The Union And Its Citizens:
Institute Of European Affairs Conference, Dublin Castle: May 25, 1996
The concept of citizenship has been much refined through the course of history. From the time of Aristotle and the emergence of the City State citizenship has represented the notion of full participation in public life by members of a community. Citizens are those who both govern and who [are] governed. Since the 18th Century three main strands of citizenship have developed. The first of these, civil citizenship, established the rights necessary for individual freedom, such as rights to property, personal liberty and justice. Political citizenship was mostly built in the 19th Century, and involved the right to participate in the exercise of political power. The third type, social citizenship, was constructed in the 20th Century and emphasised the citizen's rights of economic and social security, finding its expression in the modern welfare state as it developed in Western Europe. Citizenship is understood to be closely linked to representation and democracy, since the exercise of power is ideally closely linked with the consent of the citizens. Political authority and legitimacy are thus derived from the will of the people.
Despite the existence of the European Union the Nation State remains the primary guarantor of citizens rights in Europe, and in order to enhance their separate identities, individual nation states have laid claim to the exclusive loyalty of their citizens down through the centuries. The citizen nation state relationship has been and continues to be problematic in some western liberal democracies where people feel increasingly alienated from governments who appear to take decisions without due regard for the wishes of their populations.
In the environment of nation states citizens have their shared identity confirmed by common linguistic, cultural and historical bonds. An overall network of orientation is provided daily through national legislators, television and major newspapers. In the European Union such easily identifiable intermediate contact points do not exist. While the introduction of the single currency will have the most significant impact on people's identification with the Union, there remains a pressing need to bring together European citizens on non-economic grounds.
If the movement towards closer European integration is to succeed, the Union must increase the level of solidarity and unity between the peoples of its member states. Generally, people need clear and tangible concepts in order to develop a sense of belonging. The importance of this sense of common identity and community to the realisation of the dream of a united Europe was recognised by Jean Monnet when, nearing the ending of his life, he said that if he were to start again he would begin with culture. At this point the Union needs to assure it citizens that the words of Leo Tindemans do not ring hallow:
" The construction of Europe is not just a form of collaboration between states. It is a rapprochement of people who wish to go forward together adapting their actions to the changing., conditions in the world while preserving those values which are their common heritage..... Europe must be close to its citizens."
The assertion that the European Union suffers from a Democratic Deficit is not a new one. Since the mid 1980's it has been an issue widely debated. The problem is partly institutional, but also stems from the differing views of Member States on the desirable character of European integration, and how it affects national sovereignty. The Union has been designed in such a way that national governments retain the key to the decision making process, and the implementation of Union policies. This conflict between a Europe of sovereign states and a united Europe has retarded the development of a modern democratic "Citizen Friendly" European community of states.
On the one hand European Federalist have long wished to transform Europe into federal state under a common federal government, while on the other Liberal Internationalists look to foster closer ties between nations states without ceding sovereignty to any supranational organisation. The resulting compromise has meant that the Union has a federalist governmental outline, but internal structures and power division have been constructed in the Liberal mould. This has contributed to the growth of the extensive Brussels bureaucracy, and has made progress towards the democratisation of the Union slow and difficult. Most Union powers are exercised by agencies far removed from the ordinary citizens of Europe, composed of elite experts. The Council of Ministers and the European Council still meets, by and large, behind closed doors in order to take the most important decisions in relation to the Union.
In the eyes of those who favour a Federalist approach to European integration, the European parliament represent the best method of increasing the level of democracy in the Union, in order to bring it closer to the citizens of Europe. They welcome the extension of Parliamentary powers granted by the Maastricht Treaty, and encourage the development of a more equal relationship between the Parliament, Commission and Council. The European Parliament is at present seen as the champion of the cause of the Union's citizens, and it is through the promotion of parliamentary authority that Federalists believe the concept of European Union citizenship will find its clearest expression. Through a strengthened European Parliament (with the ability to initiate legislation and properly scrutinise all aspects of the Union's activities) the average citizen will have a distinct and influential voice in the decision making process of the Union. Supporters of a more federal Europe also advocate the direct election of the President of the Commission (simultaneously with European Parliamentary Elections) which, they argue would increase the relevancy of the office of Commission President to the average citizen. The idea has also been mooted that the President of the European Council be opened to the electoral process. Such measures could improve cooperation and coordination between the various institutions of the Union, at the same time as providing the citizens of Europe with a 'Human Face' at the forefront of the Brussels bureaucracy.
However, from the Intergovernmentalists point of view the means to guarantee citizens a strong voice in Europe is by maintaining a high level of national sovereignty, and avoiding any further sacrifice of political independence. Increased powers for the European Parliament would only serve to undermine the authority of national governments and parliaments.
Thus it can be seen that the problems facing the democratisation of the European Union are not simply confined to the institutions of the latter.
The very nature of the structure of the Union mitigates against the greater involvement of its citizens. The future of European citizenship cannot be solved simply by increasing the power of the European Parliament. It must involve a full evaluation of the character of European integration and the Union itself.
While the Treaty on European Union was supposedly a large step towards greater integration between the peoples of Member States, the ratification debates revealed that in some the states there existed a considerable rift between the enthusiasm of governments and the position of their electorates. Major sections of the population were unwilling to follow the lead of their political leaders, as demonstrated by the results of referenda in Denmark and France. Despite the considerable support that the Treaty secured in Ireland, there was much confusion over what exactly Maastricht would mean to the ordinary person. The fear of a loss of identity on the part of national populations was not properly addressed as the European Union bestowed the title of Citizens of the Union on the people of its Members States.
The Maastricht Treaty contains the grand declaration that "The citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding nationality of Member State shall be a citizen to the Union."
In addition "Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby."
