Europe's leaders must avoid any 'back door' moves to implement the defeated Constitutional Treaty but can best show they received the 'wake-up call' of the summer's No votes by adopting a democracy package of only those measures in the defeated Treaty which gave away power from EU institutions, argues a new Fabian paper Trumpets round the City Walls: From divides to democracy in Europe by Paul Hilder published on Monday 12th December 2005 in the run-up to the European Council summit. The paper's proposals have been endorsed by former Europe Minister Denis MacShane who spoke alongside Gisela Stuart MP at a Fabian launch seminar to preview the European summit on Monday.
Adopting only a 'democracy kernel' of the three proposals which proposed to give away powers 'would be the first page of a new story: one in which the EU is prepared to listen, learn from and engage with its peoples', says Hilder. This would include a a European Citizens' Initiative to put proposals on the agenda by raising one million signatures, paving the way for a citizens' campaign to win a million signatures for CAP reform – 'a bottom-up shock is perhaps the only way the CAP can be transmuted into something fit for purpose' given how agriculture is blocking progress from the EU to this week's WTO Hong Kong negotiations.
Paul Hilder warns against British 'complacency and wish fulfillment' which sees Europe's current 'post-traumatic stress' as 'A Good Thing' which will pave the way for desirable reform, as Europe's new generation of leaders Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy join Tony Blair and then Gordon Brown to make the case for a new 'Global Europe'.
'It is already clear that reality will be more complicated. Merkel's half-victory has settled few of the big questions facing Germany, and she ran on a platform to reject full Turkish membership. Sarkozy recently called the weak Hong Kong proposals on CAP reform a "fool's deal" which he would never accept, hinting that he has not yet committed to a full Blairite makeover. Romano Prodi is leading the centre-left's challenge to Berlusconi in Italy on an integrationist ticket. Poland's starkly right-wing new President Lech Kacszynski has advocated the death penalty, opposed abortion and gay rights and called for reparations from Germany for the Second World War, and his Law and Justice Party relies in parliament on Andrezj Lepper's anti-Semitic populists. Few of these developments fit the British script', writes Hilder.
'Only a handful of elements in the constitution distributed power beyond existing institutions and provided means for citizens and national elites to become more closely involved in the future of the Union:
'These were modest but significant reforms in favour of those who often feel on the outside of the Union system. After this summer's fiasco, almost none of the constitution's reforms can or should be salvaged in the immediate future: if we implement by the back door, we will risk losing further legitimacy. But these three measures – Council transparency, an early warning system for national parliaments, and the citizens' initiative – could be offered as the beginnings of a response to the challenge of the No votes. They would be the first page of a new story: one in which the EU is prepared to listen, learn from and engage with its peoples', says the paper.
The citizens' initiative proposal would open a channel for citizens to get behind positive EU reform and to end 'the many embarrassments that intergovernmental deadlock leaves frozen in amber'. 'A "taxpayers' revolt" to end the expensive farce of two parliament buildings (in Strasbourg and Brussels) would not be long in coming. Bureaucratic excess will be harder to ignore if millions of signatures draw attention to it' says Hilder. But the most important would be 'a transnational citizens' campaign for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy'.
The paper proposes an initiative by "We, a million-plus citizens of Europe" which would halve CAP spending during the next EU budget and use the money 'on developing a sustainable future for our societies'.
'This initiative could engage a diverse range of constituencies, not least the Make Poverty History movement and Oxfam's Make Trade Fair campaign. Consumer movements could add the voices of hundreds of millions of Europeans, in particular the poor, affected disproportionately by inflated food prices. The new member states, benefiting from only a fraction of CAP subsidies for years to come under the unfair terms of accession, have shown themselves open to inventive reform. Eurosceptics could add their shoulders to the wheel. There may even be millions of people in France who understand that their future lies more in renewal than handouts'.
'One need only imagine a campaign website poll: "Would you rather 40 billion Euros a year was spent on:
Trumpets round the City Walls: From divides to democracy in Europe by Paul Hilder was published as a Fabian freethinking paper on Monday 12th December 2005 by the Fabian Society. The full text is published on the Fabian website, or copies are £2 from the Fabian Society, 020 7227 4900.
