piaget
replica hermes bracelet wholesaleMulberry Handbag Wallet
replica cartier necklaces wholesale"
> Answer this
"TOPIC 1. Legitimising the EU through Participation and Deliberation: Mere Wishful Thinking?"
by naiko21, 28 September 2007
"With due respect for its author, this message is just pointless...It is widely known (to put it midly) that the British people at large and its leadership are not very enthusiastic about the wole process of constitution engineering or any text that would endow Europe with an institutional framework akin to any form of a political Federation. The dominance of Englih language within the European institutions is another issue, which should dealt with through more serious arguments. I would retain from this "mouvement d’humeur" only this : why is it that the lingua franca of Europe is the official language of the country within Europe which is the least "Pro-Europe"? There is something "unfair" in this choice, never fully and openly recognized but unananimously followed...For instance, why has the Commission never really endorsed the option of adopting for its work and texts (which has nothing to do with promoting cultural diversity, a commendable goal!!)a universal language as esperanto?
N. Mettra (France)"
> Answer this
16 August 2007
"what about: legitimising the EU through respect of the democratic principles. A few examples just out of my head. Separation of powers: the concil of ministers acting as a legislator is a vast joke. Responsability: the composition Commission should be more flexible, so that the president really is responsible for it, and so that the Parliament can fire it without creating a major crisis. Independance towards money: why have all the institutions been gathered in Brussels, except to ease the work of lobyists! End of the manipulation methods: those who do not agree with the political choices of the Commission should no more be accused of "blocking" Europe. European constructive debate: votes should be conducted on the same day in all Europe, so that countries are no more pitched against one another. Of course, all this might require changes in the small and self-satisfied world of Brussel politicians and lobyists, and expose them to the dangers of this imprevisible thing called: the people. By contrast, your "deliberative poll" is without danger: you control the information ("balanced", according to whom?), the moderators, and the final conclusions (most polls can be spinned to support a given policy)."
> Answer this
by Marc, 19 August 2007
"With respect to the deliberative polls experiment announced on the home page of this website and scheduled from August 20th, I could not fnd any information on how the participants are going to be chosen. Lack of scientific premises on this step would make the experiment a mere marketing thing (I noticed that industrial sponsors are already there by the way - Long life to the new Europe)." Question on the deliberative polls experiment
> Answer this
by über, 29 August 2007
"Not "a mere" wishful thinking. A wishful thinking it’s never "a mere", it’s not for wishful thinking that we live? Like Europe will... I believe in our faith as Europeans, as a group of never ending clusters of individualism, even in our how opinions about the future that change continuously. The answer it’s in the question, please make a good question." pmsn
> Answer this
by Barry, 30 August 2007
"
Andrew Moravcsik’s article does not come close to conveying the true feelings of the citizens of the disparate nations embroiled in the corrupt democratically deficient eu. He refers to transparency as having been enhanced, evidently he hasn’t seen the re-written constitution which the liars in brussells would have us believe is different from the original. Democracy is now, and always has been based on the premise of government of the people by the people for the people, the eu and its constitution take all of this democracy away from the peoples of the nations in the eu.
What the politicians haven’t learned from the collapse of the constitution, although they are reviving it in its entireity, is that the citizens don’t want ot be in a federal state of europe, what they have learned is that to force this situation on to us they have to act against the will of the people. This is only sewing the seeds for civil unrest, and antogonism throughout the continent of europe which will only be enhanced by the other ridiculous ideas from the eu, schengen.
"> Answer this
"TOPIC 1. Legitimising the EU through Participation and Deliberation: Mere Wishful Thinking?" How very constructive of you, Barry. I suppose you know much better what the feelings of everyone in Europe are than those evil elitists in Brussels? I agree with you on Schengen too. Let’s close all the borders, confine people to stay in their little countries and treat the "others" with the utmost suspicion. Let’s reinstate controls, individual visas and customs checks to stifle business and make life as difficult for our citizens as possible. They’re obviously less important than our petty nationalist sensitivities.
24 September 2007
"
> Answer this
by Doctor John, 11 September 2007
"The public perception in England is that the EU is being run by a bunch of unelected freeloaders and the sooner we get out the better."
