Roger Scruton We Europeans appreciate why democracy gives us control over our governments and we have a government that controls us, but can not be controlled by us is one of the worst evils in politics. However, many Europeans are prepared to laws imposed by bureaucrats who have never been elected and should not be held accountable for their mistakes. Some of the most important decisions about our lives are issued by the European Court of Human Rights, composed of judges non eletti, molti dei quali provenienti da paesi che non hanno una lunga esperienza dello stato di diritto. Voi in Italia avete avuto di recente un’esperienza in tal senso, con una sentenza che intendeva far rimuovere i crocefissi dalle vostre aule scolastiche, in quanto lesivi dei diritti umani.
La maggior parte di noi vede le migliaia di direttive irreversibili emanate dalla Commissione europea, le sentenze a motivazione ideologica della Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo come una minaccia alla democrazia. Ma sembra non esserci modo di riformare tali istituzioni atto ad evitare il problema.
Senza che nessuno lo volesse, noi europei siamo giunti ad una situazione in cui la maggior parte delle nostre leggi ci vengono imposte da persone che have never been elected and does not assume responsibility for their mistakes.
Some are willing to live with the problem, believing that the benefits outweigh the costs of the European Union. Others - especially the 'Eurosceptics' of my country, believe that the costs outweigh the benefits. For them, this confiscation decision making by unelected elite is a fatal defect of the European project. Any point of view, it embraces, it is surely obvious that the move toward global governance is a movement that takes us away from democracy.
It can be assumed that globalization is inevitable. We also believe that it should not intrude in system of government. For a truly democratic globalization is something that must be countered by political and not absorbed by it.
Imagine a village that trades with its neighbors, with whom he lives in peaceful relations. All decisions affecting the village as a whole are taken by a Council elected. In turn, this Council send a representative to the central government to advance the interests of the village in the National Assembly. History tells us that this process is the best that can be achieved democratically. We can imagine several levels of representation between the village and the government's representation at the county level, region, canton, etc.. The principle is, however, clear: democracy is control from below, where is the people who decide.
Suppose now that there is a movement for political reform which the village is too small an entity to take the necessary decisions for the common good. The village must therefore be considered, for electoral purposes, as part of a big city which is ten kilometers away. The reasons are easy to imagine trade relations, mutual interests and needs of the neighborhood are threatened by the autonomy of the village. For example, you may need a road outside the city, to solve the problem of traffic congestion. The only way possible, however, passes near the village, thus disturbing the peace of mind that the villagers enjoyed previously. The village of course will vote to oppose the road so it will be built. However, if the village was incorporated into the city, the number of votes of the villagers would be exceeded by that of the inhabitants of the city, then comes the realization of the road. The 'enlargement of the level of government has led to a loss of democracy in the village.
The above illustrates a general principle: the more extensive the scope of a system of government, the less control people have on 'environment. This is illustrated very clearly in terms of infrastructure and planning. The Swiss villages have retained many of the democratic rights than anywhere else have been 'seized' at the hands of central governments. Therefore, it is noted that it is impossible to build a large highways in many mountain passes, as the local people regularly vote against such proposals. Traffic in the rural Switzerland is markedly slower than elsewhere, and the boundaries of the villages are much more clear and sharp.
In France, the motorways are decreed by the government, the land is acquired only by decree and the National Assembly can have a say.
a result, the traffic is more efficient in France the national economy benefits from the life and near the highways is hell. France is therefore more democratic than in Switzerland or less so?
Some may argue that the power of the Swiss cantons and villages to prevent projects that might be beneficial to the entire country and therefore goes against the will of the majority. In France, however, the power of the central government does not take account of local interests means that the common good can be promoted in spite of local self-interest and the majority have a predominant role in the decisions that concern you.
Others might say that depriving the local decision-making powers and the exercise by the central government, it means a loss of democracy, because it implies that decisions are no longer made by those who are directly involved and that the voice of true human community is rarely heard. Which interpretation we give to it?
