|
Following the negative results of the French and Dutch referendums on the Constitutional
Treaty, the European Council has called for a "period of reflection" before reviewing the
situation in 2006. This period may last several years, but steps should be taken now to
respond to what has happened. The process by which a Convention would draft a
Constitutional Treaty, which would then be ratified in many cases by referendum, was
hoped to secure public consent to the basic rules and procedures of the European Union.
The referendums highlighted different reasons why this has not worked: lack of information
or understanding; contradicting or misplaced perceptions of what is at stake; perhaps an
inherent unsuitability of referendums for issues of this scale and complexity. The next steps
should aim to allow citizens to give their informed consent to the basic reasons, rules and
procedures involved, and then to place their trust in representative democracy and other
mechanisms of accountability. A new "permissive consensus" is more appropriate than
pursuing "direct democracy" over details in a Union of half a billion people. Three lines of
action suggest themselves. The first is to develop effective communications strategies and
educational programmes. The second is to go ahead with a few changes foreseen as a
demonstration exercise in the logic of European integration and a "model debate" to
engage the public: these could be the transformation of the EU's provisions concerning
Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, and the role of parliaments in the EU.
Finally, the idea should be explored of seeking a reasoned popular mandate by some sort
of European Declaration of Principles, adopted simultaneously in each Member State,
which would serve as a mandate for detailed negotiations between governments and
subsequent monitoring by national parliaments.
|