> Answer this
"TOPIC 1. Legitimising the EU through Participation and Deliberation: Mere Wishful Thinking?" Please do already, so everyone else can move on. We will have no pity for your isolationist misery. Less talk, more action!
24 September 2007
"
> Answer this
"TOPIC 1. Legitimising the EU through Participation and Deliberation: Mere Wishful Thinking?"
by Mr Dave, 5 October 2007
"Wrong! This is the view of just a few people who are always bitter and blame everybody else for their shortcomings. Look at where the far-right anti-Europe party UKIP were in the elections - NOWHERE!!! You people just live in a fantasy world! The freedom the EU gives us is a great thing. And it’s no surprise that other countries are envious of that."
> Answer this
by Myrddin Wen, 11 September 2007
"
How can the EuroGov seek legitimacy when many if its member states refuse their citizens a referendum on the regurgitated constitution?
Previous French statesmen have revealed that EuroGov will exist regardless of the wishes of the european population.
If the newspapers published exactly what EuroGov is and will be, what little ’legitimancy’ there is would instantly vanish.
"> Answer this
by Myrddin Wen, 11 September 2007
"
Since when did EuroGov let Wishful Thinking get in the way of inventing laws to micromanage our everyday lives?
Is it perhaps Wishful Thinking to hope that the whole lot of you will go away and reside on an abandoned island somewhere where you can make all the laws you want for each other, and leave the rest of us alone?
well?
"> Answer this
"TOPIC 1. Legitimising the EU through Participation and Deliberation: Mere Wishful Thinking?"
24 September 2007
"Am I right in thinking you know all about island living in all its isolationist glory?"
> Answer this
"TOPIC 1. Legitimising the EU through Participation and Deliberation: Mere Wishful Thinking?"
by Myrddin Wen, 30 September 2007
"One need only look at Iceland, whose people voted against joining the EU, rejecting bureaucratic mismanagement yet still enjoying free trade."
> Answer this
by From Europe with love, 23 September 2007
"Some times we have the impression that Europe is old fashion. At least, we need more innovative approaches to democratising European democracy. In particular, the European Commission has the obligation to listen to the citizens instead of promoting what their civil servants are doing for Europe. Congratulations Tommorrow’s Europe, at least you are an inovative approach to better understand what European citizens expect from Europe. We are very curious to know what are your results."
> Answer this
by Marco, 16 October 2007
"Why the rusults of this polling are not exposed?"
> Answer this
"TOPIC 1. Legitimising the EU through Participation and Deliberation: Mere Wishful Thinking?" Dear Marco, the results will be presented in Lisbon in two days, and on the website. We need a little bit of time to prepare it.
Thanks for you patience best regards
by Mathieu COLLET - Notre Europe, 16 October 2007
"
> Answer this
by Romain, 19 October 2007
"
Now that the results have been published, I’d like to share an observation and ask a question.
Whether the results of the poll will be taken in account or not, the value of this event may at least come from its symbolic strength. In France, where deliberative democracy remains curiously rejected, when not unknown, I explained to local representatives what happened in Brussels last week-end, and I could observe their interest for this kind of procedure.
In France, participatory democracy consists in purely consultative institutions, enabling citizens only to talk about minor topics and giving them only partial information. My greatest hope is that the success of procedures such as deliberative polling will show french local representatives that it is possible to give citizens a place in major decision-making processes.
My question concerns a specific part of the poll, which is the enlargement of EU. About this question, I wonder if certain results are really valuable from a deliberative point of view. Debates about the global idea of enlargement have been really rich and well-informed, but I don’t think it was the case when citizens adressed questions about specific candidate countries. For example, when small group discussions turned to Turkey, I noticed a few prejudices and mistakes about this country and about muslim culture, which weren’t corrected during the debate.
That’s why my question is : refering to the values of deliberation, was it legitimate to talk about of specific countries in the absence of citizens from these countries ? Can we really deliberate about Turkey or Ukraine joining the EU if we don’t hear the arguments of Turkish or Ukrainian citizens ?
Of course, I don’t mean that you should have invited them to this week-end, I guess that organizing this event was difficult enough ! I just suggest that the membership of specific countries might better have not been adressed this time. Maybe a topic for a future deliberative polling on Black Sea’s shore ?
"> Answer this
© Notre Europe 2007 | Site created with SPIP | Website design and realisation : Mathieu Collet | RSS FEED