That’s basically the predicament I find myself in these days, and it’s not a very pleasant place to be.

The old federalist argument, repeated ad infinitum at Ventotene, drawing on Spinelli’s manifesto, is that the nation state is broken and only supranational democratic structures in Europe (a European federation) can fix it.

That’s all very well if your systems of representative democracy work OK, but what if they don’t? What if political parties are tired and hollowed out, and beholden to narrow interests and are in awe of the power of the markets? With election turnouts decreasing? With messy multi-party compromises, and leaders ready to ditch the few principles they once had? Why should we expect leadership to be any more enlightened at EU level than is the case nationally just now?

Make the EU a representative democracy in the classical sense (government contingent on a majority in parliament, executive proposes legislation that the legislature approves and amends, parties run in elections etc.) tomorrow, and we’re just going to replicate all the disfunction on a continent wide scale.

But – conversely – the alternatives are worse. We cannot rely on the illegitimate technocracy of the past that has lacked citizen involvement and democratic control. Equally direct democracy is not the answer, as I am yet to see a fair and partial referendum campaign. And – with the world faced with an economic crisis and the impending damage of runaway climate change – it’s not as if we don’t need political solutions to our many problems, and with so many of these being cross-border in nature, it’s not as if we can do away with the supranational institutions we have.

Where, please, out of any of this, is there any small sliver of optimism?

Which got me thinking: which of my political views are actually similar to those of more than 50% of the British population?

I believe in democracy and the rule of law, and a majority probably do too. A majority probably also oppose the death penalty. There should be a market economy, and few would argue for an alternative. But what else?

I’m an outspoken atheist, and I’m also determinedly against religious schools. I dislike the monarchy and would abolish it tomorrow if I could. I despise nationalism and have little tolerance for the concept of the nation state – politics needs to solve problems where the problems are, not according to backward notions of identity or statehood. I’m a federalist, and that applies to all levels – so at the same time more power to local authorities and more power to the EU and internationally too. I’m a vegetarian (logically should be vegan if it were practical), try to be green, cycle and take the train, dislike the motorcar and the plane. I don’t think what class you are should ever be remotely important. I believe in equality between men and women. I dislike the idea of marriage. I support proportional representation. I think speaking foreign languages is vital. I would increase development aid. Prison is to help people, not punish them. I am OK with more immigration to the UK.

Does more than 50% of the UK population agree with any of those things? I think not…

[UPDATE - 1600]
Seems my assumption on the death penalty was wrong, as Martin rather bluntly points out in the comments. So there’s another one where I don’t agree with the majority point of view.

[UPDATE - 7.5.2011]
Oh, and I don’t actually mind that much about Scottish independence either. They will still be in the EU, we’ll still trade with them freely, so what’s the problem? OK, oil negotiations might be hell, but seriously, does it matter?

Take for example the question of whether the EU is adequately democratic. Compare the level of democratic accountability in the EU, where the European Parliament has rather little scope to shape the major issues of the day, and that in a state in the developed world, and the answer is clear – the EU suffers from a democratic deficit. Compare the EU to NATO or the UN and – unique among international organisations – it does have a democratically elected parliament, so it’s far, far ahead of those organisations.

When it comes to discussions about the budget the EU needs we’re stuck again. Compare the EU’s €140 billion annual budget to that of other organisations and it’s huge. Compare it to the budget of European states and its something close the the amount of public spending of a state the size of Portugal. Some UK government departments spend more than the entire EU does. [Note: this doesn't mean the EU need spend more, or that what it spends today is right]

So – in short – what’s your yardstick?

Argue that the European Union essentially should remain an intergovernmental bargain among states, that it should remain technocratic, limited and shallow, is an intellectually coherent position. But you cannot in the same breath argue the case that the European Union is not adequately democratic. Networks of states imply incremental progress and slow negotiations behind closed doors. There’s not even the debate over whether the UN, G20 or NATO are democratically legitimate.

Further, the notion that the root of EU democracy lies with national elections is, and will always be, rubbish. Yes, the 27 governments are legitimate, but what can any government honestly put forward in terms of an EU policy in an election campaign and stand a chance of delivering? Just look at the knots the Tories are tying themselves in over the referendum lock idea.

This approach guards national sovereignty, but damns the notion of an effective or democratic EU.

The opposite position is to take the yardstick of a federal state, and use that to determine your answer to questions about EU politics. Here you come up with ways to achieve genuine democratic accountability – a European Parliament that would choose the executive, the European Commission, and hence have a role setting the political direction of the European Union. The EU would gain its legitimacy from the people primarily, but also through its states represented in the Council.

