The EU and Its Citizens: Identity, Politics, and Participation

Posted on Sep 30, 2025 in Social sciences

The Complex Relationship Between Europeans and the EU

Europeans have ambivalent attitudes about the EU. While many are generally supportive of the European project and have a European identity above and beyond their national ones, others feel that their voices are not heard within the union, have low levels of trust in the EU, and express skepticism about its direction. This is the reason that some have failed to develop a strong psychological attachment to the EU.

Even as late as the 1980s, European affairs attracted relatively little public attention. However, particularly since the Single European Act, Maastricht, the failed attempt in 2004-2005 to agree on a constitution for the EU, Greece and problems in the eurozone, and the migrant crisis, more people have come to realize that the EU affects their lives and have taken an interest in EU politics. For some, this has been a positive interest, driven by a belief that the EU institutions play an important role in European affairs. For others, it is a negative interest, driven by perceptions that the EU institutions are undemocratic and too powerful.

The Slow Emergence of a European Civil Society

Nevertheless, a European civil society is slowly emerging, thanks mainly to three developments:

  1. The psychological effect of elections to the European Parliament. National elections are still considered more important by voters and political leaders, and European elections are often fought on national issues and approached by voters as opportunities to comment on the performance of their national governments.
  2. Referendums offer voters the opportunity to express themselves on European matters and to periodically turn their attention to some of the big questions that face Europe. Some are votes on national policy; other referendums have Europe-wide significance. For example, the ratifications of the Maastricht and Nice treaties were delayed by negative votes in Denmark and Ireland, and the European constitution was stopped in its tracks by negative votes in France and the Netherlands. The absence of referendums in some countries has also been significant, heightening criticisms of the manner in which some of the most important decisions on Europe are made.
  3. As EU policy has had more impact on the lives of Europeans, so interest groups have directed more of their attention to Brussels. Interest groups are invited to participate in the early planning stages of new legislative proposals, have developed often strong links with the Commission, are used by the Commission as a source of expertise and to report on the implementation of EU law by member states, and are generally seen as an increasingly effective channel for changing EU policy. Their work has helped strengthen the legitimacy and responsiveness of the EU decision-making systems.

Bringing Europe Closer to Its Citizens

Suggestions that Europe should be brought closer to its citizens were outlined in a 1975 report drawn up at the request of the European Council by Leo Tindemans, Prime Minister of Belgium. However, little was done until 1984, when attention turned briefly to the idea of a “people’s Europe.” Pietro Adonnino, a former Italian MEP, was appointed to chair a committee to make suggestions on closing the gap between the Community and its citizens. Its recommendations fell into three main parts:

  1. It endorsed plans for a European passport and a European flag. All national passports were replaced in 1986 by a burgundy-colored European passport. These passports do not make their holders European citizens, but they do ensure that Europeans are given equal treatment by customs and immigration authorities of other countries. Also, citizens of an EU member state finding themselves in need in a non-EU country where their home state has no diplomatic representation can receive protection from the embassy or consulate of any EU state that has a local office. Meanwhile, the Community adopted the flag that had been used by the Council of Europe since 1955.
  2. Several Adonnino recommendations were adopted under the Single European Act (SEA), notably the easing of restrictions on the free movement of people and plans for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. Despite the understanding that an open labor market would be essential to the single market, restrictions still remain on the free movement of people within the EU.
  3. The EU has developed its own concept of European citizenship, although it is not the same as the citizenship associated with states. According to the Treaty of Lisbon, “every person holding the nationality of a member state shall be a citizen of the Union,” but it also states that “citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship.” In other words, EU citizenship is still not much more than a symbolic notion, and distinctions are made among Europeans on the basis of their national citizenship. Thus, while all EU citizens can now vote in and stand for local and European Parliament elections in whichever country they are living, they remain citizens of their own states, identify with those states, and carry important exclusive prerogatives of the state. For example, EU citizens cannot vote in each other’s national elections.

The changes that came out of the Adonnino committee had an important effect on the psychological relationship between Europeans and the EU institutions and helped make the EU more real to Europeans.

Persistent Divisions and Cultural Challenges

But there is more to remind Europeans of what divides them than what unites them. For example, different parts of Europe have quite different histories, with which most other Europeans are not familiar. They have different social policies born from different political attitudes and political cultures, such as differences in the recognition of same-sex unions. There are different attitudes toward economic policy and towards immigration and multiculturalism. Finally, there is also little sense of a shared culture, a problem that the EU has tried to address, driven by the commitment under Maastricht that it should “contribute to the flowering of the culture of the member states” with a view to promoting and protecting the European cultural heritage.