When a group of nation-states come together to form a Union that have legislative powers, each of them loses the right to take decisions on matters relating to national character, in return for participation in decisions that affect the group as a whole.
When and what is justified in relation to this? A treaty between the neighboring states to defend their territory from external attacks a contract is easy to read. Neither party loses more than it gains, and at the same time, each retains sovereign control over their internal affairs. The contract for mutual defense does not imply real transfer of sovereignty and it is itself subject to democratic control. The population of each state can vote to terminate the contract at any time. Bilateral treaties were, therefore, rarely seen as threats to democracy: on the contrary, they were often perceived as the natural outcome of the democratic process, whereby the people give their governments the freedom and the duty to act in their interest.
Multilateral treaties may not be no threat to the sovereignty of the states or the democratic process. Even when these treaties create a shared agenda for the bureaucratic institutions - such as NATO, for example - do not constitute a threat to democracy, to the extent that they do not go beyond the purpose for which they were signed. The petitioners maintain sovereignty in all areas, including those relating to the treaty. Although they have obligations in the treaty, the latter arise only in specific circumstances and shall be freely accepted by the national parliament as the price to pay for the benefits.
Multilateral treaties are a means to manage globalization. As states become more più soggetti alle pressioni esterne, essi possono unirsi per stabilire trattati e procedure per resistere a tali pressioni: trattati per proteggere i loro ambienti condivisi, le risorse naturali condivise (come il patrimonio ittico e le risorse idriche), ovvero preoccupazioni condivise nell’ ambito della sicurezza. Il punto più importante è che un trattato, così come ogni contratto, conferisce un potere di veto ai singoli firmatari. Se i termini non sono rispettati da una delle parti, gli altri sono liberi di ritirarsi e così il trattato viene annullato.
In tal senso i trattati possono essere utilizzati per controllare la globalizzazione e per assoggettarla alla disciplina della democrazia, proprio come il processo politico Switzerland is subject to the discipline of local democracy by requiring the consent of local communities for the decisions that affect them.
Not all, however, have dealt with contractual terms. Since the end of World War II a new type of treatment has become common, a contract in which the parties withdrew their decision-making capacity in the areas governed by the Treaty would transfer them to organizations that their national electorates can not control.
The European Union it is a paradigmatic case. Just as the International Criminal Court, the World Trade Organization and the European Court of Human Rights, the European Union è una forma di globalizzazione e non un tentativo di resistervi. Nonostante siano stabilite da un trattato, queste istituzioni confiscano i poteri legislativi dei loro membri ed impongono agli stati-nazioni leggi e normative per le quali le loro popolazioni non voterebbero mai, ma che non possono respingere.
Si considerino le disposizioni relative alla libertà di circolazione sancite dal Trattato di Roma. Esse garantiscono ai cittadini europei il diritto alla libera circolazione su tutto il territorio dell’Unione per cercare lavoro. Al momento della firma del Trattato di Roma sussisteva in certa misura una parità dei tassi di reddito e di occupazione delle nazioni interessate, e nessuno prevedeva il verificarsi di migrazioni di massa da un capo another of the continent. Italian citizens if they had been consulted on the issue, they would have voted for an amendment to the Treaty intended to not include the clause on freedom of movement, which would oppose the accession of Romania to the European Union. But the citizens were not consulted and therefore the Italians are forced to accept the immigration of Romanian citizens, although many are strongly opposed to this phenomenon. I'm not saying that the Italians are right, but that is what they feel. Also, consider that it is their democratic right, through their elected representatives to impose immigration controls: after all it is still their country. This the law has been banned. Express any preference in the elections, Italian citizens can not do anything to claim that their country is their return.
This is an example of a critique that is moved in all the countries of Northern and Western Union. We have lost control of our borders and there is no way to regain that is compatible with the status of EU member states. Moreover, there is no way to change the European institutions in order to tackle this issue. The provisions in the Treaty are not like ordinary laws: they can not be corrected by the Parliament and, once in force, are effectively irreversible, or reversible only if si rifiutasse il Trattato e l’intera sovrastruttura istituzionale e procedurale costruita su di esso. Nessun partito politico ha il coraggio di farlo, dal momento che le conseguenze sono incalcolabili.