Paul Hilder asks whether and how the EU can recover from the post-traumatic shock of the collapse of the draft Constitutional Treaty. A democracy package would signal that the EU and its leaders are prepared to listen, learn from and engage with its peoples.
"It is time to give ourselves a reality check. To receive the wake-up call. The people are blowing the trumpets round the city walls. Are we listening? Have we the political will to go out and meet them so that they regard our leadership as part of the solution, not the problem?" - Tony Blair
The European Union is suffering from post-traumatic stress piled on top of chronic fatigue, and the cracks are showing. The constitutional treaty's collapse after rejection by voters in France and the Netherlands this summer has been followed by a series of very public rows on the big questions of Europe's future.
We have seen bitter recriminations over the continuing failure to agree the EU budget. Austria made a stand before the gates of Vienna against the opening of accession talks with Turkey, a battle that will be fought chapter by chapter in the years to come. Peter Mandelson's entanglement in a protectionist farce over 'bra wars' with China was simply prelude to the increasing likelihood that the Doha development round of trade talks will have its back broken by our agricultural subsidies in Hong Kong this month. Leaders promised a 'pause for reflection' when the Constitution bit the dust. It feels more like a vacuum, one into which forces of conservatism and division are starting to flood.
Many seem to regard the present turmoil as only the storm before the calm. The collapse of the Constitutional Treaty is widely regarded in Britain as 'A Good Thing' - delivering a bloody nose to an old-fashioned European elite, killing off the integrationist dream and turning the tide of history decisively in our favour. A confident expectation has developed that, after a year or two of stasis, a more effective Europe must emerge in 2007 or 2008. Reform and democracy will follow crisis as surely as night follows day.
There is far too much complacency and wish fulfilment here for comfort. Since the No votes, sanguine Brits have been claiming the cavalry are just over the horizon. Tony Blair's relations with Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder may have been irreparably damaged over Iraq, but they are yesterday's men. The next generation of political leaders, coming soon to major EU powers near you, would see a dramatic turnabout. A reforming Angela Merkel and Chirac's arch-enemy Nicolas Sarkozy would inject new life into France and Germany. There would not be long to wait before Blair, then Gordon Brown, could jointly head this 'big-three' axis for European reform under the banner of Global Europe.
Even if this scenario were to come true, there is little certainty that the other twenty-two states would fall into line. But it is already clear that reality will be more complicated. Merkel's half-victory has settled few of the big questions facing Germany, and she ran on a platform to reject full Turkish membership. Sarkozy recently called the weak Hong Kong proposals on CAP reform a "fool's deal" which he would never accept, hinting that he has not yet committed to a full Blairite makeover. Romano Prodi is leading the centre-left's challenge to Berlusconi in Italy on an integrationist ticket. Poland's starkly right-wing new President Lech Kacszynski has advocated the death penalty, opposed abortion and gay rights and called for reparations from Germany for the Second World War, and his Law and Justice Party relies in parliament on Andrezj Lepper's anti-Semitic populists. Few of these developments fit the British script.
As the alarms start to ring around us, we should take them as a timely reveille. A reformed Europe will not automatically fall into our lap. There is no guarantee that things will be any better by 2008. It may take until the first or second anniversary of the No votes for us to see their consequences in the round. But whatever happens – or does not happen – in the next few months will profoundly influence the outcome of discussions. The pattern being set at present is one of diverging monologues and whispers in corners. The Austrian readiness to contemplate veto over Turkey, France's wrecking stance over trade talks and the budget rows exemplify the spirit in which European intergovernmental debates look likely to be conducted in the months and years to come: protective, small-minded, using national polls as battering rams against one another's projects.
These clouds are shot through with rays of sunlight. Inventive pragmatism should be the order of the day, rather than pessimism or naive optimism. There is much merit in many of the arguments now being rehearsed for reform. Europe needs to respond openly to global economic changes, to invest more in research and development and less in agricultural subsidies, and to renew our social model to bring in those outside the circle of hope – from Paris to Birmingham, from eastern Germany and Poland to Madrid. We need to develop better common capabilities on foreign policy and defence, to support change in the Middle East, and to include Turkey so as to stabilise our south-east border and support moderates in the global Muslim reformation. The dynamics of the enlarged Union will open up opportunities to build broader coalitions for change.
