A more participative European democracy
Jo Leinen (PES, DE), chair of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, which organised the meeting, suggested that the debate should address people's everyday problems saying: "Participatory democracy is the way to bring Europe closer to citizens, through a bottom-up approach". Most of the participants agreed that the draft Constitution was a step towards a more transparent and democratic Union. But the majority of NGOs criticised what they saw as a lack of public participation in the ‘period of reflection’ and the inactivity of the EU institutions.
Some specific ideas were floated on how to increase public interest in the debate. According to Daniel Spoel, Director of the Permanent Forum of Civil Society, a new Convention should be set up, to ensure the participation of the civil society. It should draw up a new text to be put to all citizens in a pan-European referendum, held on the same day in all Member States. Carsten Berg, representative of Democracy International, suggested introducing, without changing the existing treaties, a ‘European citizens' initiative’. This idea, which was included in the draft Constitution, would allow citizens formally to propose a new EU law to the institutions. Joannes Voggenhuber (Greens/EFA, AT), co-rapporteur on the period of reflection, warned that a legally binding EU-wide referendum was impossible, since ratification was up to each Member State individually, but he said a consultative ballot would be possible, as a political test of public opinion. Andrew Duff (ALDE, UK), the other co-rapporteur, said that re-opening negotiations over the text represented a risk and may not deliver better results.
Strong criticism came from Kevin Bonici of TEAM, the European Alliance of EU-critical Movements. He said the EU institutions risk developing into a totalitarian supranational authority, ignoring people's wills – particularly the negative results of the French and Dutch referendums. Richard Corbett (PES, UK) rejected this, saying the EU cannot be seen as anti-democratic as it requires agreement in the Council, made up of national governments, to legislate. Eric Goeman of Attac Belgium, explained why his organisation campaigned against the Constitution. He said there was a lack of democracy in the constituent process, a strong neo-liberal approach to the economy and a risk of militarising the EU: "The social model of the Lisbon process is perceived as a threat," he said.
Bridging the credibility gap?
According to Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL, DE), the main problem was the gap between people's expectations and the results delivered by the EU. This created a credibility problem for the EU, decreasing public support for the European project. Nicolas Beger, from the Human Rights and Democracy Network, said the EU lacked credibility in the field of human rights. The answer, he said, was "a coherent legal system that makes our values really enforceable, within and outside the EU". Fouad Hamdan, from the environmental NGOs network Green 10, and Patrick De Bucquois, from the Platform of European Social NGOs, said Europeans feared the EU was not offering proper protection from the social risks of globalisation. If everybody could agree that the new challenges of globalisation are better faced at European level, citizens nevertheless had the feeling that the EU institutions were not keeping their promises. According to Henrik Krönzer, Secretary General of the European Movement International, "Europe must adapt the market economy to the needs of a high level of social protection".
Carlos Carnero (PES, ES) said that a way to fill the gap between expectations and outcomes was to provide the EU with the capacity to intervene and deliver results. Many speakers agreed with this, arguing that the EU should have true ‘own resources’, not depending on Member State’s contributions.
Many of those taking part also argued that the EU institutions need to improve their capacity to inform the public of the advantages of being European citizens. According to Simon Stocker, from Concord, the confederation of development NGOs, this can only happen if there is "a committed political leadership at national level...NGOs can contribute to it, but they cannot lead that debate."
The next stage in the dialogue will be a Joint Parliamentary Forum to be held in the Parliament on 8 and 9 May.
