Is it possible to create a truly European public sphere? In an interview with EUROPP’s editor Stuart Brown, Timothy Garton Ash discusses the failure of efforts to reignite the enthusiasm of citizens for European integration, the importance of European identity, and why the UK is far more European than most people believe

Brown, Stuart A.

Garton Ash, Timothy

LSE Research Online

24/11/2014Five minutes with Timothy Garton Ash: “We’re far moreEuropean in the UK than we think we are”blogs.lse.ac.uk /europpblog/2014/11/24/five-minutes-with-timothy-garton-ash-were-far-more-european-in-the-uk-than-we-think-we-are/Is it possible to create a truly European public sphere? In an interview with EUROPP’s editor Stuart Brown,Timothy Garton Ash discusses the failure of efforts to reignite the enthusiasm of citizens forEuropean integration, the importance of European identity, and why the UK is far more Europeanthan most people believe.A common argument is that attempts to foster democratic engagement with the EU sufferfrom the lack of a European public sphere. Is it realistic to think that a European publicsphere could ever be created?My view is that we should try, but we shouldn’t ever kid ourselves that this is going to be like a national publicsphere. Apart from anything else, we speak different languages, which is a huge barrier. The key for me, incontinuing to make the argument for Europe, is what national politicians, national intellectuals, journalists,academics and opinion formers say in their national debates in their own national languages. That’s where wecurrently have a problem.If we take the Spitzenkandidaten process as an example, the debates between the prospective candidates for thePresident of the Commission were watched by around 500,000 people across Europe from a population of over 500million. Of those who did watch one of the debates, even fewer will have based their voting decision on whether theybacked Jean-Claude Juncker, Martin Schulz, or another candidate. So I don’t believe that this process will suddenlyreignite enthusiasm among those citizens who possess some degree of scepticism toward the European project.I think it might have a marginal impact, as indeed do any of these small institutional changes. If you could findsomeone as President of the European Commission, High Representative, or President of the Council who is aninspiring, attractive figure and is capable of telling a European story, that would have an impact. It’s a pity then thatwe’ve gone for three perfectly respectable, but not fantastically exciting and inspiring figures in the shape ofJuncker, Federica Mogherini and Donald Tusk. But that could have just as easily happened using anotherprocedure.The real key for enthusing people about the EU again is what it does. If it created a few more jobs, for example,stopped a war in Ukraine, did something for the one in three people in Syria who are homeless, tackled the NSA-style surveillance society, or was seen to be genuinely effective on climate change then it might make a difference.There are a large number of issues that people care passionately about and if you could say, well, ‘there Europereally made a difference’, that’s what could get people fired up again.Some politicians and commentators, particularly in the UK, might argue that rather than attempting tocreate a European public sphere or fostering a European identity, the EU should simply focus on narrowpractical goals – ‘doing less, but doing it better’.That’s absolutely fine, but a European identity exists. There’s shared history, shared memory and shared values.We have some of it here in the UK, but we don’t perceive it as such. For example, the NHS is sacred in Britishpolitics – nobody can question the NHS. But the NHS is a classic post-1945 European social democratic institution.We’re far more European in the UK than we think we are: from drinking lots of coffee in European-style cafes tohaving the NHS. So a European identity exists, it’s a matter of reconnecting with the values and memories thatpeople already have.1/3Now I think Britain is exceptional in some respects because there are very few large countries which are clearly inEurope, but nevertheless have such a level of scepticism towards Europe. There are others who have scepticalviews, and there are others who are not quite sure whether they fully belong to Europe, but we’re certainly by far thebiggest and clearest example of that.The tragedy is that if the EU is going to survive and prosper for the next 20-30 years, it needs reform, and Britain hasin fact come up with a number of good ideas for the reform of Europe. But all of these ideas – from the LSE, to theCentre for European Reform, and countless other think tanks and universities across the country – are now beingdiscredited and devalued by David Cameron’s approach within the EU, which is transparently not actually aboutreforming the EU to make it a better place, but about appeasing his back-benchers and UKIP. That for me is theBritish tragedy: that our own undoubtedly good ideas on European reform are being poisoned and discredited forpolitical reasons.All of these issues would potentially feed into a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU. Given thesituation in the UK you’ve described, how do you think such a referendum would play out?There are really two possible referendums. One is the referendum which David Cameron has said he’ll have in2017. This would be done under a Conservative government, where Cameron has achieved whatever deal he canin a renegotiation, and he then tells the British people to vote ‘yes’ to staying in. You might quote this against me inthree years, but I find it very hard to imagine Cameron as Prime Minister going out to campaign for us to leave theEU.The other possible referendum would be one forced on a weak Labour government, where the Tories keep their ownparty together by saying they want to stay in a reformed EU, but the deal Labour has negotiated is so inadequatethat the electorate should vote against it. That for me is the most dangerous scenario and then I think all bets wouldbe off.But if Cameron holds the referendum he’s intending to hold it would be a different scenario altogether. Already in thedebate we’ve seen people waking up to the reality that it isn’t so great to be Norway or Switzerland: if you want tostay part of the single market you have to obey all of the rules without having any part in writing them. I think thatcase would only become stronger and if we have that referendum with Cameron campaigning to stay in then I find itdifficult to believe voters would opt to leave.A video of Timothy Garton Ash’s recent talk at LSE is available here. The event was held to mark the launch of thenew pan-European online magazine Eutopia.Please read our comments policy before commenting .Note: This article gives the views of the interviewee, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy,nor of the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: Nicolas Raymond (CC-BY-SA-3.0)Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/1pdf8dc _________________________________About the interviewee2/3Timothy Garton Ash – University of Oxford / Stanford UniversityTimothy Garton Ash is Professor of European Studies at the University of Oxford, a Senior Fellow inthe Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and the author most recently of Facts are Subversive:Political Writing from a Decade without a Name.3/3

Five minutes with Timothy Garton Ash: “We’re far more European in the UK than we think we are”

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online