But a laid-back certainty that we are so surely right about these big questions that others must soon see sense is the worst of all possible strategies. History teaches us that shocks bring chaos or tragedy at least as often as renewal. Disruption opens the door to a menagerie of forces, and there are other manifestos for Europe. The best will not necessarily win through at first, or at all.
Pushing for solid reforms to economies, welfare, agricultural subsidies or on defence may rightly appear attractive after the insubstantial fare of constitutional tinkerings. But it is becoming clear that most reforms are blocked by divides which may deepen rather than heal over time. Frontal assaults and zero-sum thinking will get us nowhere. Not just as Brits but more importantly as Europeans, we have to craft a political strategy to open the way for positive root-and-branch reforms – and it needs to start now.
A triple legitimacy crisis: listening to the people?
The European Convention promised a 'great debate' about Europe's future. It never happened. The resulting constitution was a camel designed by committee. A cut-and-paste job from the existing treaties seasoned by a handful of fresh initiatives pared down to their lowest common denominator, it is not for mourning.
But the constitution's demise creates significant obstacles to future leadership. First, its reforms to streamline the machinery of decision-making for a Europe of twenty-five nations are no more. A vast range of decisions still need to be taken by consensus. The power of the veto is undimmed, with the spirit of veto politics in the ascendant.
Second, the increasingly political nature of Europe and the issues it must tackle – from Turkey to globalisation, from immigration to foreign policy in the Middle East – is making policy cleavages between governments more intense. Third, bad blood in the wake of the failure and from division over Iraq is still making general consensus on reforms unlikely. More and more, Europe's elites are doubting whether their visions for its future remain compatible.
The EU is afflicted by a triple legitimacy crisis – a deficit of leadership, a deficit of mission, and a deficit in our democratic life. These seldom feel like emergencies, more like an almost imperceptible hollowing beneath the buzz of daily events. But as we know from climate change and tectonic shifts, slow catastrophes are difficult to understand and glimpsed only occasionally.
The first problem is a crisis of the elites. The continent's leaders cannot agree as to who should be leading and in what direction. There is no need to lose ourselves in laments over the passing of a golden age of political giants. Leadership relies not simply on the qualities of individuals, but on the extent to which it is possible for anyone to mobilise trust and support across the system and turn it into action. It took decades and a second world war for Britain to turn to Churchill. The problem for Blair, Chirac and company is that their diverging visions each command a constituency which is strong enough to sustain the vision, but far from strong enough to win through.
This leadership vacuum feeds into the second and more fundamental problem – a crisis of mission and capabilities. Europeans no longer have a clear answer to the question, 'What is Europe for?' People are blowing their trumpets in opposite directions. The British script runs that our continental neighbours are finally sick of Brussels and a sclerotic social model, and stand ready to pour themselves into an Anglo-European mould. The French are in fact turning toward protectionism and populist chauvinism, while dreaming of a multi-polar world. Germany is paralysed and uncertain, Italy tumultuous, and a buzz is rising from Brussels and several national capitals about a Core Europe in which deeper integration can proceed apace.
Cracks over immigration and social cohesion continue to widen, encouraging a Fortress Europe vision that is becoming more modern and viable by the day. More unruly nationalisms are also gaining strength, from Poland and the Czech Republic to France, Germany, Belgium and Denmark.
Legitimacy can be built through practical achievements. But present European capabilities and policies are neither sufficient nor appropriate to tackle the challenges we face. Without greater consensus on the Union's mission, we have no chance of altering its tools. Blair's European Parliament speech rightly pointed to the crises of leadership and vision, and provided a compelling prospectus for change. But regardless of the credibility of the message or the messenger, we need to recognise the strength of competing ideas in the minds of both elites and citizens. They too are powerful currents in this chaotic sea of discontent.
