After reading recent posts by Martin Westlake and Julien Frisch I actually remembered a post on “EU debates” that I wrote a couple of months ago but somehow forgot to publish. It is rather an exploratory post, very general and patchy and open to new ideas. I want to look at the nature of EU debates without getting into any ideological debate. And after writing this blog for almost 2 years, I think there are numerous problems of debating EU issues online as well as in the “real world”. Here some reasons and possible solutions:
However, to put it into context of the debate, let’s look at the main argument of Julien Frisch who thinks rightly that “The problem of European political communication is that it is not filling our attention on a daily basis because it focuses on the wrong notion of “importance”. Of course it is debatable whether importance as such exists or whether it is a construct of the media/society. So if we accept the latter we should ask ourselves why EU debates are generally constructed as not being inportant?
1. facts vs. myths
Every EU debate at some point touches the issue of EU myths. What does this tell us about the quality of the debate? The fact-myth problem in debating the EU is a time consuming one with two implications: (1) it only reinforces the ideological standpoint of the reader and the commentator; and (2) people tend to forget about the real issues at stake. This shows that something is missing. I would suggest it has something to do with education. Interestingly, not many “national” legislative myths do exist (at least I tend to believe that, but I could be wrong about that…)
2. facts vs. oversimplification
Closely connected to myths is the tendency to oversimplify EU issues. One example is the notoriously used “Brussels wants…” phrase. But also the battle motive is very popular: Head of state 1 vs. Head of state 2. It is very handy to forget that different actors (Commission, Parliament, national ministers, lobbyists, NGOs,…) are involved in the decision making procedure. The European Parliament has a similar problem, citizens do not link their MEPs (in case they know them!) with any EU policies.
Another tendency is a kind of ‘conspiracy component’. Lots of people conveniently buy into some sort of conspiracy theory when it comes to EU institutions. I want to emphasize two points: (1) In every political structure there needs to be a certain degree of secrecy in order for the system to function. (2) The institutional setting of the EU is quite complicated and, yes, the EU is a huge bureaucracy.
The result of overlooking both aspect leads to the perception that the EU is a huge “anti- democratic conspiracy” and lots of people also tend to believe that there is some sort of masterplan somewhere behind closed doors. I do not want to deny that there are indeed problems regarding democratic accountability in the EU but people tend to forget where they actually come from… Paradoxically, both points are also interconnected: If the EU acts not coherently (because of its institutional setting) it rightly gets criticized. But if the EU tries to coordinate policies and approaches (similar to the coordination between national ministries) it gets accused of too much secrecy and not enough transparency. I do not want to defend deals behind closed doors but it is rather difficult to streamline positions of 27 member states (including internal disagreements between ministries!), several European Commission DGs as well as the necessity to deal with lobbyists and other organizations that all want to have a say in EU policy making!
3.institutions vs. policy
Every EU debate at some point turns to the legitimacy question of EU institutions. Of course this is important for any future development of the EU and it also shows that EU institutions are far from being perfect. At the same time, the debate about policy content is missing. Public debates never discuss policy options at an early stage.
4. General popular apathy.
Ok, this is a topic on its own. However, the majority of European citizens seem neither very enthusiastic nor concerned about the EU. They simply do not care about the EU because it is not something one can easily relate to, it is too far away from every day life and it is really boring (that is how it is perceived). Even the European success stories (generally related to the “four freedoms”) are usually taken for granted. I am not very optimistic here, probably this is not gonna change any time soon…
Conclusions
I my opinion EU debates take place too late. Especially national media only reports about EU initiatives after their adoption in the Council, or more accurately, in that moment the national parliament debates it. The debate needs to start earlier in order to have any impact on proposals. I think two major reforms should take place:
1. It is still cumbersome for non-experts to monitor the EU decision making process. Especially the internet and new online tools have the potential to make it easier to monitor and control EU decision making processes. Even though the europa.eu portal contains most of the information, it needs a serious relaunch. A new EU portal needs to be transparent, with a focus on policy processes that makes it easy to follow documents, combined with some interactive elements.
