ABSTRACT
European integration was constructed in the six original member states on the basis of a ‘permissive consensus’, with ‘peace, prosperity and supranationalism’ as its legitimating values and with little attempt to involve public or even parliamentary opinion in the process (Weiler 1994). While the underlying conditions for the success of this kind of governmental operation were increasingly eroded from the 1970s onwards, it was the ratification crisis over the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992-3 that finally brought matters to a head. For this demonstrated the possibility that new steps in the integration process regarded as desirable, or even essential, by political and economic elites could be threatened by a popular refusal to endorse them. This undoubtedly spurred the policy-makers to attempt to secure wider support by introducing a series of reforms. There is therefore no doubt that the European Parliament – the major focus of democracy within the institutional architecture – has gained significant new powers (see chapter 6). There have also been efforts to reinforce the legitimacy of the Union, both symbolically through the flag, anthem and passport, and more substantially through EU citizenship, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the abortive Constitutional Treaty. Yet none of this has brought about any breakthrough. On the contrary, the situation in 2004-5 dramatically increased the continuing problems. While EU enlargement and the agreement of the European Council to endorse the Constitutional Treaty represented significant new steps in the integration project, the turnout in the European elections was lower than ever, with a substantial increase in the vote for populist, right-wing Eurosceptic parties. Furthermore, the Constitutional Treaty, designed in part to demonstrate the democratic credentials of the Union, was effectively abandoned in disarray in June 2005, following the ‘no’ votes in the French and Dutch referenda. The inescapable conclusion is that the EU has major democratic problems. Yet while most commentators are in agreement on this point, there is much less consensus about the nature of those problems or the ways in which they might be resolved.
