Artikel (på engelsk) i det europæiske magasin EUWatch, nummer 07, June/July 2007. Skrevet med Anders Dahl

In one of the famous British Monty Python movies the search is on for the Holy Grail. In European politics people also seem to be searching for something. Yet even if some of the participants seem to resemble the Monty Python characters, what they are looking for is something different, but sometimes just as mythical.

In frequenting the circles where EU issues are actually debated, one will often encounter arguments and lines of thought that may seem esoteric to all but the initiated few. The concept of a European Public is one of these.

It is a notion that can assume an almost mythical character when spoken of as an essential part of the solution to the problems facing the European Union, and especially the lack of public support and understanding for its proposed Constitution.

This is true of all EU-geeks, whether they are on the ‘Yes-side’ or the ‘Noside’; whether they describe themselves as EU-critics, Eurofederalists, Europhiles or any of the other labels emanating from the relatively closed circles of the genuinely EU-interested. Everywhere in EU circles, whether they are in

Brussels or the 27 member countries, you will come across people with an opinion on the existence or non-existence of a European Public. But as they say, there are no roses without thorns. For with the seeming consensus on the centrality of the EU amongst all eurocrats – meaning all of us who differ from ordinary people in that we scarcely ever cease thinking about the EU – we nonetheless often fail to reflect on the terms, concepts and solutions we talk about. So the question is: what actually is the European Public? Is there even a real and profound need for such a concept? Does such an entity in fact already exist?

EUROPEAN PUBLIC - WHAT?

What a European Public actually is, is a question that is extremely hard to answer, yet at the same time it is also simple. It is hard because never before in history has there been an attempt to build up a common public within a political and economic cooperation resembling the EU. So naturally it would be difficult to recognize a European Public even if it were right in front of us.

But it is also a simple question, since a European Public is in reality merely the common forum within which we report on, inform ourselves about and, most important, where we debate the same political issues – which in this case constitutes European politics. Just think about the various national publics – with their national television stations, radio, newspapers and magazines discussing, examining and analyzing what is going on in the national political world. Add to this all the

participant debaters, not only those publicly elected but also the many who are politically active in trade unions, different civic organisations and the countless ordinary citizens who just speak their mind on this or that issue once in a while.

Without a forum or public space national politics would be incoherent, driven by the narrow interests of individuals, and would seem distant and incomprehensible to most of us. This is what a European Public should be like in the European Union, but because of the size of the Union its compass is much broader.

Because of this national comparison one can unfortunately see that beneath the surface much of the politics being conducted through the EU is actually loose and lacks coherence precisely because it is not placed within a larger, genuinely European context, and it remains unconnected to the discussions ordinary citizens have regarding how we want our societies to be regulated or structured.

What is even worse is that without a common European Public which is able to debate what it is we want to do with the European Union, it is almost impossible to construct a consensus on what we actually wish to do with this unique form of international cooperation. There is no consensus on what is most important about the EU. Should it be trade and industry, human beings and the environment, social security? Or should we focus on something completely different?

As things are now, any politician and any country can freely choose its own view of where Europe is actually heading – and more importantly where it should be heading – without regard to what the opinion in the rest of the Union may be. This is often done from a national perspective even if the matters being considered are operative at the European level. Even though this might seem logical it is also regrettable, since it leads European politics to be characterized by the fact that we disagree about what we are actually working towards, which leads to a waste of resources and poorer policy results.

Because of this the absence of a common European Public often leads to policies that are not based on what would make most sense in a given situation. The prevailing principle seems to be that everybody must always get something to show back home at a national level. The motto seems to be that if just one country gets something, there must be something for all other countries too. Because of this, participating in EU politics sometimes feels like being back at kindergarten.

There have been several examples of the difficulty of conducting politics without a common public in which to debate the issues. Just look at the way in which Heads of Government can repeatedly get away with blaming the EU for unpopular decisions, simply by claiming that “it was the other states that insisted”.

They can only get away with this because there is no common forum for EU-level debate and news coverage, and therefore there is no genuine European public sphere in which they may be held accountable for their EU-level decisions. This may suit individual politicians but unfortunately it is small tricks like this that are contributing to the widespread feeling that the European Union is irrational and remote from ordinary citizens. When one’s publicly elected politicians appear to be unable to change things and when nobody really accepts responsibility for unpopular decisions, then the notorious gap between citizens and politicians can only increase, which is something no one benefits from.