2. Education seems to be the key. Topics such as EU institutions and decision-making procedures need to be integrated in all school curricula as a core element at an early stage. Also national newspapers and TV stations should find ways to integrate EU news in their daily news coverage.
3. The European Parliament or better MEPs individually need to strengthen their relations with national parliaments/MPs. At the same time, national parliaments should be encouraged to engage more with ‘Brussels’ in order not to be surprised in the end… Needless to say that a lot of MEPs should step up their efforts to communicate with their constituency.
4. Further institutional reform (even though that is neither on the agenda nor very popular these days…) that addresses legitimacy, accountability and efficiency issues.
5. Better politicians for Europe! Although some improvements have been made in the last couple of years, there is still a tendency that Brussels/Strassbourg is seen as a retirement posting. However, it is a good sign that lately MEP and Commissioners were appointed national ministers!
Good overview – and good recommendations.
For me one key point is that the different opinions need to be communicated (that’s why headlines like “Germany against economic government” work well).
This can also be seen in regard to your point 1) the Europa.eu website. Why does Margot Wallström’s website not feature any external document about the European Union’s communication policy? Why can’t I find the EESC opinion on Margot’s site? Debate needs controversy and controversy needs different opinions.
I also agree with your analysis. During reading the post I was thinking: what do I miss in the EU communication and why people in general (or I will rather say most of Slovenes in this case) neglect EU policies/institutions. I think that people do not care about “bigger picture” until it influences their lives. So, from a perspective of the new member state: I would even dare to make a hypothesis that people might even have a trust in the EU institutions in a sense that they will fix big mistakes caused on a national level. Another thing is for sure connected with national media which in many cases does not even know much about “this complicated structure” and with education (both of them you mentioned) which still does not offer lectures on e.g. history of the EU or overcoming national and pointing on euronational
(as it is not really supranational)…However, all of this is connected with national politics and national elites who/which will have to give a green light for going further…
of course just another point which has to be combined with etg. mentioned in the blog…
Lots of good stuff, but jut one note, on your first point (and this is a bit of a sidetrack, so sorry…)
Not sure about elsewhere, but in the UK there’s one MASSIVE national legislative myth – that of the Magna Carta. Despite the fact that it has been amended countless times down the centuries and had various sections repealed (to the extent that pretty much none of it remains in force), large chunks of the British population seem to think that it still grants them certain inalienable rights. Even though it never did in the first place – it only granted rights to the aristocracy and larger landowners.
A related one is the myth of the 1689 Bill of Rights (itself inspired at the time by the myth of Magna Carta), from which some anti-EU types tend to quote the following: “no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm” – this, of course, to declare Britain’s membership of the EU illegal. The fact that the Bill of Rights was passed into law by King William III, a Dutchman, and that a quarter of a century later the crown would pass to King George I, a German who spoke no English, seems to be missed by them…
@ Brusselsblogger
The communication of different opinions is indeed a necessary thing, however, I have the feeling that this is not always done in a constructive way. Usually the (national) media is only interested in the national position and not so much in a European compromise or European “interest”…
@ Tanchi
It is true, in Eastern Europe the EU is often seen as a something very positive which also has the capacity to fix national mistakes. At the same time this is also dangerous because you loose capacity to criticize the EU and your national politicians who are often involved in the decision making.
@Nosemonkey
Historical myths – Yes, indeed an interesting field especially when these myths really inform political debates and in the case of the UK even form a kind of “philosophical basis” for anti-EU discourses.
Of course one could also argue that these historical legislative myths are part of the national historical conscience (usually a even bigger myth) that still seems to matter in framing public discourses. Of course this exists in every state although the degree in which they inform EU discourses probably varies greatly, at least that is my guess… In any case, a topic I need to get into
[...] they will be without real ownership at the national and local level. Moreover, what is needed is a public debate on the EU that will continue also after the EP [...]
[...] More on the topic here: The problem of EU debates [...]