Since the euro crisis started in early 2010, a whole package of measures has been implemented at the European level with a view to turning the tide. This raised widespread fear that we may have set out on a one-way track towards the creation of a European superstate in which there is no opportunity for citizens to have their own say.

However, are the measures taken to combat the European crisis really so undemocratic, and are citizens only supporting decisions taken by their own representatives? Recent history suggests we should not assume the answer to these questions is simply “yes”.

Following legislative procedure

Take the Six-pack – this often fiercely contested package of measures makes it more difficult for member states to ignore the European regulations relating to budget deficits and debts with impunity. The decision on this issue was largely reached by means of the ordinary legislative procedure: while the (unelected) European Commission put forward the proposal, the directly elected European Parliament and the Council of Ministers actually took the decision. While the turnout for the European Parliament elections is indeed rather low and the Council sometimes convenes in private, this can hardly be termed entirely undemocratic or a “dictate by Europe”.

Another example: the aid fund ESM (European Stabilisation Mechanism). This was a measure jointly implemented in consultation with the member states. The ESM treaty was signed by the former Dutch Minister of Finance, Jan Kees de Jager. It was subsequently discussed at length in the nation’s lower house, and adopted by a majority of its MPs. They therefore agreed not only to the foundation of the fund, but also to both the level of the loans and the conditions applicable.

There is nothing untoward about these decisions in terms of parliamentary participation. The aid funds in particular nevertheless remain under debate. This is a clear example of a case in which complete national parliamentary participation does not necessarily imply that there is public support.

ECB independence

A third example: the ECB’s purchase of debt instruments issued by ailing member states in the form of Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT). These financial interventions were thought up by the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB). This body comprises the unelected presidents of the various member states’ central banks and is entirely independent of political and democratic interference. Despite this fact, the interventions have raised relatively little objection in the Netherlands. The Netherlands is, after all, accustomed to having an independent central bank, and therefore appreciates the benefits: complex monetary matters are decided upon by experts and are not subject to the electoral considerations of sitting politicians.

These three examples show that there is no question of Europe dictating terms, but on the contrary that those measures that were taken wholly democratically are the ones which have raised the most objections, while those taken without any parliamentary input whatsoever can count on the greatest public support.

Europe is too slow and divided

We want European leadership and decisive solutions to problems that we cannot resolve ourselves. At the same time, however, we want to voice our opinions and maintain our separate national identities. Europe is too slow and divided in our view. It simply takes time to formulate a decree which enjoys the democratic support of 27 member states, which also implies that consensus needs to be sought, negotiated and expanded upon.

And this is not always a pleasant, simple or efficient task. Those who insist on decisiveness, efficiency and unambiguous solutions, should therefore vote for centralisation, depoliticisation and unequivocal enforceable regulations, or rather a European super-commissioner. However, such an officer would not make exceptions for anyone whatsoever.

Debate on decision making

And this neatly returns us to the crux of politics at every level, local, national and European alike. The matter of achieving that delicate balance of fundamental, though not necessarily compatible values, such as democracy and efficiency, equality and autonomy. The classic problem of public administration: What degree of centralisation of power is required in order to act effectively, and how many checks and balances to vouch for sufficient public support?

A principled debate between supporters and opponents as to whether we should become a United States of Europe or not, would not help at all in this regard. However, presenting a realistic impression of European decision-making processes would. And, much the same way as it occurs in our own country, the balance of opinion is bound to fall differently in each field, which implies that the outcome is more likely to be a shade of grey, rather than black or white.

And if further – broadly supported – progress is to be made in Europe, then this balance needs to become the subject of public debate. If politicians are prepared to make time during this European Year of Citizens to allow this to take place, then they can certainly count on my vote.