The Deja-vu of the EU where Plan B = Plan A

There have been a flurry of stories on the European Constitution as foreign ministers and their aides hold a small meeting under the auspices of the Austrian Presidency. The meeting will be held at the Klosteneuberg monastery, although the beautiful surroundings will not magically produce the harmony that the Constitutionalists so desire. Apart from the nominal scathing reference to the  waste of public money that   the political parasites are so expert at, it is difficult to read the runes.

The announcements on the Constitution that particular Member States have floated over the last few days present a number of conflicting signposts. Some of the Member States view treaty law and national sovereignty as an outdated encumbrance, arguing that all future European treaties should be passed by qualified majority voting. That would be Giscard D'Estaing and Belgium. Others wish to prolong the 'period of reflection' or proffer an alternative view of institutional integration that does not involve a Constitutional Treaty, or consists of a stripped down version. As an interim measure, they all support the moves to cherrypick certain elements within the document for immediate application.

It will not be possible to estimate the outcome of this meeting, although hints will emerge of the need to present a united front, despite the harsh differences on show. What is clear for many within the European elite is the danger of allowing the unpredictable winds of popular votes in upsetting their plans. Hugo Brady of the Centre for European Reform views referenda as a problem, because they don't understand the problems that the EU faces. The contempt drips from this quote.

"The mistake was asking the people if they wanted the constitution," said Hugo Brady, an expert on EU issues for the London-based Centre for European Reform. "Individuals don't easily see the advantages of a multinational organization. It's not a popular opinion, I suppose, but I don't see why a popular vote on a European constitution was a good idea."

One of the themes that has gripped the European institutions since the rejection votes last year is the need to 'consult' their peoples. 'Plan D', based on theories of deliberative democracy, is designed to foster channels of consultation and participation without allowing electorates any say over legal changes or the way that money is spent. If one looks at how the Dutch government and the Commission interprets government financed consultative exercises to support pro-integrationist policies, we can see that Europe will use the tools of deliberative democracy such as polls, focus groups and panels of picked citizens to provide  legitimacy for their actions.

This short-term focus on Potemkin democracy at the expense of engaging with the electorates of the Members States will increase the sense of disillusionment and disengagement. Unable to engage in genuine reform, the EU is setting the stage for further steps away from liberalism and democracy.