What the recent history of European integration shows us is that every time EU citizens have delivered a ‘No’ verdict, politicians have been shocked. But the countries that make up this union have always found a way forward. There is no reason not to find the way forward this time.
The decision of the Greek government to call a referendum caught seemingly everyone by surprise. The country’s EU partners and the IMF are non-too-pleased about it and have made it clear in all tones. The opposition parties in Greece have declared the government incompetent and rally around to boost support for the ‘Yes’ vote. Without doubt, the Greek government’s move has weaknesses. Many, with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe Torbjørn Jagland amongst them, challenge the decision to only allow one week of debate before the referendum is held. The Supreme Court of Greece is holding an extraordinary hearing today, in order to rule whether the referendum should be held on Sunday, after two Greek citizens launched a legal challenge against the government’s decision to hold a plebiscite. The country’s partners have declared that the proposal which the Greek people are asked to approve is not valid anyway. Considering this is the first time in 41 years that a referendum is offered to the Greek people in order to directly express their will on a critical issue, the government should have ensured that the procedure and question are water-tight.
To suggest that the referendum should not go ahead or to link Sunday’s outcome to Greece’s future in the Eurozone undermines the very core of the EU’s democratic identity
Nevertheless, for all the possible weaknesses perceived or real, of the Greek government’s decision to hold a referendum, the arguments of the ‘Yes’ camp are set on even shakier ground. The insistence on linking the referendum with Greece’s future in the Eurozone, or even in the EU, lacks legal basis. It is also inexplicable considering the ‘Yes’ camp’s self-proclaimed commitment to the European ideals – of which democracy is the core. To suggest that the referendum should not go ahead or to link Sunday’s outcome to Greece’s future in the Eurozone undermines the very core of the EU’s democratic identity. The Greek people have suffered immensely in the past few years from the anti-crisis measures that have been imposed on them. They have been asked to vote at elections several times since 2009, only to see their vote in effect cancelled out through undemocratic procedures and false promises. This is the first time they are asked directly what they think of the measures proposed by the EU and the IMF. They have a right to decide without threats and pressure from any side.
If the verdict is ‘Yes’, then the SYRIZA-ANEL coalition has to accept the public will and resign since this is what they have committed to do, leaving the negotiations to a new government. If the verdict is ‘No’, then the EU and the IMF have to accept the public will and amend their rescue recipe. It is certainly patronizing to present the referendum question as something that is beyond the analytic capacities of the voters: These are the same voters whose verdict is respected continuously for the last 41 years when it comes to the selection of their local and national representatives. Surely, they can also be trusted to assess this EU/IMF proposal?
Crucially, however, there has been no clear and direct explanation on one key point that would really help voters decide: Where do the ‘Yes’ supporters stand on the actual EU/IMF proposal? A substantial answer, which would illuminate the public as to the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal, is what is needed right now, particularly in light of the IMF report that was published yesterday and in which the IMF admits the Greek debt is unsustainable.
In either case, two things must happen after the referendum: Firstly, whichever is the formation of the post-referendum Greek government, it will have to start implementing those big changes that every single citizen of Greece has been longing for for years now, and which do not require much money at all: Fight corruption, bureaucracy and clientelism. This is the only way to restore trust between Greek citizens and the Greek state, but also between Greece and its EU partners.
And secondly, negotiations ought to resume on Monday, in the same way that talks and negotiations among EU member states resumed after the ‘No to the EU Constitution’ vote of the French and Dutch publics in 2005-2006 and the ‘No to the Lisbon Treaty’ of the Irish people in 2008. Referenda have always made the political elites of the union nervous. It is well documented in relevant research, that the votes of the French and Dutch publics against the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union ‘sent shock waves across the EU institutions’. A ‘period of reflection’ ensued, during which EU institutions, particularly the European Commission, (attempted to) engage in public dialogue with the citizens regarding the political future of the Union. Core elements of the debate were the EU’s democratic legitimacy, openness and transparency of the EU decision-making process, the role of civil society and citizens’ participation in building the political identity of the Union. This resulted in the Lisbon Treaty, which was again put on referendum in Ireland. It was rejected by the Irish citizens and was further amended before it was finally approved in a second referendum. In fact, the issues of the EU’s democratic deficit and citizens’ participation in the decision-making process have been featuring in public debates regarding the future of the EU since the Maastricht Treaty (The European Union 1992) came into force, introducing a set of new political aims which took the Union beyond its original economic goals.
What the recent history of European integration shows us is that every time EU citizens have delivered a ‘No’ verdict, politicians have been shocked. But the countries that make up this union have always found a way forward. There is no reason not to find the way forward this time.