Legitimacy can be built through democratic processes of involvement and consent. Yet the third and most fundamental problem for European legitimacy today is its lack of roots in vibrant democratic life at national or local level. National systems of legitimacy are gradually hollowing out in many member states. Citizens are growing increasingly suspicious of the intentions and capacity of their own country's elites.
This public disillusionment with politics is certainly most pressing with respect to national questions – welfare systems, taxation, community cohesion or the public services. But it is an anxiety reinforced when it comes to EU matters not just by the apparently less governable nature of the global challenges confronted, but by a lack of meaningful channels through which ordinary citizens can express preferences or influence decisions at European level. The mandate of national elites for intergovernmental barter or transformative European reform is eroded by the decay of their national roots. Indirect representation through national governments elected once every few years is no longer a sufficient underpinning for legitimate leadership in Europe. The European Parliament is even less credible in most quarters.
Meanwhile, our geopolitical challenges are pressing ever closer. When it comes to the probability of environmental catastrophe, the rising power of India and China, the poverty and resentment growing from central Asia to sub-Saharan Africa and the growing risks to global security, talking is not enough. Europe's peoples are shrinking, aging and dividing. We are writing a tragic story for ourselves. We need to act, decisively and together, if we are to have a future in the world. It may even be that without better European leadership, the global future will darken. Yet our collective answer, if it comes at all, risks being too late and too defensive. The walls of Fortress Europe may be raised in permanence.
In the second half of the twentieth century, the European mission was to build peace and prosperity in our continent. That goal is largely achieved. But our achievements cannot be sustained unless we go further. Europe's mission for this century, should we choose to accept it, is a global one. It is to help spread peace, prosperity, sustainability and democracy wider and wider, guided by practices of global solidarity which work through dialogue and support rather than imperial imposition. It is for this that we need to renew our own democracies and social models, to reform the CAP, invest in green growth for ourselves and others, and work toward peace and stability using new means in the Mediterranean, the Caucasus, and further afield.
But most of these goals look unachievable in this environment of schism. We have neither the governance tools nor the political consensus to turn the oil-tanker of Europe. Popular rejection needs somehow to be harnessed, not simply contained. It represents a source of energy that could be channelled into change and otherwise will obstruct it.
The 'input' legitimacy of democratic responsiveness is not only desirable in itself. It is becoming a necessary condition for getting anything worthwhile done. So a knight's move presents itself: first, bring forward a small package of democratic reforms that puts flesh on the bones of the idea to go out and meet the people. If done seriously, this could give our publics a stake in shaping much-needed change.
The first chapter of change: a democracy kernel?
The No votes in France and Holland put the cap on three years of disinterest. This was a devastating indictment of the constitution's failure to live up to the challenge of "bringing Europe closer to the people". That goal, set at Laeken in 2001, would have required us to engage in proper democratic process: to listen, deliberate and decide together on things which mattered to our peoples. Yet the chance for debate was sunk in bureaucratic legalities. Only a handful of elements in the constitution distributed power beyond existing institutions and provided means for citizens and national elites to become more closely involved in the future of the Union:
- the requirement for the European Council to meet in public, so that member states have to be honest with their own citizens;
- the right of a third or more of national parliaments to "call in" proposals and send them back for revision;
- the European Citizens' Initiative, giving the right of petition to ordinary citizens if they can raise a million signatures.
These were modest but significant reforms in favour of those who often feel on the outside of the Union system. After this summer's fiasco, almost none of the constitution's reforms can or should be salvaged in the immediate future: if we implement by the back door, we will risk losing further legitimacy. But these three measures – Council transparency, an early warning system for national parliaments, and the citizens' initiative – could be offered as the beginnings of a response to the challenge of the No votes. Severed from the murk of the old acquis, they would be the first page of a new story: one in which the EU is prepared to listen, learn from and engage with its peoples.
Some in Brussels are already talking about these three reforms, despite the fact that none is directly in the interests of existing EU institutions. It would be hard for anyone to veto them in the present climate. Any leader prepared to combine them in a new "democracy kernel" for the Union could score a coup, even gain credit and legitimacy to advance their own substantive agenda. If Brits drop the ball, Finns could pick it up when their presidency begins in July next year. But there may even be an immediate opportunity, given that budget talks look to be deadlocked into 2006 and we cut October's two-day summit to an afternoon because there was nothing to talk about.
