The Democratic Case for Pooling Sovereignty
Although I voted to remain in the European Union in the 2016 referendum, this did not reflect an entirely uncritical view of the European project and, in particular, its democratic structures. I was interested therefore to listen to the Leading Podcast interview with Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister, Radek Sikorski. In a wide-ranging conversation, he makes a very spirited argument in favour of EU Democracy.
Sikorski’s relationship with the UK is an interesting one. Just nineteen years old, he was granted political asylum in Britain in 1982 following the declaration of martial law in Poland in December of the previous year. He won a place to study PPE at the University of Oxford where he established his conservative political credentials and became a member of the notorious Bullingdon Club. He was an acquaintance of both David Cameron and Boris Johnson, and an admirer of the latter.
During this period of his life he was a Eurosceptic. Reflecting on this, he now says that in the 1980s, when his own Euroscepticism was formed, “The British public was consistently misled about how the EU works.” [Podcast: 23:32]
Having returned to Poland after the fall of the communist Eastern Bloc, he has entirely changed his view. He now offers a robust defence of the EU’s democratic character:
“For a directive to come into force not only do you need an agreement of the member states and in a majority of cases unanimously, you also need an agreement of the European Parliament; and the Commission are not ‘faceless bureaucrats’. They are appointed by democratically elected governments.”
Sikorski concludes: “Now that I know how it works I don’t know how you could make it any more democratic than that.” [Podcast: 26.02]
Nigel Farage, or indeed Boris Johnson or Michael Gove, would be unlikely to highlight this particular script; however, the core appeal of Brexit for many had more to do with that pesky slogan coined, I believe, by arch Brexiteer Dominic Cummings: “Take back control!”
These three words neatly encapsulated the alleged indignity of European Union membership: that the great British nation was sharing a sliver of its sovereignty with perfidious Europeans. And so, amidst much waving of the Union Jack, the clamour grew: “Take back control.”
There is, however, a democratic conundrum at the centre of this call to reclaim sovereignty. Intrinsically, democracy is about the pooling of individual sovereignty. In a world where each individual is a law unto themselves, we would be returned to the state of nature described by Thomas Hobbes in which, he argued, life would be “nasty, brutish and short.” Hobbes was no democrat, but in his view, any form of government, however unjust, would be preferable to the state of nature.
I would be tempted to argue with Hobbes’s characterisation of human nature as being so irredeemably brutish, but will set that aside for the moment and return to my main point. If we want democracy, then the sharing of individual sovereignty is a prerequisite. The question only remains to decide how widely that sovereignty should be shared. It is obviously the case that the smaller a democratic unit, the more influence an individual citizen will have. This said, federal and quasi-federal structures, like the European Union, allow decisions to be made which affect larger groups of people without removing the right of smaller groups to manage their own affairs. When all is said and done, has ‘taking back control’ to Westminster given a Scottish voter, or a voter in Liverpool, more control than pooling some sovereignty in a larger body where their MEP has a vote?
Naturally, sharing sovereignty means that we will sometimes dislike democratically made decisions, regardless of whether they have been made locally, nationally, or at some transnational level. The alternative, however, is a free-for-all in which, generally, the powerful get their way and everyone else gets the leftovers.
In the light of the somewhat dismal performance of the UK since its exit from the EU, it seems reasonable to suggest that the time has come to undo the damage done by Brexit and rejoin. According to YouGov: “Nine years on from the EU referendum, most Britons believe that it was wrong to vote to leave the EU.”
It is a curious fact, however, that despite this outcome, one of the key architects of Brexit, Nigel Farage, continues to rise in popularity amongst the disaffected, whilst the esteem in which other leading politicians are held is in free-fall.
Radek Sikorski is clear that, were the UK to apply to rejoin, we would be welcomed back into the European fold. My own sense, however, is that rejoining the EU at this stage would prove unpopular in the UK regardless of Brexit-regret. And there is the additional question of the currency.
Gordon Brown—smart man—negotiated for us to keep the pound rather than adopt the Euro. While not an immediate condition, rejoining would almost certainly require a commitment to adopt the Euro in the long term—a sovereignty I believe is worth retaining.
More importantly, however, in this time of Trumponomics, all bets are off. So far as most commentators are concerned, Trump’s tariffs strategy is actively harming the US economy, and the collateral damage to other economies around the world is of no concern to him. As in all things, Trump appears to prefer division to unity and would doubtless be hostile to the UK rejoining the EU. He has no interest in anything other than a winner-takes-all rammy at the level of international affairs. The way in which he is playing his hand can be stupefying, but undeniably he continues to hold many strong cards.
All things considered, I think we should probably put our application to rejoin the EU on hold. For the moment, we must navigate the turbulent world that Brexit, Trump, and the populist zeitgeist have helped to create.
Endnotes
Leading Podcast Putin, Trump, and 500 Years of Resisting Russia | Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister, Radek Sikorski
Wikipedia Radosław Sikorski
YouGov Nine years after the EU referendum, where does public opinion stand on Brexit?