The rights mentioned above include:
1. The rights to freedom of movement and residence with the territory of the Members States.
2. The rights to vote and stand in municipal elections of the Member State in which one resides.
3. The right to vote and stand in European Parliament elections in the Member State in which one resides.
4. The right to the protection of the diplomatic authorities of any Member State when one is outside the Union.
5. The right to petition the European Parliament and the right to complain to the Ombudsman.
The question is how potent and meaningful is the newly-created status of citizenship of the Union, and how important are the rights that accompany the latter?
It can be argued that the lack of resolve shown by the Union Members to implement the abolition of internal borders is indicative of how important the first, core right is seen to be. Full freedom of movement for persons across European borders does not exist. The rights concerning municipal elections were already in place in several of the Union states prior to the Maastricht Treaty, and are therefore not particularly revolutionary in character, while the continuing lack of agreement on a uniform electoral procedure for the election of the European Parliament undermines the value of the third set of rights. Indeed, it has been pointed out that while European Member State nationals have been granted a common Union citizenship, they continue to be excluded from national elections if they are living outside their country of origin, yet remain within the borders of the Union. Surely, voting rights for national elections would be a much more relevant aspect of European citizenship, given the involvement of national legislatures in the framing and implementation of European laws and policies.
As for right to diplomatic protection, will this measure be accepted by host states, and does the protecting do so on a state individual or Union basis? Will the Member State be able to formulate a uniform regime for the diplomatic protection of nationals of other states given the political differences between them? The right to petition the parliament was another right that existed already under the Rules of the European Parliament. Thus the 'new' right is only a token new right. On the other hand the Ombudsman is an innovation in Community terms, but only included the functioning of institutions, bodies, committees etc., with the European Community, not the Union.
This leaves a loophole for various aspects of the Union's administration to escape scrutiny by both Parliament. and the Ombudsman.
In the words of one commentator, the concept of Union citizenship as embodied in the Maastricht Treaty amounts to " Nothing more than a new name for a bunch of existing rights, a nice blue ribbon around scattered elements of a general notion of citizenship. The dynamism is...... pie in the sky.
He also suggests that it has been created as a smokescreen to cover up the continued existence of a democratic deficit in the European Union.
Some commentators have suggested that a Charter of Citizen's rights would provide some of the impetus needed to create a more concrete and tangible citizenship of the Union. This Charter could include the following points:
1. The promotion of good relation throughout the European Union between people of different races and ethnic groups.
2. Respect for the rights and cultural identities of minorities.
3. A ban of all forms of discrimination on the grounds of race, creed, colour, nationality, sex, age, disability and sexual orientation.
4. Adhesion by the Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom.
5. Adequate representation on European Union citizens in the political structures of the Union.
6. The right to participate in political decisions affecting their daily lives in the member state in which citizens resides.
7. The provision of educational, health and social services, access to cultural, transport and public facilities.
8. Free access to information and advice on European Union Law.
9. Provision for the special needs of women, children, the elderly and the disabled.
10. The right to examine and if necessary correct information or data concerning oneself.
11. Protection of consumer interests including health, safety, quality of food and the environment.
The above Charter, if adopted by the Union, would help spell out to all European Union citizens the meaning of belonging to the Union, and encourage them to identify with it.
The introduction of a European Identification Card and increased cooperation between European Police Force (such as EUROPOL) would assist in the struggle against crime and security problems that transcend national frontiers, such as terrorism, drug trafficking, fraud and organised crime. It would also demonstrate the Union's willingness and capacity to address the concerns and problems encountered by citizens of all Member States, while facilitating easier and safer travel for, Union citizens.
The promotion of European culture and sport should also be a top priority. The designation of European Cities of Culture, the sponsorship of European Orchestras, Art exhibitions, European Literary and sporting events should mark the beginning of a concentrated effort to celebrate common cultural heritage, while at the same time respecting the wealth of national and regional diversities. The European media play a central role in how we perceive ourselves and our neighbours. With the explosion of technology in the communications field, the Union must ensure the establishment of multinational and multilingual European television and radio stations and programmes. Initiatives such as the MEDIA scheme which assists in the financing, production and distribution of such broadcasts are to be welcomed and fostered.
Aside from questions of institutional reform and the future direction of European integration, there is much groundwork that can be done to foster a common spirit of "Europeaness" between populations of the Member States.
Education is obviously crucial to the promotion of mutual understanding and the growth of a European consciousness. From an early age the youth of Europe should be encouraged to participate in the international exchanges (such as Youth Exchange Scheme or YES), joint projects, languages courses etc. National history curricula could be redesigned to ensure that pupils are taught about their heritage and traditions within the wider context of a European and world framework. Schemes to encourage the mobility of third level students and academic staff, such as ERASMUS (scheme for the mobility of University students), LINGUS (for language students), and TEMPUS (to increase cooperation between Universities from the EU and those of Central and Eastern countries) need to extend at third level, and new programmes introduced to promote mobility at an earlier stage in educational systems. In addition the Union could play a more pro-active part in vocational training and schemes to encourage entrepreneurship among young people. Likewise, more effort could be put into promoting closer ties between industry, science and technology.
While it is unrealistic to expect the Union to provide a quick solution, the problem of unemployment must be seen to remain at the top) of Europe's agenda. The forthcoming IGC presents an opportunity for Members States to share and learn from their experiences of this most pressing problem and to map out a realistic and far seeing campaign to tackle the problem. It is clear from the debate surrounding the Maastricht Treaty that the peoples of Europe will not be persuaded simply by the promise of economic gain. They consider there to be more at stake than currencies and interest rates. The challenge faced by Brussels and national governments is to flesh out the present concept of a Citizen's Europe into something tangible, meaningful, durable and real.