Coloro che hanno concepito i Trattati di Maastricht e di Lisbona erano consapevoli della perdita di credibilità dell’Ue di fronte ai cittadini dell’Europa. Tuttavia, erano membri di una nuova classe politica, convintamente transnazionale, ben retribuita nella vita professionale e dipendente dagli apparati europei per i propri privilegi. Tale classe politica forma parte dell’economia globale. Si relaziona con maggiore facilità con il settore delle aziende multinazionali che con le collettività locali, intrattiene rapporti with the elites of other places and covers the tasks without friction plantations established within the EU.
A typical example of this class is our new Foreign Minister, Baroness Ashton. No one in Britain knew who he was when his appointment was announced. It has never been elected to any of the offices that he held, came to the House of Lords by the Labour Party and its network of NGOs without attracting attention to himself, and was appointed as our representative for foreign affairs without nobody in my country, but his fellow members of the new political class, was able to express their opinion on it. This political class is much more interessante per le aziende multinazionali della gente comune, dato che controlla una macchina legislativa che passa sopra le teste dei cittadini. Attraverso l’attività di lobby a Bruxelles, le grandi industrie del mondo possono modificare le leggi di ogni nazione in loro favore.
In qualità di membri di tale classe politica, coloro che redigono i trattati UE sono ovviamente attenti a salvaguardare la loro posizione. Sono stati compiuti molti sforzi per creare una sorta di ‘simil-democrazia’ in cui un Parlamento Potemkin simula di prendere in esame la legislazione e simula di esercitare il proprio diritto di veto sulla stessa, ma nella quale, in realtà, nessuna nazione all’interno dell’Unione può far valere its power of veto. The treaties reassure us that is in effect the principle of 'subsidiarity', according to which decisions should always be taken at the lowest possible level, but at the same time imply that the EU and the Commission to decide what that level. Therefore, subsidiarity is simply another term for that control exercised from the top down that has seized our national legislative powers, guaranteeing the exercise only in cases where we grant them the non-elected officials.
What we are witnessing in the EU, and also within the new forms of international tribunals and regulatory agencies as the WTO and United Nations agencies, is the globalization of politics. Rather than defend national sovereignty, global invasion, the political process supports the overall invasion at the expense of the nation state.
One might ask: why not? What's wrong with that? Since we live in a global society, perhaps we need a global government to solve our common problems? The problem with this approach is that it ignores the principle on which any democracy based its legitimacy, or national identity. In a democracy the citizens identify themselves as part of a first person plural 'us' which is based on the legacy of the past and history, manifests itself in language, religion and attachment to land and community. In Europe, that 'we' is a 'we' National, and it is this concept that politicians are used to obtain the consent of citizens for political choices that may lead to sacrifices in the short term.
The Italians want a government that defends and promotes the interest of the Italian national. They do not want a government that promotes the interests of a class in international politics or the global network of multinational corporations. However, an increasing number of their laws are imposed by the political class, under the pressure of aziende che svolgono attività di lobby.
Cosa dovremmo fare, dunque? Il mio parere personale è che, senza dei cambiamenti radicali, l’UE entrerà in un periodo di crisi. Un numero crescente delle sue decisioni saranno eluse o respinte, e i cittadini cercheranno in ogni modo di riconquistare quei poteri dei quali sono stati erroneamente privati a favore dell’UE. In un modo o in nell’altro l’UE deve cessare di fungere da agente della globalizzazione e diventare un centro di resistenza ad essa, uno strumento per imporre l’ordine politico sull’entropia economica e sociale. Ritengo che l’unico modo per raggiungere tale obiettivo sia ristabilire la sovranità nazionale in tutte quelle aree in cui è stata persa: definire come raggiungere tale obiettivo spetta, tuttavia, ai politici e non a un semplice filosofo.
0 comments:
Post a Comment