Is there any hope left for the EU?

Only if it can prove it’s worthy of its citizens.

The ‘European idea’ has seen some strong backlash in recent years. From internal scandals to the rise of far right nationalist parties, and even criticisms from its own champions, has caused EU institutions to go on the the defensive.

But this isn’t a bad thing. As any recovering alcoholic knows, the first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one… and Europe has a problem.

Concerns about the EU’s future come from every angle. EU leaders, including those at at high levels of the Parliament and Commission, honestly admit that if voter sentiment turns against the EU in the next European elections, or if voting levels decrease significantly, the legitimacy of EU institutions generally would be called into question.

Many also seem aware that these problems run to the heart of the institutions themselves. Speaking at an event marking the fifth year of the European Citizens Initiative (a patchy attempt to give a more direct voice to Europeans on EU matters, of which only 3 initiatives reached the required 1 million signatures to be put on the Commissioners’ weekly agenda and has no real recourse), the new VP of the EU Commission Frans Timmermanns deduced the problem.

“We are no longer in a paternalistic society — we are in a post-paternalistic society. But our institutions and the way we do politics is very much still based on the paternalism that we were used to for generations.”

After calling for the adaptation of the EU to post-paternalism, he outlined where he sees the tension developing from on the citizen perspective.

“Now, if people can vote when they watch TV for the Voice of Belgium, the USA or the UK and instantly see the result of their vote, then that is their way of thinking about the world. And what we propose in politics is one vote every four or five years. That no longer works for many people; certainly not in a post-ideological society, a post-paternalistic society. Where a politician used to say “trust me”, and that trust would last for as long as his or her mandate, and that trust was given on the basis of shared backgrounds or ideologies. Now society has changed. We are no longer in a ‘trust me’ society, we are in a society where citizens say “show me” to politicians on a daily basis. To show what you do on a daily basis in a fast changing world is difficult. We need different forms of engaging with citizens.”

If it doesn’t adapt, “the EU can be dissolved and destroyed.”

These calls for evolution are to provide a rebuke to the criticism of the EU as ‘too slow, too weak, too ineffective’. He puts his hopes on a reformed European Citizens’ Initiative, which realistically only acts as a sort of official petition collector — already decades behind the best practices in citizen participation that we are seeing on the local and regional level across Europe, and with European experts. He understands the problem, but his recommendations, which might be revolutionary within the halls of Brussels, are so tragically tepid for addressing citizens’ feelings of disconnect and disenfranchisement to reasonably address it. And herein lies the irony.

The EU is at existential risk, as Brexit and the rise of nationalist parties have shown, and it’s doing an incredibly lacklustre job of defending itself or evolving to relevance.

This year marked 60 year since the Rome Treaties, and 70 years of relative peace across Europe. The Europe of today is one in which true borders, separate currencies, and visa applications seem anachronistic, like medieval walls between cities. By pooling its economic and political clout, while maintaining national political structures, it has in many ways uniquely raised its importance on the world stage.

Part of the problem is communication (or lack thereof).

Often the retort is that the legal European framework is complicated, and ‘is all very difficult to explain’. This misses the point — it’s about output, not process. I don’t need to understand the ins and outs of supply chain management to know that I like my morning cup of coffee, how it gets to me is not my concern.

Another issue is the need to address the true democratic gap that exists — what Timmermanns refers to as the ‘paternalism’ of the EU — that leaves citizens not only with no real understanding of the benefits bestowed upon them, but also a feeling that opaque and unknown forces are working against them when something isn’t favorable. There’s no true engagement between citizens and decision makers past simple petitions.

Citizens need to be able to engage with the EU in a real way.
They must feel informed and consulted on matters.

Their ideas and opinions should be taken in the same way expert witness would.

This sort of true reform would not only make citizens feel connected to Europe, it would actually make them connected to Europe. It would make citizens feel represented at an EU level by showing them who is representing them, and would take the wind from nationalists arguing we have an anonymous Brussels-based bureaucracy. Lastly, by involving citizens in decision making, it would legitimately inform them of the EU’s issues and agenda, but would also showcase how Brussels works, educating on a complicated and cumbersome legal and policy system that many would not encroach to learn about without reason.

It’s time Europe proves to its citizens that it’s worthy of their citizenship. It needs to let its people be heard.