Why the politicisation of the European Union is important.

The European Union historically was not a very sexy topic in politics, and really wasn’t much talked about across Europe until the early 2000s; though with some notable exceptions, like European Parliament elections, enlargement rounds and Treaties. The EU — and its predecessors — was mostly a project where the next logical step was further integration, with the eventual aim of a Federal (political) Union. Most political parties were by default going for more EU. Things started to change when parties realised that Euroscepticism could be a way to win votes. It hasn’t been until the last decade and a half that Eurosceptic has become a strategy for vote-seeking.

Depoliticisation

Luuk van Middelaar, speech writer for the first permanent President of the European Council — the platform where the heads of government of the EU member states come together multiple times per year to discuss and come to some form of consensus on major political topics on an EU level — Herman van Rompuy, argues in his latest Dutch book entitled The New Politics of Europe, that the depoliticisation of the EU has three dimensions, which all contributed to strong public opposition, yet did not offer a platform within the EU framework to voice this opposition; leading some domestic actors to become highly successful in gaining electorally through the use of Euroscepticism.

These three forms of depoliticisation are:

• Technical depoliticisation, the output of the EU is mostly in the form of technical briefings and expertise; whereby the political nature of the decision-making process is disguised as such.
• Constitutional depolitication, decision-making in the EU plays itself outside of the political arena, with part of the new legislation follows directly from Treaties, like furthering the 4 freedoms of the European common market.
• Procedural politicisation, given the very complex nature of the EU and its legislative, knowing who is responsible for a particular regulation cannot realistically be found out by citizens.

The EU has had a profound impact on the executive and legislative branches of its member states, and also has the only parliament that is represented solely by opposition, in the sense that the European executive is the Commission and is not represented in the European Parliament. All national parliaments have both the parliamentary representations of the government present, and that of the opposition parties that made it into parliament during the elections. While the national parliaments and the EP have a controlling function over the activities of the European Commission, the EP and the Commission do much to legitimise their own and each others existence — their right to exist is enshrined in the Treaties of the EU, and without the EU their would be no Commission or EP.

The principled opposition of the EU is now channelled by far the most effectively through national parties. Eurosceptic parties, especially those on the fringes of the political spectrum (far-right, far-left), have been able to use a powerful message that dismisses the European Union on the basis of arguments that are often simplistic and at times plain untrue. Front National in France, the PVV in the Netherlands, Syriza in Greece, the Five Star Movement in Italy and UKIP in the United Kingdom are just some parties in the European political landscape that have been particularly successful at invoking a strong anti-EU rhetoric that has had a profound impact on the domestic support base for EU membership of their countries. The populist language they use is at times based on non-facts and is thus dangerous, for it develops arguments that are not in line with reality, and the expectations of the future of their countries outside of the EU is likely to be much bleaker than they project, and narrow-minded. Some examples are 1. the ability to deal with immigration is not necessarily going to be easier outside of the EU, 2. what about the incentive to deal with climate change and crime (two cross-border issues), 3. the economic consequences of an EU exit for smaller countries that are highly dependent on international and free trade will need to renegotiate their economic relations with the EU and the huge administrative costs of stepping out.

Nonetheless, having a healthy sceptical position against the EU is still very important. Just like it is important to have a strong political opposition at home, to keep the government in check. This strengthens and legitimises the functioning and decision-making power of the government. Without it, things are likely to go the wrong way, threatening the democratic structures of a country or ensuring the trias politica — the independence of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.

Despite the EU being very complex, many citizens and political parties have a (strong) opinion about the EU, even if they do not understand how it actually functions, or what its main institutions are. In the Eurobarometer survey 90 in November 2018 , there are significant groups of people in all member states that are not aware of the existence, let alone the purpose, of EU institutions like the Commission, the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council of the European Union. “Having heard of” of the European Commission is at 83%, the European Council at 68% and the Council of the EU at 62%; all EU averages.

Why is EU-bashing popular and promotion of the EU not?

Part of the problem has to do with the way that the media works. The aim of media outlets is to maximise revenues, something that has become so much more complicated with the advent of the internet and the unlimited stream of information that comes our way on a daily basis. We spend time scrolling through your news feed on Facebook or Twitter, and we believe we are well-informed. For free! But this comes at a price: the media will revert to strategies that do generate readership and revenue. How? Well, by creating entertaining stories. Politicians on the fringes generate more readership, or at least they are covered much more. Pro-European parties, excluding main government figures like prime ministers, presidents and ministers of foreign affairs, are less represented.

Second, political parties see the benefits of the European Union prefer not to talk about the EU if they don’t have to. From studies we know that mainstream parties try to keep the topic of the EU out of their political campaigns, because they do not consider it a strategically advantageous topic to talk about during elections. However, fringe parties might actually politicise the EU for strategic advantages, like the party programme of the PVV in 2012, which was even entitled “Their Brussels, our Netherlands”. Beyond the title, the manifesto dedicated a lot of space to the EU. There is also research that shows that mainstream parties are tempted to move closer to the policy position of Eurosceptic parties, but only if the Eurosceptic parties make the EU an important topic for their party.

This highly defensive stance of non-Eurosceptic parties towards the EU — “we also don’t really like ‘Brussels’ but, you know, it’s kind of useful and we’re in it now, so let’s make the best of it” — has so far been self-defeating, in terms of party competition it has not been a successful strategy to win elections. A message that is clear about the benefits of membership and not only a reaction to anti-EU forces would bring about a more balanced political debate about the EU.

Third, and coming back to Luuk van Middelaar, the crises in the European Union — the financial crisis, the migration crisis and the Brexit/’Atlanticist’ crisis — have necessitated a coordinated political decision making. It was mostly the European Council that took upon itself to act, since the European Commission’s competences remain relevantly limited, and focus not on political improvisation but more on the output of technical regulations. However, this is where a major flaw lies. The rhetoric about the EU and who has the authoritative power to shape the EU is not directly at the same actors: criticism of the EU is focused on Brussels this, Brussels that — read the European Commission — but it is the heads of government of the member states that are making the biggest choices in Brussels.

While….

…the whole shebang surrounding the EU is particularly complex, even for European studies students, a more balanced media coverage of the EU politics/politicians in combination with clear communication by non-Eurosceptic parties, without the apologetic undertone that is so often echoed, would be the welcome balancing force against blatant and often untrue claims by Eurosceptic parties. One of the ways this can be done would be to highlight the benefits these parties believe they see in the EU, like economic benefits, peace on the continent, freedom to move and work in other EU countries, tackling global issues like climate change and immigration together, etc etc. Clear communication that is not in the defensive and is willing to counter anti-EU forces, not as a reaction, but because the parties believe in their ideals.