The referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon in Ireland – after the referendum on the European Constitution in France and in the Netherlands – proved that European citizens are no longer inclined to passively approve projects elaborated by European governments on the future of the European Union. A serious consensus crisis just started. The Irish no is exploited by the Euro-sceptic propaganda which supports the idea that enlargement should be accepted without any institutional deepening.

However, public surveys reveal that French, Dutch and Irish citizens – like citizens from other countries of the European Union – are not against Europe. They want a different Europe. They want a democratic Europe, in which their voices would be heard and listened to. They want less bureaucracy and more political Europe. Furthermore, the Irish referendum convinced many pro-Europeans that the building of Europe should be relaunched on new foundations, either between the most pro-European governments or by peoples’ initiatives. Even if the Treaty of Lisbon would be ratified, the crisis would continue. Europe is ruled according to a democratic legitimacy which is far too fragile.

In order to build a democratic Europe, the method has to be changed. In 1950, the French-German initiative was taken without the parliaments and citizens knowing, in order to go beyond the resistances of the national bureaucracies. This initiative was successful, because it was the proposal for peace that European peoples had been waiting for after the tragedy of the Second World War. Today, the enlarged Europe counts 27 countries and has complex problems with governments at the European and international levels. This is no longer possible that a small elite of diplomats, serving governments – which have a national legitimacy but not a European legitimacy –, submits complicated projects for the European Union to citizens. If we want a democratic Union, this has to be built with democratic methods. That is why a democratic revision of the European Union is necessary.

This is not about starting again from scratch. The original European project contained the seeds of the European democracy. But the European Parliament – elected by universal suffrage since 1979 – couldn’t undertake the role of a permanent constituent assembly, as Willy Brandt wished. After the Treaty Spinelli in 1984, the European Parliament did no more than claim more powers in the reforms’ projects brought up by national governments. Even the European Convention, which was the first attempt to involve directly citizens’ representatives in a reform of the Union, went through the will of national governments. That is the reason why the European constitution was seen as another intergovernmental project by the public opinion.

In France, in the Netherlands and in Ireland, the fear – which was fuelled and exploited by national political forces – prevailed. During these referenda, European political parties remained silent; European choices are not part of their responsibilities; they don’t express a supranational will, which can only emerge from a European democratic assembly. Europe has no political soul because political parties are not acting as a transmission belt between citizens and European institutions. A national state would quickly turn into a dictatorship if political parties would give up their fundamental role as a democratic driving force, permanently fuelling the political debate. The European Union is not becoming a state because European political parties let national populism bring discredit on Europe.

The 2009 European election can become the occasion to start a democratic revision of the European Union. An election will not be enough to build the European federation. But if the pro-European forces seize the occasion to answer national populism by speaking to European peoples, then the federalist project will take again centre stage in the debate about the future of the Union.  

Proposal

We, the European citizens (or MFE, or UEF)

Convinced that

• Europeans can face the challenges of globalisation, of competition with the new international major powers, of ecological protection and of the building of a new international peace order only with an efficient and democratic European government ;
• the European Union should become a real “supranational democracy”, as defined by the European Parliament ;
• the European political parties should take on their responsibility to be the link between citizens and European institutions ;
• the next European election of June 2009 is the occasion to start a democratic revision of the European Union;

ask/s

• the European Parliament to use the available funds for the 2009 European election in order to organise simultaneous debates on TV between all candidates from the European political parties, applying for the presidency of the European Commission. A European public space should be created to have citizens take part in a real pan-European debate. This debate should tackle political parties’ programmes and candidates’ commitments towards voters. Europe needs a government and European citizens have the right to know if the person who is governing will still deserve their vote for the next European election.
• the European Parliament and the national governments to use the next 2009 European election to launch a democratic revision of the European Union by giving citizens – along to the ballot paper – a second ballot paper to say yes or no to a new European constitutional process. This new European constitutional process would be composed of MEPs and national parliamentarians and would be opened to contributions from the civil society – so that the new European house would be built on the strong foundations of the peoples’ will.