This democracy kernel would not be just for show: much could grow from it. The early warning system and the citizens' initiative would tap into two wellsprings of energy that the Union sorely needs. Their deeper impact could be to open up new bottom-up spaces for political exchange and organisation amongst the nations.
Giving national parliaments an explicit role in scrutinising European legislation and proceedings – as the Finnish parliament has begun to – could help engage national political elites in European argument, from journalists to elected representatives. Giving parliaments real power together to stop ill-conceived initiatives would encourage them to behave as responsible actors rather than bored onlookers. Perhaps most importantly, ensuring that this power is available only when they are working together will help to drive the development of horizontal parliamentary networks for deliberation, cooperation and practical organisation. If we are part of a Union of states and peoples, it is right that the national parliaments, not just executives, should be involved in European decision-making.
Why is democracy across borders a good idea anyway? Because many of the big issues we face today are transnational. The old tradition of executive prerogative in foreign policy is less legitimate in an interdependent world, where trade, the environment and security are simultaneously global and local.
The citizens' initiative could become a seedbed for more grassroots campaigning about issues such as trade, foreign policy or the environment. The requirement for signatures from a considerable number of countries would drive dialogue and organising across borders. The target of a million signatures contrasts positively with the present technocratic tendency of Brussels NGO lobbies. Initiatives ought to be addressed simultaneously to the European Commission, Council and Parliament. This would enable each body to respond appropriately, and prevent campaigns from being buried in bureaucracy.
Proposals could be brought forward by a diverse range of alliances and movements. Their tribunes might include musicians and celebrities alongside civil society activists. But as Gisela Stuart has noted, nationally elected representatives could also find new vitality in leading such campaigns.
Many other reforms could follow. Some have already been mooted by analysts across the continent or in Margot Wallstrom's sketched "Plan D for Democracy". The EU could make more use of citizens' juries or assemblies and other innovative engagement processes in formulating and testing policy. Member states could even start to confront the legitimacy crisis closer to home by agreeing to join in learning networks on democratic renewal and innovation at national and local level.
None of these measures is a silver bullet for democracy. Even taken together, they leave a swamp of problems untouched. But they would bring Europe closer to the people. If we are serious about that aspiration, we should honour it with action. Otherwise we lay ourselves open to the accusation that heads of state are keen for the people blowing their trumpets outside the city walls to stay there, outside in the cold, while those inside ventriloquise them in endless zero-sum negotiations. Let's open the gates.
"The people shouted, and the wall collapsed"
What could these ideas lead to in reality? There is no doubt that conservatives will seize upon the opportunity afforded by a citizens' initiative, just as progressives will. Petitions will rapidly be raised for the exclusion of Turkey, zero-immigration policies, protectionism, anti-abortion frameworks and the death penalty. Yet this is the stuff of living politics. Peaceful avenues for raising popular grievances provide a pressure-valve for frustrations and a door to learning and compromise. The Union can explain why it has no role in some of these areas. More moderate forces will mobilise in outrage against illiberal ideas.
More importantly, the citizens' initiative will open a channel for citizens to get behind positive EU reform. With the right political entrepreneurship, Europeans could make an end-run around the many embarrassments that intergovernmental deadlock leaves frozen in amber. A "taxpayers' revolt" to end the expensive farce of two parliament buildings (in Strasbourg and Brussels) would not be long in coming. Bureaucratic excess will be harder to ignore if millions of signatures draw attention to it. The huge but scattered constituency for greater common foreign policies and defence capabilities could raise its banner too.
I want to sketch out one possibility in particular: a transnational citizens' campaign for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. The decoupling of subsidies from production, while a step in the right direction, does not end the terrible injustice done to developing world producers and European consumers by a CAP which still forms almost half the EU budget. The British met demands for the reform of our rebate by offering it for negotiation if the CAP is reformed. Other countries expressed interest, but France predictably reaffirmed its veto, and no credible alternatives have been tabled around which opinion could gather. This December's trade negotiations could collapse in disarray and will lead at best to promises, with even these being fought bitterly by the French and others.
