Who is going to decide the EU-case? (Uploading an old writing from the former websites)

Stavanger Aftenblad refused to publish my answer to Thomas Chr. Wyller, both in the paper edition and on the internet (www.stavanger-aftenblad.no), so I rather publish it on my own on my homepage.

Who is going to decide the EU-case?

Stavanger Aftenblad, 07.02.2003

By Thomas Chr. Wyller, Professor emeritus in Political Science

The procedure for a new EU-vote has to be clarified in reasonable time before the EU-clash is over us again in full. Because the tactics will rule then.

A new EU-debate is coming up. Unclear messages are being sent. Situation is unstable. But one point seems unavoidable: A new EU-clash.

Choice of point of view in the case be left without a risk. But one decision is urgent: On method of determination. Even on that issue, the messages are ambiguous.

This is worrying. An unclarity with method on procedure was close to create a deeply serious crisis in 1994. A Yes-majority among voters in conflict with a constitutionally veto-strong No-minority in Stortinget (remark: name of the Norwegian parliament) would have created a closed down situation. Every thinkable solution would have triggered tensions in our political system.

Potential of crisis lies in the double-tracked system of decision: the EU-case is going to be decided through both the Stortinget’s indirect and the people’s direct democratic processes. The laws of constitution are crystal clear: Stortinget has supreme say, the people’s vote is only advisory. In addition will a Yes to EU demand ¾ majority in Stortinget, while no laws exist regarding the voters’ advice.

The relationship is still being complicated politically: By the people’s vote has been acknowledged as decisive two times in the past, and by the expectations with its similar function a third time. The laws of the courts are not motivating for action; political issues strike with great weight. Thereof can the crisis occur. Its key word is a possible disagreement between the voters’ majority and a Stortinget-minority.

Four possibilities
Four possibilities exist in the relationship between the two forms of determination:
Two of them concern agreement between parliament and voters, of Yes in contradiction to No. They both eliminate every problem of decision. A third option is a voters’ No against a (at least) ¾ parliaments-Yes.

Constitutionally Stortinget will be able to disregard the voters’ majority advice. But politically it is almost unimaginable that a third time’s voters’ No is being tried to forced through.

Remains a fourth alternative: A voters’ Yes against a parliament-No. It is like in 1994 – the constellation of potential of crisis: Who decides if the voters say Yes and the elected No?

Killing a myth
A discussion can be introduced by killing a myth.
The EU-case wasn’t decided by voters’ majority alone. In addition there was a set of expected actions in Stortinget. There was no majority constitutionally strong enough to overthrow the voters’ No. But if it was the case, one would not have known what could have happened.

Therefore the 1994-resolution has to be perceived this way: The voters’ No was perhaps a necessity, but not a sufficient condition for the outcome. Stortinget contributed – with 49 resistant No-representatives – indirectly. The constellation comes in under the two alternatives of agreement that I outlined. No-fellowship between voters and representatives.

In that perspective, the upcoming disagreement will have to be considered. Again the process will be double-tracked: Stortinget will belong to the situation of decision. Purely theoretically together with a third time voters’ No. But in fact, together with a possible voters’ Yes. Because a voters’ majority will not alone make us a member of the EU; it has to have with it a constitutional majority in parliament. Tinget (remark: slang for Stortinget) will have to vote over the case.

But again it is the blend of law and politics that can cause problems. The law is clear: Stortinget can say No. But politics can trigger a pressure on the No-representative: You must vote against your conviction because the voters demand it! If that demand wins through, the Norwegian constitution is run off-track. Does it not get consent, a voters’ majority is going to get frustrated. Both solutions will be critical for both the EU-case and the democracy.

In that sort of terrain, both map and compass and competent guides are required. Signals from the heavens are though confusing. Prime-minister and foreign-minister and the chairman of the committee of foreign affairs will all make the election for national assembly 2005 to an EU-vote. But simultaneously they will note the authority of decision of the people’s vote. The Norwegian national assembly is given a subordinate role.

This is official disinformation about the framework of laws. At the same time it is given a taste of an ugly Yes/No-mixture. The Yes-pack’s plan? The election like an opinion poll, like a basis for a tactical consideration of and when a vote is going to be held? No vote before one has assured forecasts and a sufficient majority in a newly elected Storting?

The plan is good enough. But it is founded on the presumption of agreement of the two bodies, and looks exactly away from the possibility of the opposite. That one that can cause crisis. Because no guarantee on beforehand can be made. Opinion polls are one, election is another.

Factual debate, thank you.
And the No-pack’s tactics? Maybe something so neat as to lure the opposition to battle over an European union exactly in that year the celebration of the breakdown of the union (remark: with Sweden) in 1905 is going to put us all in a nationalistic intoxication?

A factual debate is missing here! EU-neutral, procedure-focused, system-oriented. Only a few contributions have been presented. Hallvard Bakke discusses the problems without taking a stand himself: Per Kleppe is having a rabbit’s paw over “formal” laws of constitution (Dagsavisen 23. December and 10. January) (remark: Dagsavisen is a Norwegian labour-party-biased newspaper). Otherwise there is almost only a supremacy of silence. But one (remark: issue) is important here: That the debate of procedure is being led before it gets infected from stands of the case! It therefore has to be activated before the election of the parliament. Because afterwards case-focused tactics will dominate all discussion.

Like this I formulate my own point of view (for a more in depth discussion, look to my writing: 'Folkeavstemning for tredje gang?' (remark: General Vote a Third Time?) A research report, Institute of Political Sciences, 2002): Our double-tracked system of decision – where the people’s vote at the same time is only advisory regarding laws and is trying to be made politically decisive – is really only an unfortunate arrangement of bastardy. That its function is first being declared in the moment a voting result is ready – like that in 1994 – is maximally unfortunate for both case, system and citizens. We must choose openly between decision and advice.

