Let citizens look before their leaders leap

Date: 04/07/1996

AS is all too often the case, EU governments have once again failed to practise what they preach.

While constantly stressing the need to bring the Union closer to its citizens by making its activities more transparent, most member states are decidedly hesitant when it comes to turning this rhetoric into concrete proposals for greater openness in EU affairs.

One of the issues currently under discussion at the Intergovernmental Conference is the call, led by Sweden, for a general right of public access to documents to be enshrined in the revised Maastricht Treaty.

Although this idea seems to have attracted fairly widespread support in many member states, the IGC negotiators have decided amongst themselves that they will not apply the very same principle to the reams of documents which form the basis of their behind-closed-doors discussions.

Some member states have begged to differ and in Denmark and Sweden such documents are being made available to the public. So far, at least, this has not sparked any huge outcry or fuss - so what are the others so afraid of?

EU leaders, parliamentarians and pundits have all warned against repeating the mistakes made during the Maastricht negotiations, when there was little public debate on the issues at stake and member states were taken by surprise by the backlash which followed agreement on the treaty in December 1991. All agreed that this should be avoided next time around by encouraging an active public debate on the Union's future during subsequent IGCs.

But Union governments now appear to be ignoring their own warnings. How can the key issues involved be debated properly if members of the public cannot read for themselves the arguments put forward by member states in support of, or in opposition to, the proposals now under consideration?

New IGC chairman Noel Dorr will this weekend ask fellow negotiators to look to the future and consider how their political masters might sell the new treaty to a sceptical public. He should start by asking them to reconsider the decision to withhold publication of the documents which are influencing their discussions.

While it is all very well for politicians and bureaucrats to muse on how the outcome of their deliberations will be received by ordinary citizens, surely it would be better to test the water as they go along by involving the public in the debate? A carefully-constructed publicity campaign at the end of the process might help to win the public over, but it could just as easily backfire if people feel - once again - that they have been kept in the dark about the decisions being taken in their name.