Emily Robinson (London, Goldsmiths University): Britain's relationship with the European Union excites a great deal of emotion. It is a staple of the tabloid press and one of the few political topics that is regularly discussed in pubs and offices. However, this does not necessarily mean that we know much about the EU or how it works.
British citizens are less confident that they know about the EU's policies and institutions than the people in any other member state except Hungary. In a Eurobarometer poll conducted in Autumn 2005, only 46% of British respondents were aware of the UK's Presidency of the EU, and MORI research found that 82% of those polled do not feel they have enough information to make an informed decision on whether or not to adopt the Constitutional Treaty.
Lack of knowledge leaves us vulnerable to misinformation and myth-creation. This is worrying, not only because it leads to frustration and alienation but also because political parties shape their policies on Europe according to what they believe the public will accept. If the public do not have enough information to engage in a serious debate about the future of the European Union and our relationship to it, then it is likely that our policies will be unsound.
With this in mind, Unlock Democracy conducted a research project designed to gauge informed public opinion on Europe. We wanted to find out what citizens would think when all the information had been presented to them. It was important to us that it should be a deliberative process so that we could get beyond the snap judgements given in response to polls. We also wanted to discover how public information about the EU might be improved.
We organised three separate deliberative events in three very different regions: Yorkshire and the Humber, the South West and Greater London. The events were based very loosely on the citizens' jury model although we called them community panels to avoid confusion. They took place over a weekend to allow working people to participate and we took steps to ensure that the panels were as representative of the UK population as possible in terms of age, gender, ethnicity and political leanings.
The first day of each event was primarily a learning day, led by Dr Nicholas Robinson of Leeds University. The main themes covered were: the current state of the EU, the policy areas it deals with and the challenges it faces. The panellists also discussed two case study policy areas: environmental policy and freedom, security and justice. These areas were chosen to reflect the interests expressed by panellists in their response to the initial survey.
On the second day of each event, the participants heard from a panel of political witnesses, representing everything from an intergovernmentalist to a federalist perspective. After questioning the witnesses, the panellists then deliberated the various options for reform in small groups.
During the weekends, we asked the panellists to complete written polls at regular intervals so that we could track their reactions to the various sessions. We also asked them to highlight any pieces of information which were new to them and which surprised them. In addition to the regular written polls, we made digital recordings of the discussions, so as to capture as many of the panellists' thoughts as possible. This Report is based primarily on the comments and thoughts of the panellists.
The results can now be found in British Citizens and the European Union. All three panels highlighted a sense of unease about the way that the European Union is governed. Even the most Europhilic panellists complained about a lack of democracy, transparency and accountability. This is a very serious problem. As one panellist put it, "if we are representative then there's a huge sense of unease in the country."
The panellists' recommendations for reform are listed in our report. Many of them deal with the respective powers of the European institutions. The panellists felt very strongly that, as the only directly elected body, the European Parliament should be at the centre of European decision making. It was also suggested that the Commission should be made in some way accountable to the Parliament.
Important steps to enhance the transparency and accountability of European procedures could be taken at the national level. For instance, it was suggested that British members of the Council of Ministers should have to report back to Parliament and that the House of Commons Select Committee on Europe should meet in public. We think these are both important proposals, which would place Europe more clearly in our existing democratic framework and create a new layer of accountability. It is also worth examining the Danish and Finnish models of parliamentary accountability. While they are not without problems, they might provide the guarantee of national control for which our panellists were asking.
Another problem identified by many of the panellists was a lack of reliable accessible information about the EU and its activities. This was seen to be partly a problem with the information made available by the European institutions, but also the result of a lack of media interest in the workings of the EU. It was suggested that the broadcast and print media should cover the European Parliament in the same way as Westminster.
The panellists wanted to continue the process of discussing and reforming the European Union. One panellist said, "I would like to think that we're not ending here... I'd like to think there's something meaningful coming out of this" while another emphasised that, "there are issues that we've discussed today that are cross-party, cross-group - transparency, democracy - and it's in everybody's interests to take that forward." They were keen to find ways of starting a national debate about the nature of our relationship with the European Union. The London panel, in particular, thought that something along the lines of the Irish National Forum on Europe would be a way of achieving this.
As discussed above, the panellists felt that the process of the panels had given them "fresh hope" that citizens with very different opinions could "come together on a number of issues". As one said, "I find it really interesting discussing things with people who are diametrically opposed to my views... it's very positive that it's possible to do that." It was encouraging that two panellists with very different political views both picked out the same thing when asked what had most surprised them:
- "That people with wildly diverging/opposing gut/overall feelings about the EU have very similar practical concerns on the whole"
- "The concerns of individual attendees and how close they are in many respects"