This approach, too, is intellectually coherent, but it damns national sovereignty and emphasises EU-wide democratic legitimacy and effectiveness.

Considering the challenges the western world is facing – succinctly outlined today by Timothy Garton Ash – which of those future EUs would do a better job? I’d bet it’s not the first.

Yet the prospects of making any steps towards the federation of Europe have never looked so distant. For so long federalists could at least use the process of treaty reform to advance the cause of EU-wide democracy forward at a snail’s pace, but that route has hit an impasse in an EU of 27, and it was essentially an elite, bureaucratic process anyway.

Where institutional reform offered a partial solution, proper EU-wide leadership would be another option. But as I’ve previously blogged that prospect is a distant hope, especially in the era of 24 hour news and the internet. The intergovernmental vision is as dominant as it has ever been. With an ageing population and a stuttering economy there’s little prospect of improvement.

Elderly and slightly less elderly federalists try to keep the flame alive, and in sentiment I am with them, although their lack of practical plans about how to move forward and an old-fashioned understanding of legitimacy and politics mean their efforts are destined to fail. Yes, blame the UK all you wish, but there’s scant little determination for federalism anywhere – France and Germany very much included! There also seems to be a recent tendency to favour the term ‘United States of Europe’ – not sure that’s good in Lakoff framing terms. Sure;y we don’t just want USA-lite?

So I’m stuck with the rather negative conclusion – the need for federalism in Europe is more valid than ever, but the prospects of advancing in that direction are further away than ever. It’s all understandable, but not desirable.

[UPDATE - 31.1.2011]
Anand Menon and John Peet have penned 9 pages for CER (pdf here) entitled “Beyond the European Parliament: Rethinking the EU’s democratic legitimacy”. I had intended to write a full blog post about it, but once beyond the 3 line summary realised it’s not worth the effort, and this post on federalism is already an adequate riposte. A quote from the paper: “However, the problem with the EP is that it fails to carry out satisfactorily the core task of any parliament – namely, adequately to represent its electorate. There is more to democratic legitimacy than just being elected. [...] In the absence of any obvious means to remedy this failing, we consider a strengthening of the role of national parliaments to offer the best way of enhancing democratic legitimacy in the EU.” It’s not as if national parliaments are especially legitimate anyway, and how about giving the EP power to choose the Commission (the federal model) – something that Menon and Peet don’t even consider.

I don’t know. Does anyone really know? Does anyone actually think about these terms?

In UK discourse about the EU it’s all too simple to throw in the terms ‘pro-European’ and ‘Eurosceptic’ without thinking twice about it. Take this blog post from The Fabians’ Next Left blog, and a follow up. They even throw it into event invites (para 12). The Fabians are supposed to be a think tank, but lazy vocabulary afflicts them too, with pro-European and Eurosceptic used with gay abandon.

So here’s my critique, and a sort-of way forward.

Pro-European – in as far as I can determine what it means when applied to UK politics – is a stodgy defence of the status quo, and seems to actually equate to pro-EU in the way it’s most often used. Britain is in the EU and that is a good thing. The European Union broadly does good things. It ought to do more good things in the future, whatever good things are. Cooperating with other folks to solve common problems is a good thing. In some way all of this equates to ‘more Europe’ or at least ‘at least as much Europe as we have just now’.

The problem with all of this is that it has no real answer to what should happen in the future, either in terms of policies or structures. Take the CAP – is it heretical to call for its abolition as a pro-European? Further, what answer to – for example – accountability of the European Commission can be provided by being a pro-European?

Eurosceptic is no easier as a term to define (Cécile Leconte has written a whole book on it), and also suffers from the confusion of EU-Europe. Most often the term essentially equates to EU-sceptic, a critique of what the European Union does. That it’s wasteful, unaccountable, not adequately democratic. Also implicit is some wish for the repatriation of powers, away from ‘Brussels’. This equates in some way to ‘less Europe’.

My main issue with this term is that it too offers no sensible or credible vision of how the future could look. We’re not happy with what we’ve got, but those sods in Brussels mean we’ve got to live with it because there is no alternative on the table. A healthy dose of something somewhere between stiff upper lip British administrative arrogance and something bordering on xenophobia is often thrown in.

So what needs to happen?

First of all the terms ‘pro-European’ and ‘Eurosceptic’ should be abandoned. I’ve done my best to do just that on this blog since this post in 2009.