This intergovernmental deadlock is decades-old. But a transnational campaign could undermine diplomatic positions and tap into popular energies, thereby changing the game. Even the well-spun Eurobarometer polls (which exclude trade-off questions) show that perceptions of the CAP's advantages are falling, there is considerable dissatisfaction – in particular in France – over the effect on small farmers and rural areas, and two-thirds of Europeans support the shift toward rural development. The new member states too are dissatisfied about the phasing-in agreement under which they receive only 30% of their CAP dues in 2005, and will not get the full amount until 2013. Yet this window for reform is not best exploited by asking them to accept further cuts to structural funds. A bottom-up shock is perhaps the only way the CAP can be transmuted into something fit for purpose.
An initiative might be phrased along something like the following lines: "We, a million-plus citizens of Europe, demand that the EU reviews the CAP in light of global and national considerations and reduces it by half during the 2007-2013 budget period, focusing instead on developing a sustainable future for our societies."
This initiative could engage a diverse range of constituencies, not least the Make Poverty History movement and Oxfam's Make Trade Fair campaign. Consumer movements could add the voices of hundreds of millions of Europeans, in particular the poor, affected disproportionately by inflated food prices. The new member states, benefiting from only a fraction of CAP subsidies for years to come under the unfair terms of accession, have shown themselves open to inventive reform. Eurosceptics could add their shoulders to the wheel. There may even be millions of people in France who understand that their future lies more in renewal than handouts.
The billions of Euros liberated by this initiative's success could be spent in a myriad more constructive ways. One need only imagine a campaign website poll: "Would you rather 40 billion Euros a year was spent on:
- Trade adjustment funds to reskill European workers hurt by globalisation?
- Research and development to reinvigorate our economies?
- Rural development, small-scale farming and green growth?
- Aid to the developing world?
- Reducing our tax burden?
- All of the above?
OR:
- Used to subsidise EU agriculture, in particular large producers, as it is now?"
This is more than a hypothetical idea. Many of us are determined to take it forward, regardless of whether the leaders of the Union create a formal avenue for popular initiatives. Of course, campaigning can only ever take one to the brink of decisions on complex policy challenges. A people's movement must trigger government talks. Europe could even convene a citizens' assembly to hear evidence, deliberate and make recommendations, as British Columbia did recently in changing its electoral model.
The crisis of legitimacy in Europe today has begun to spill over into real popular dissatisfaction. At the same time we have written ourselves a tragic script leading to decline and fall. If we are to reverse the slide and find a place for Europeans in the twenty-first century, we need to change course.
But to get agreement on a new heading, we need first to engage with the popular energies which are now circling unmoored, and to develop channels through which leadership can once again find root. Otherwise the challenge set at Laeken and revived by Tony Blair this summer will expire again, paralysed in a swamp of divides – or worse, those divides will be overcome in favour of the forces of conservatism.
Voltaire's Candide concluded at the end of his journeys, "Il faut cultiver notre jardin." But Europe must not yet retire. In this age of climate change, migration, transnational criminality and global economic systems, fleeing from interdependence is not an option. If we raise high walls to defend our comfortable garden it will be overrun sooner than we think. Instead, let's plant the seeds of a global social Europe. Who knows: we could yet be a beacon for good in the world.
Paul Hilder is a founder of openDemocracy.net and a project director at The Young Foundation.
- Paul Hilder directs the Young Foundation's Transforming Neighbourhoods programme. A founding director of the global debate network www.openDemocracy.net, Paul works internationally on democracy and governance issues. He is policy director of the Middle East Policy Initiative Forum, edited The Democratic Papers (2004) and co-edited Peace Fire (2002).
- This paper, like all publications of the Fabian Society, represents not the collective views of the Society but only the views of the authors. The responsibility of the Society is limited to approving its publications as worthy of consideration within the Labour movement.
- We are happy to grant permission for this Fabian freethinking paper to be reproduced or translated elsewhere, as long as credit is given to the Fabian Society as the source of publication with a link provided to the Fabian website. Please do also let us know at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
