Roger Scruton does not need great presentations. English philosopher, born in 1944, is one of the most tenacious defenders of the West and what it represents. Obviously this is a conservative. Who wants to know more about him, can read the latest book-interview " Suicide of the West," which he did with Scruton Luigi Iannone and which was published by Editions Letters.
The reason I talk about it here is that yesterday, Friday, October 15, Scruton has participated in the "state of democracy in the world", which was held at the Chamber of Deputies. What you see below, hitherto unpublished, is his full report. A politically incorrect analysis, and realistic - in the opinion of myself - for the most part agree with what is going to Italy (not only) because of how it was designed and built the European Union.
Good reading.
Roger Scruton
We appreciate the European democracy because it ensures control over our governments and we have a government that controls us, but that 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 unelected judges, many of whom came from countries that do not have a long history of rule of law. In Italy you have recently had an experience in this regard, in a ruling that he intended to remove crucifixes from your classroom, because they hurt human rights. The
Most of us see the thousands of irreversible directives issued by the European Commission, the decisions on ideological motivation of the European Court of Human Rights as a threat to democracy. But there seems no way to reform these institutions act to prevent the problem.
Without anyone it wanted to, we Europeans have come to a situation in which most of our laws are imposed on us by people who were never elected and who does not take 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' in my country believe that the cost- 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 the 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 concerning the village in his collection 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.. But the principle is 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 be therefore 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 people the village 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, poiché le popolazioni locali votano puntualmente contro tali proposte. Il traffico nella Svizzera rurale è marcatamente più lento che non altrove, ed i confini dei villaggi sono notevolmente più chiari e netti.
In Francia le autostrade sono decretate dal governo, i terreni sono acquisiti per decreto e soltanto l’Assemblea Nazionale può avere voce in capitolo.
Di conseguenza il traffico è più snello in Francia, l’economia nazionale ne beneficia e la vita nei pressi delle autostrade è un inferno. La Francia è dunque più democratica rispetto alla Svizzera o lo è meno?
Alcuni potrebbero obiettare che il potere dei villaggi e dei cantoni svizzeri impedisce progetti che potrebbero bring benefits 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 their 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 community of real human voice 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 is a contract 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 a controllo democratico. La popolazione di ogni stato può votare per rescindere il contratto in ogni momento. I trattati bilaterali sono stati, quindi, raramente visti come minacce alla democrazia: al contrario, essi sono stati spesso percepiti come il risultato naturale del processo democratico, in base a cui il popolo conferisce ai propri governi la libertà ed il dovere di agire nel loro interesse.
I trattati multilaterali potrebbero non costituire alcuna minaccia alla sovranità degli stati o al processo democratico. Perfino quando tali trattati danno vita a delle istituzioni burocratiche destinate all’agenda condivisa – come nel caso della NATO, ad esempio - non costituiscono una minaccia alla democrazia, nella misura in cui non 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 increasingly subject to external pressure, they can join together to establish procedures and treated to resist such pressures: treaties to protect their shared environments, shared natural resources (such as fish stocks and water resources) or shared concerns in ' safety area. The most important point is that a treaty, like any contract, gives a power to veto individual signatories. If the terms are not met by either party, the others are free to withdraw, and so the treaty is annulled.
In this sense, the treaties can be used to control the globalization and make it subject to the discipline of democracy, just as the political process in 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 treaty è divenuto comune, un contratto in cui le parti hanno rinunciato alla loro capacità decisionale nelle aree regolate dal trattato, per trasferirla ad organismi che i loro elettorati nazionali non possono controllare.
L’Unione Europea ne è un caso paradigmatico. Così come il Tribunale Penale Internazionale, l’Organizzazione Mondiale per il Commercio e la Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, l’Unione Europea 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.
Consider the provisions relating to freedom of movement enshrined in the Treaty of Rome. They guarantee European citizens the right to move freely throughout the Union to find work. At the signing of the Treaty of Rome there was a certain degree of equality of income and employment rates of the nations concerned, and no one foresaw the occurrence of mass migration from one end 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. Ma i cittadini non sono stati consultati e pertanto gli italiani sono costretti ad accettare l’immigrazione di cittadini rumeni, sebbene molti siano fortemente contrari a tale fenomeno. Non dico che gli italiani abbiano ragione, ma questo è ciò che provano. Inoltre, ritengono che sia un loro diritto democratico, attraverso i loro rappresentanti politici, imporre controlli all’immigrazione: dopo tutto è pur sempre il loro paese. Questo diritto gli è stato vietato. Qualsiasi preferenza esprimano alle elezioni, i cittadini italiani non possono fare niente per reclamare che il loro paese sia loro restituito.
Questo è un esempio di una critica che viene mossa in tutti i paesi del Nord e dell’Ovest dell’Unione. 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 you refuse treatment and the whole institutional and procedural superstructure built on it. No political party has the courage to do so, since the consequences are incalculable.
Those who conceived the Treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon were aware of the loss the EU's credibility with the citizens of Europe. However, they were members of a new political class, transnational convincingly, well-paid professional life and dependent devices Europeans for their privileges. This political class is part of the global economy. It relates more easily to the field of multinational companies with local authorities, the elites of relationships with 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 far more attractive to multinational companies of the common people, as it controlled a legislative machine that passes over the heads of citizens. By lobbying in Brussels, the major industries in the world can change the laws of every nation in their favor. As
of members of that political class, those who draw up the EU treaties are of course careful to safeguard their position. Has been made many efforts to create a sort of 'like-democracy' in which a Potemkin Parliament purports to examine the law and purports to exercise its right of veto on the same, but in which, in reality, no nation to ' Internal Union may exercise 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 such 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 no? 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, a 'we' that 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 pressure from the companies that carry out lobbying activities.
What should we do? My personal opinion is that without radical changes, the EU will enter a period of crisis. A growing number of its decisions will be disregarded or rejected, and people will try in every way regain those powers which were wrongly deprived in favor of the EU. In one way or another, the EU must cease to act as an agent of globalization and become a center of resistance to it, a tool to force political economic and social entropy. I believe that the only way to achieve this goal is to restore national sovereignty in all those areas where it was lost: to define how to achieve this objective it is, nevertheless, for political and not just a philosopher.
0 comments:
Post a Comment