Secondly, we need some new frames to use to look at the European Union. This would not focus on the more-or-less, in-or-out simplicity of the discourse we use at the moment, but would have a policy focus. A social EU, a liberal EU, a conservative EU, a libertarian EU. What would these things mean in practical, policy terms? So, as a urban lefty, I would like to see the EU do more to help poor regions, more for the digital economy, make moving qualifications and business easier, but want less money on agriculture. That’s a valid policy vision for the EU, but no current discourse about the EU in the UK comes close to covering it.

Thirdly, we need to be honest when it comes to the EU institutions, and we need a discourse for that too. When it comes to the EU I am – shock horror – a federalist. Before most readers scream and run for the hills, this does not mean the EU must become an all-conquering superstate (another term I loathe). It means that at whatever level decisions are taken – regional, national or EU – these must be taken democratically and accountably, and if that’s respected then I am OK for states to not hold vetoes. The alternative – intergovernmentalism – is at least intellectually coherent, but would imply unanimous decisions among 27 Member States for everything, and that’s a recipe for lowest common denominator, poor decision making. That would also make the EU comparable to international organisations such as the WTO, NATO, UN, Council of Europe – and henceforth there would be no expectation or even hope for democracy and accountability.

So then, what am I? I’m a social democrat, and a federalist. I’m also a Europe-phile, in the sense that I can always gain tremendous inspiration from other European countries. That’s no so complex, is it?

(Note: additional terms added in the first paragraph thanks to the comment left by French Derek)

There is one line I really dislike in the FT piece though:

Based in Bruges, it has for 60 years fed prospective civil servants an unabashedly federalist diet of courses for a post-graduate degree in political studies.

Oh come on folks, is that the best that FT journalists can do?

Of course the College of Europe by its very nature is not going to a bastion of opposition to the European Union. The fact that people are motivated to go there means, almost by definition, that they have an interest in EU politics and think that the EU is important in some way. But that does not equate to federalism, be that either the twisted British use of the word, or the correct political science definition of it.

The College of Europe in my experience was a rather practically orientated, non-ideological place. I would certainly count myself as one of the most forcefully ideologically motivated people who was there during my year in Bruges 2003-04. I was even criticised for having views that were too concrete and too stridently expressed.

No, the College of Europe is a place that fills students heads with facts about how the European Union works, and also equips them with some of the skills and approaches in order for them to deal with the EU’s machinery in Brussels. For a start the College’s own bureaucratic morass is a good training for the bureaucratic treacle that greets anyone in the European Commission.

Bruges is also a good place to meet people who will be in the corridors of power and to hence find a job in Brussels. If anyone’s in any doubt that’s a means of motivating people then see the enormous amount of comments on my posts about Commission jobs here and here (more comments there than on the rest of my blog put together) – a secure job is a much greater motivation that federalism is ever going to be.

But of course British journalists need to fit any EU story into the well-worn (and now increasingly broken) eurosceptics versus federalists frame. Problem is that the College of Europe does not fit the frame.

Essentially Verhofstadt, Schulz, Pöttering and everyone else in the EPP, ALDE and Socialists in the EP are arguing in the wrong frame. Debate about the EU is all too often played out in the pro-European versus anti-European frame, it’s a way of looking at the European Union that everyone understands. But the problem – as European Citizen argues – is that it’s not an especially useful way of coming up with answers to pressing problems or motivating citizens to engage in EU politics.

It’s a hard task, but we instead need to argue about the EU in 2 different frames – an ideological and values based approach for policy programmes, based on Europe-wide liberalism, social democracy, free market or whatever. Then when it comes to institutional and constitutional questions, and relations among the institutions, we need a debate about multi-level governance, sovereignty, democracy and federalism. If this article by veteran Italian federalist Guido Montani is anything to go by then Verhofstadt’s ‘pro-Europeanism’ is more nuanced than his words would imply.

Plenty of those of us who write online about the EU have been genuinely disgusted by the games being played out in the European Parliament since the elections. The consultation with the population every 5 years is done, so it’s time to look inward, keep the ‘eurosceptics’ out, divide up all the jobs among the boys, and then wonder in 2014 why nothing changed. How does one of the most energetic and knowledgeable Europeans I know, Julien Frisch, feel he has to label himself EU-sceptic as a result? And I find myself sympathising with him.

No, no, no. It need not be like that. In the nascent EU-blogosphere we manage to have all kinds of nuanced debates about values and policies, and it doesn’t end up in a pro versus anti-EU argument. We’re tired of that. I don’t agree with Frank Schnittger on CAP, but we can have a civil debate. Are our elected representatives completely incapable of framing things differently?