REAL ENGAGEMENT IS NEEDED TOWARDS THE EUROSCEPTICS!!!

It is customary for politicians from the centre (right and left) to claim they have “learnt the lessons” from the results of the European elections and to acknowledge the strength of anti-EU and a broader anti-establishment feeling. Yet they said the same thing five years ago, and five years later there are more – many more – MEPs from the extremes of the political spectrum that will sit in Strasbourg and Brussels. Indeed, at 43% turnout was up for the first time ever in EU Elections, yet this seems to have played into the hands of parties who want to destroy the entire political dimension of the European Union. For those bent on repelling the anti-EU forces, the time for talk is over. There needs to be real engagement from the centre parties towards the Eurosceptics, and fundamental questions have to be asked about how the EU can win back the hearts and minds it has lost, not just over the last five years, but over recent decades. These elections represent a challenge to the political class – they must meet it head on, or risk becoming politically irrelevant.

For years, Eurosceptics have been regarded as synonymous with ‘extremists’. But Euroscepticism encompasses a wide range of viewpoints and is, like most things, a question of degree. Unfortunately, it has been frequently identified only by its radical extremes; advocates of nationalism on the one hand and unreformed communists on the other. This dramatic oversimplification has produced two results: firstly, that moderate Eurosceptics have been driven away from the middle ground towards more polarised positions, and secondly, that serious wrongs have been allowed not just to continue, but rather have been actively defended. In the first case, moderate critics seeking to challenge the fundamental assumptions of the EU have been demonised as marginal nationalists trying to derail the entire process. In the second case, the continued existence of an unelected bureaucracy in which much power is invested remains largely unaccountable, and goes virtually unchallenged. Nuanced debate surrounding the democratic validity of such a state of affairs (where 75 to 84 per cent of legislation is initiated by unelected officials) has been lost in arguments regarding the character of those who raised the issue.

Now Eurosceptics must be taken seriously. The European Union today faces a number of critical challenges, but two stand out as being the most serious; namely, a weakness of legitimacy, and an inability to make rapid decisions. In the case of the former it is the growing democratic deficit and a chronic lack of accountability which are the basis for an ever growing sense of remoteness felt by EU citizens from the decision-making process. In the latter the blame lies with the way decisions are made. Taken behind closed doors, without the rigour or urgency that genuine scrutiny necessitates, decisions at a European level often come too late and are normally representative of the least bad, rather than the best available choice.

It is high time that the European project matures to the point where criticism is no longer ignored or marginalised, but rather welcomed. Calls for increased openness and genuine accountability must move from being chastised to being taken seriously. It is a sign of insecurity, of a clear lack of legitimacy, that all but the most effuse praise is regarded as extreme opposition. It is absolutely vital for the future of the European project that ‘Eurosceptic’ stops being regarded as synonymous with ‘rejectionist’ and instead has the arguments and concerns of its advocates taken seriously.

The EU has many flaws, flaws which will only be solved if they are subjected to open scrutiny, a scrutiny that successive treaties have singularly failed to produce. Eurosceptics most often raise the difficult issues surrounding accountability, are often the loudest critics of a budget which devotes half its funds to agricultural policy and are the first to act as a break on some of the less well thought through aspects of integration (is it really necessary to mandate that women stay home for six weeks after giving birth? etc.). If the EU is to become a genuinely significant actor then it needs to respond with something other than contempt to such concerns.

Moreover, it is increasingly clear that there is a growing number of citizens who share these concerns. Yet the response to the voicing of critical opinions has been one of annoyance rather than acceptance. Such disregard for the democratic process is in itself a matter of grave concern; yet worse still it represents a missed opportunity of monumental proportions. The results of the European elections this time around should cause serious questions to be asked as to why the results have come in that way and what kind of Europe people actually desire. In the past, instead of seizing the chance for a radical dialogue the results were ignored in a manner that not only eroded support for the union as a whole, but also seriously undermined the credibility of moderates on both sides of the argument.

To ensure that Europe remains competitive, economically, socially and geo-politically, it needs to have the tough questions raised and the fundamental assumptions challenged; without this it risks decline, followed by a swift descent into irrelevance. It is time to let go of the past and to focus on the future. The union has now reached a stage where it is dangerous to continue with an attitude based on the premise that opposition to an ‘ever closer union’ is opposition to peace in Europe. Such a viewpoint is without doubt anachronistic and worse still has a debilitating effect on legitimate debate of crucial issues.

With the ratification of Lisbon the EU institutions are, if not more powerful than member states, then they are certainly their equal. Yet the organisation remains riddled with flaws unthinkable to any democrat. Unresponsive to public pressure, unaccountable to elected scrutiny and, for all the good it does, increasingly alien to its citizens. How Europe matures in the face of rising Euroscepticism will play a large role in the making or breaking of the body as an actor of significance. But time is not on its side. After decades of writing off all opposition as nationalistic rejectionists who endanger the peace of a continent, the pro-European movement increasingly finds itself defending the indefensible. Seemingly indifferent to legitimate objection, the EU is in danger of giving undue credence to its more polarised opposition (FN in France or the British ‘UKIP’) at the expense of moderate reformists.

The steps required to reverse this state of affairs will require a complete re-evaluation of the way in which the EU handles criticism and how it sees itself - no longer as the martyred saviour, instead it must see every facet of the flawed reality - and ultimately how it conducts business. The acceptance of opposition to integration will not be an easy journey, it is however a vital one if ever the EU is to gain widespread legitimacy and support beyond its usual proponents.

Instead of a transnational political sphere, the EU has created a system of executive federalism, which is mostly a euphemism for ‘Europe decides, the member states implement’. Democratic politics resides in the nation-states, but the real decisions are already made on a higher level. Europe knows what is good for you, even better than you do. National parliaments are torn between creating consent for resolutions already concluded and upholding the illusion that they still have a genuine democratic debate. For EU officials this creates a comfortable position. They can agree on unpopular matters while avoiding accountability, as we have experienced through the rise of the austerity policies. But now after the results of the European elections, this mode of thinking and of doing will be seriously challenged and business as usual won't do!