The development of a common European Public could help improve this situation. Such a common public would force politicians, businessmen and a plethora of different organisations operating at European level to consider and respond to the same agenda. If this could be accomplished we might actually be able to have a debate about how the future societies on our continent should be structured and regulated – whether on local, national or European level.

BUT HAVEN’T WE GOT A EUROPEAN PUBLIC ALREADY?

In Brussels and in many member countries you will find people who claim that this discussion does not make sense, for we already have a European Public. This assertion is not wholly false, since among those whose work is focused on the EU and its policies there already seems to be some kind of common public, at least partially.

In the very heart of the Eurocracy Brussels, there are magazines and newspapers, such as European Voice, that bring the same news and gossip to all their readers no matter where in Europe they might originate. Much the same occurs on news-sites such as Eupolitix.com and EUobserver.com, although the news-sites probably reach a broader public than the newspapers and magazines, since they are available everywhere.

Unfortunately this is just not enough. Even though at a European level some people may very well hear or read the same stories and therefore qualify partly for the definition of a common public, a common forum in which one is informed and is able to discuss issues is quite insufficient. This is especially so for two reasons: Firstly, such a forum still only encompasses a few people when compared to the more than 450 million people living in the EU.

Moreover, those that are actually reached by this forum must be regarded as being more interested in EU affairs than is normal; most of these would probably be working with the EU itself in one way or another. This means that the stories that actually surface in the few functioning European media outlets only rarely get known to the public in general. That in turn means that these media outlets have only a limited impact on the different national discussions.

Secondly, the few functioning European media outlets that exist – even though they are important for those of us who are interested in their stories – are rarely even known, let alone valued, by the broad general public or even by most national political reporters. Because of this there are not many truly ‘European’ discussions going on in these media outlets. And even those media debates that do occur, they will be known only to the ‘Eurocrat elite’. All this means that we might well have some sort of common European Public, but it is so small and insignificant that it does not really matter, since it does not manage to have an impact on national agendas.

So, when the relatively miniscule common European Public that perhaps can be identified does not seem to do the job, the question arises: What is needed to create the common forum for popular debate which the Union needs (at least if one wishes European cooperation to have the backing of the general public instead of just ‘the elite’)?

WHAT DOES A ‘EUROPEAN PUBLIC’ REQUIRE?

If a meaningful European Public is to be created there are several prerequisites to be met. First of all the will to create a common European Public and to genuinely conduct European politics needs to be present amongst not only politicians but also among media personnel and the different political organisations (trade unions, environmental bodies, youth groups, advocacy movements, etc.) that make up civil society. Without truly committed and interested people, this will never come into being.

However, goodwill alone is not enough, the ‘right’ media are also required. And a common European news channel is just not sufficient since a public is made up of more than just recipients of newsbriefs. If it is to make sense there needs to be both time and will to do more than disseminate short stories.

There also need to be several competing European media outlets to help make a common public – just as these exist at a national level in every EU member country. There also needs to be committed and qualified debaters and media reporters. And lastly there needs to be an audience that has a genuine interest in what is being debated.

All those concerned with these issues need to realize that when it comes down to it, a common European Public is not something that can be created from the top. If the public which European media outlets aim to reach does not feel a need for their efforts, it will simply not work. Ignoring this fact will only lead to the feeling that something artificial and irrelevant is being sought.

SO IS IT REALLY NECESSARY TO HAVE A COMMON EUROPEAN PUBLIC?

The answer will be both Yes and No, depending on what vision of the future of the European Union one subscribes to. If one’s vision is of a Union where the peoples feel that the European level is natural, necessary and beneficial, then one has to answer ‘Yes’. On the other hand, if one subscribes to the idea that EU politics should only exist on an intergovernmental level, then there really is not much need for it.

It is also important to realise that the development of a European Public is no miracle-cure that will quickly solve all the troubles of the EU. At best it is a piece of the puzzle, necessary for the whole picture to be complete if one subscribes to something resembling the first vision, but of little use in itself. If it is unconnected to the politics being actually conducted the concept of a European Public will continue to be tenuous and flimsy.