Carruchan
Brexit Revisited
The Democratic Case for Pooling Sovereignty
Although I voted to remain in the European Union in the 2016 referendum, this did not reflect an entirely uncritical view of the European project and, in particular, its democratic structures. I was interested therefore to listen to the Leading Podcast interview with Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister, Radek Sikorski. In a wide-ranging conversation, he makes a very spirited argument in favour of EU Democracy.
Sikorski’s relationship with the UK is an interesting one. Just nineteen years old, he was granted political asylum in Britain in 1982 following the declaration of martial law in Poland in December of the previous year. He won a place to study PPE at the University of Oxford where he established his conservative political credentials and became a member of the notorious Bullingdon Club. He was an acquaintance of both David Cameron and Boris Johnson, and an admirer of the latter.
During this period of his life he was a Eurosceptic. Reflecting on this, he now says that in the 1980s, when his own Euroscepticism was formed, “The British public was consistently misled about how the EU works.” [Podcast: 23:32]
Having returned to Poland after the fall of the communist Eastern Bloc, he has entirely changed his view. He now offers a robust defence of the EU’s democratic character:
“For a directive to come into force not only do you need an agreement of the member states and in a majority of cases unanimously, you also need an agreement of the European Parliament; and the Commission are not ‘faceless bureaucrats’. They are appointed by democratically elected governments.”
Sikorski concludes: “Now that I know how it works I don’t know how you could make it any more democratic than that.” [Podcast: 26.02]
Nigel Farage, or indeed Boris Johnson or Michael Gove, would be unlikely to highlight this particular script; however, the core appeal of Brexit for many had more to do with that pesky slogan coined, I believe, by arch Brexiteer Dominic Cummings: “Take back control!”
These three words neatly encapsulated the alleged indignity of European Union membership: that the great British nation was sharing a sliver of its sovereignty with perfidious Europeans. And so, amidst much waving of the Union Jack, the clamour grew: “Take back control.”
There is, however, a democratic conundrum at the centre of this call to reclaim sovereignty. Intrinsically, democracy is about the pooling of individual sovereignty. In a world where each individual is a law unto themselves, we would be returned to the state of nature described by Thomas Hobbes in which, he argued, life would be “nasty, brutish and short.” Hobbes was no democrat, but in his view, any form of government, however unjust, would be preferable to the state of nature.
I would be tempted to argue with Hobbes’s characterisation of human nature as being so irredeemably brutish, but will set that aside for the moment and return to my main point. If we want democracy, then the sharing of individual sovereignty is a prerequisite. The question only remains to decide how widely that sovereignty should be shared. It is obviously the case that the smaller a democratic unit, the more influence an individual citizen will have. This said, federal and quasi-federal structures, like the European Union, allow decisions to be made which affect larger groups of people without removing the right of smaller groups to manage their own affairs. When all is said and done, has ‘taking back control’ to Westminster given a Scottish voter, or a voter in Liverpool, more control than pooling some sovereignty in a larger body where their MEP has a vote?
Naturally, sharing sovereignty means that we will sometimes dislike democratically made decisions, regardless of whether they have been made locally, nationally, or at some transnational level. The alternative, however, is a free-for-all in which, generally, the powerful get their way and everyone else gets the leftovers.
In the light of the somewhat dismal performance of the UK since its exit from the EU, it seems reasonable to suggest that the time has come to undo the damage done by Brexit and rejoin. According to YouGov: “Nine years on from the EU referendum, most Britons believe that it was wrong to vote to leave the EU.”
It is a curious fact, however, that despite this outcome, one of the key architects of Brexit, Nigel Farage, continues to rise in popularity amongst the disaffected, whilst the esteem in which other leading politicians are held is in free-fall.
Radek Sikorski is clear that, were the UK to apply to rejoin, we would be welcomed back into the European fold. My own sense, however, is that rejoining the EU at this stage would prove unpopular in the UK regardless of Brexit-regret. And there is the additional question of the currency.
Gordon Brown—smart man—negotiated for us to keep the pound rather than adopt the Euro. While not an immediate condition, rejoining would almost certainly require a commitment to adopt the Euro in the long term—a sovereignty I believe is worth retaining.
More importantly, however, in this time of Trumponomics, all bets are off. So far as most commentators are concerned, Trump’s tariffs strategy is actively harming the US economy, and the collateral damage to other economies around the world is of no concern to him. As in all things, Trump appears to prefer division to unity and would doubtless be hostile to the UK rejoining the EU. He has no interest in anything other than a winner-takes-all rammy at the level of international affairs. The way in which he is playing his hand can be stupefying, but undeniably he continues to hold many strong cards.
All things considered, I think we should probably put our application to rejoin the EU on hold. For the moment, we must navigate the turbulent world that Brexit, Trump, and the populist zeitgeist have helped to create.
Endnotes
Leading Podcast Putin, Trump, and 500 Years of Resisting Russia | Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister, Radek Sikorski
Wikipedia Radosław Sikorski
YouGov Nine years after the EU referendum, where does public opinion stand on Brexit?
Share this:
About Stephen Shellard
I am a retired College lecturer, having worked originally in supported programmes but latterly having taught social science subjects, Psychology and Politics, though my degree was in Sociology. I am from Newry in Northern Ireland, but now live in Dumfries in South West Scotland. https://carruchan.wordpress.com/about/