EU REFORM ABSENT OF THE BRATISLAVA ROADMAP

It is crucial for the EU to undertake some kind of reform to meet citizen demand, especially when it comes to specific policies. There are some reforms that could be implemented that would increase support among many groups throughout the EU. People care deeply about who governs them. But they are also concerned about procedural aspects.

The EU needs to place the citizen at the centre of the policymakers’ considerations, not just as target, but also as agent. The aim is or should be to develop policies and design services that respond to individuals’ needs and are relevant to their circumstances. Citizens’ direct or indirect participation in decisions that affect them should be actively facilitated. This includes or should include the promise that public’s contribution will influence the decision. The fundamental principle of democracy is that that power is to be exercised through, and resides in, its citizens and not in the elite.

One reform that most people agree on in this context is that they would like to have the possibility to be directly included in the decision-making process via referenda. Minimalist reforms would require more scrutiny by national parliaments and oversight of the Euro Group ,while maximalist reforms could imply a series of referenda to ratify a new institutional architecture. A maximalist reform option that involves referenda would most likely increase support. A middle   option for the current institutional architecture could be reformed by giving national parliaments and the European Parliament more influence in many more aspects of fiscal and monetary cooperation, like approving austerity packages or any type of national reform. In addition, a more closely scrutiny of the activities of the Council, Commission and Central Bank, would need to be approved through a series of citizen referenda in all 27 Member States, or at least within the Eurozone. When considering other steps in the integration process, soliciting citizen preferences through referenda may prove a useful means of fostering support. This might be a fruitful way to give citizens the feeling that they are in control when it comes to what happens in Brussels. The Eurozone crisis has left a mark on public opinion. Citizens in Europe today, and especially those within the Eurozone, are more knowledgeable about the EU. This increased knowledge however has not necessarily led to more approval. There is lack of policy support . Hence, a more attentive citizenship makes it even more important for the EU to perform, not only in terms of outcomes but also in terms of procedures, regarding the way in which decisions and policies are made. Safeguarding peace and security, and promoting economic growth, are the key policy goals that citizens wish the EU to focus on. These are covered in the Bratislava Roadmap but regretfully EU institutional reform to enhance citizens' participation in decisions and policies is not.

Citizens’ Preferences for EU Reform

1. On average, people prefer an EU that is not too expensive. They want an EU that is predominantly designed to safeguard peace and security, as well as to promote economic growth, and about which they themselves can make decisions in referenda.
2. People in the EU as a whole strongly oppose the idea of a directly elected EU President taking decisions, even those that clearly favour more political and economic integration in the future. People are on average largely indifferent about national governments or the European Parliament being the key decision-makers.
3. Important cross-national differences in EU reform preferences exist. For example, the Spaniards and Poles, currently net recipients of the EU budget, are willing to pay more for the EU in the future, while French, Germans and Italians — all net contributors — are not. The French are equally enthusiastic about the prospect of decisions being taken by a directly elected President compared to the European Parliament.
4. While people in the South and East care about economic growth, citizens of the North favour a Union dealing with peace and security. They view the regulation of immigration as equally important to growth.
5. EU reform preferences do differ based on age. Generations primarily disagree about who should take decisions in the EU and what policy goals the EU should focus on. In France, Italy and Spain for example, younger generations favour decision-making via referenda rather than the European Parliament, while in Germany, older generations do. When it comes to policy preferences, both the oldest and youngest generations in the EU favour an EU that safeguards peace and security over one that promotes growth.
6. When it comes to how EU preferences mediate support for EU reform, there is no difference based on level of EU knowledge. Yet, there are clear differences based on Europeans’ overall scepticism about the EU. Regardless of whether people are sceptical about their country’s membership in the Union, the Euro, further political and economic integration, or the overall policy direction in the Union, sceptics differ primarily in their views about who ought to take decisions. In contrast to supporters, sceptics are much more opposed to a Union in which European actors make policy. The type of EU reform that sceptics most want to see is towards more national control, either by means of citizen referenda, in which national publics decide, or through national governments.
7. Alongside more intergovernmental decision-making, sceptics also value an EU that regulates immigration more; some even prefer it to one that promotes economic growth.