Solutions
Several imaginable solutions exist:

1. We can make a constitutional prohibition against every use of general vote. No suggestion has been presented; besides the idea is politically quite unrealistic.

2.We can advance hereafter as up to now and trust that fate will serve us well. The vote can wait until the people’s majority is being undeniably secured in advance along both tracks (remark: parliament and public). Disagreement between representatives and people will then not arise. But we may not reach such a certainty. And a vote will then of course be in excess.

3.We can make a deciding people’s vote constitutional. It will probably remove the bastard, but in my eyes in too great a degree several other fundamental traits with our constitutional system.

4.Our present valid voting variant can be made constitutional and thereby be given a more firm profile. That is my own preference: A suggestion is formally proposed, with it in this aspect. Thereby its advisory status will be pinpointed as far as rules of law reach. But they do not reach far enough; no-one can prevent the political dynamic from adding the advisory vote an actual function of decision.

5.A constitutional change should therefore be supplied with a systematic enlightening work of information. It must be marked by the character of advisory method where no expectancies of power of decision are being added the voters. From all positions there has to be demanded a loyalty to the criterium of the Constitution: The voters shall be questioned for advice. In the tip of such an information-campaign should our system’s top leaders stand. If they neglect this, they are making themselves guilty in a continuation of the disinformation that Gro Harlem Brundtland developed to completeness in 1994.

Appeal to Bondevik
Therefore – in the end – this appeal to prime minister Bondevik: Erect a special commission for discussing the questions of procedure by a people’s vote! And do this in time: Before the clash of the case makes us all sharpen the knives and let tactics and strategy dominate all our thought. Because through discussion alone, these problems can not be solved. It can only happen through agreement at the highest level. We should expect such an agreement, but it is perhaps a bit much to expect?

We stand – anyhow – in front of a serious test of maturity. Both the system and its bearers.

Answer to Thomas Chr. Wyller

(The chronicle, Who is going to decide the EU-case, in Stavanger Aftenblad, 07.02.2003)

This website, 08.02.2003.

By Terje Lea, Hobby-philosopher, Sandnes

EU and such. I vote Yes by the next EU-vote like I did it in 1994 and I do not think the new sciences (social science, political science and psychology) exist for real (conceptual reality is something else). This is to declare my views of the following of what is written.

I realize that the political importance a people’s vote should have in the question of EU can be questioned and in people’s votes generally.

Now it is probably that everyone feels the job they are doing or the position they have, is totally necessary. The production of some academia can though be questioned. This will be enlighted in the following.

The first interesting point is the innovative concept 'double-tracked system of decision'. I seem to recall something about 'all power in this hall' that is one of the trademarks of an indirect democracy (it is the parliament-politicians who make the decisions on a national level for the voters, while it is the voters who elect the parliament-politicians). The direct democracy that is being aimed at here means that the voters take the political decisions directly as with binding people’s votes (with certain reservations, since it is here still thought that the parliament-politicians carry through the result of the people’s vote). This is a classical question of what political form one should have. In Norway this has been solved by the parties themselves incorporating the EU-question into their party-programmes that challenge the voters to take a stand with every election in this case and in addition to this can the politicians choose to give the voters opportunity to tell if they want to join the EU through a general vote (for a third time). As a fact that it seems to be a wider agreement that there is need for a new decision in the relationship to the EU because of the changes that have taken place this comes naturally as an advisory people’s vote without making it become a question of constitutional form. It should also be said that the parliament-politicians works around the year in order to make the best political decisions for the future that are what politics is really about.

Something about 'Solutions' was also there. I think that this that has been outlined may be under any criticism as only partly mentioned in the introduction.

point: It would be stupid to block out the possibility to give a case a broad foundation of decision and I think it seems like a badly hidden argument for mentometerbutton-politics where one takes political decisions based on opinion-polls (that was thoroughly made fun of with the 'founding' of Det Politiske Parti (remark: The Political Party) that some comedians were behind and that I think is quite popular).
point: It is the present that demands a decision and you can not simply 'secure' or 'wait' for a political result.
point: This has already been issued above and it regards form of constitution (remark: forfatningsform is just another Norwegian word for the same, more commonly used). When it comes to people’s votes, they are not done in a day and besides there are a few economical considerations and considerations of security with them.
point: I think it is unclear what this point is about, but to me it looks to be that a people’s vote founded in constitution, is supposed to be advisory that is in itself a blow in the air since people’s votes on the other hand always are advisory thereof indirect democracy.
point: Incredibly inventive! It is unclear what 'systematic enlightening work of information' is supposed to mean, but today there is already incorporated governmental support to both sides in the EU-case, for example, so that both sides are able to promote their arguments in the common debate that every voter should take part in. The point seems, with background of 'our system’s elite leaders' to be a job-application from Thomas Chr. Wyller’s side where political scientists according to the commercial have looked upon themselves as critical to the ruling power and objective (all decisions they take will always be true and perfectly proved as far as it is possible).

The appeal in the end on my own part to the readers of this answer to Thomas Chr. Wyller say that one should forget about the knives and rather concentrate about the arguments that are being put into the debate that should give each and every one voter a foundation of decision the way the individual voter sees it from her or his perspective and gives her or his vote, indirectly. I stand critical to what 'agreement on the highest level' is supposed mean other than what is already read and written in the Norwegian constitution. Something that makes that Thomas Chr. Wyller could have saved himself of the chronicle and that makes that I could have saved myself from this answer of it because all I have written is already today’s democratic regulations and the enlightenment of them.

Translation by Terje Lea, July 2004.

Til den norske originalen av kronikken og svaret på den. English-speaking? Just something in Norwegian.