While the sentiments behind such projects are laudable, the development of a European identity can work only if it comes from Europeans themselves, which in turn demands that Europeans must see themselves as distinctive, as united by common interests and values, and as engaged in a shared endeavor. The stake that Europeans have in the EU will not be truly forged until:

  • a) they can see clearly the positive impact that decisions made at the level of the EU have on their lives, and
  • b) they have more meaningful channels through which they can influence those decisions.

The Role of Referendums in EU Politics

European voters have expressed their opinions on European issues through national referendums. Not every member state offers them, they have only been used for selected issues, and some have had conspicuous political effects with EU-wide implications and have occasionally stopped the process of integration in its tracks.

Types of Referendums

Most referendums have fallen into one of two major categories:

  1. Whether to join the EU: Referendums on this question have been held only by newer members of the EU, beginning with the votes held in Denmark, Ireland, and Norway in 1972. A majority of Danes and Irish approved, but a majority of Norwegians disapproved, saying no in a second referendum in 1994. Britain held a referendum in 1975 and in 2016 held a variant of this with the Brexit vote, resulting in the prospect of the UK leaving the EU. All three countries that joined the EU in 1995 held referendums, as did nine of the twelve countries that joined in 2004. In 2012, Croatia also did, but when Bulgaria and Romania joined in 2007, neither used a referendum. Switzerland also applied for membership but withdrew after a negative referendum on December 6, 1992, and again on March 4, 2001.
  2. Whether to accept a new treaty: Referendums on this question have been used most often by Denmark, Ireland, and France. Most famously, in 2005, referendums on the constitutional treaty were held in France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Spain, which French and Dutch voters turned down.

Disadvantages of Referendums

The use of referendums allows citizens more direct input into decision-making, but they have several distinct disadvantages. Because voters are almost always asked to vote up or down on a particular referendum question, the wording of the question can play a significant role in the outcome. The complexities and subtleties of treaties are, not surprisingly, largely lost in this process. Additionally, referendums often function as “second-order” elections; that is, voters’ decisions are guided less by the issue at hand than by their judgment of national incumbent governments.

European Parliament Elections

Elections to the European Parliament (EP) have been a fixture on the European political calendar since 1979. Held on a fixed five-year rotation, in years ending with a four or a nine, they give European voters a direct link with the work of the EU. Voters must be eighteen years old and citizens of the EU member states. At one time, member states restricted voting to their own citizens, but EU citizens have been allowed since Maastricht to vote in their country of residence, and even to run for the EP wherever they live, regardless of citizenship. They must make a declaration to the electoral authority of the member state in which they are living, and they must meet local qualifications if they want to vote and qualifications in their home state if they want to run.

Explaining Low Voter Turnout

The most compelling explanation for low voter turnout is the relative significance of first-order and second-order elections. Because national elections determine who controls national executives and legislatures, which make the decisions that are seen as most immediate and relevant in the lives of citizens, they are seen as first-order elections by voters and parties alike. They attract more attention, they are more hard-fought, and there is more direct interest among voters in their outcome. Local and European elections are seen as second-order elections because there is less at stake.

There are several other explanations for low turnout:

  1. Few European voters know what Parliament does or have developed strong psychological ties to it, and they are either confused or badly informed about European issues.
  2. There is no change of leadership at stake, as there would be in a national election, so voters feel there is less to be lost or gained. The membership of the Commission has nothing to do with the makeup of Parliament.
  3. Turnover among MEPs has been so high that the EP has generated few political personalities of the kind that will often spark voter interest in national elections.
  4. The media and national governments tend to downplay the significance of European elections.
  5. A significant number of voters have little interest in the EU or are skeptical about the concept of integration.

Interest Groups and EU Policy-Making

Every member state of the EU has a diverse and active community of interest groups that works to influence government on a wide variety of issues. Interest groups have provided an important counterbalance to the nationalist and intergovernmental inclinations of EU policy-making because they have often cut across national frontiers to promote the shared sectional interests of groups of people in multiple member states. Something of a symbiotic relationship has developed between the Commission and interest groups, with the former actively supporting the work of many groups and giving them access to influence the content and development of policy and legislative proposals as they work their way through the Commission.

Eurogroups use methods that are similar to those used by groups at the national or local level.

Challenges for Special Interest Groups

Relative to business groups, however, most special interest groups have critical handicaps:

  1. They tend to be relatively small and have neither the resources nor the professional expertise to compete with business federations.
  2. Their technical expertise does not always measure up to that of business groups, and they often lack the ability to discuss the costs and benefits of policy options in real terms.
  3. Brussels-based umbrella organizations are dependent for much of their support on their member organizations, most of which still focus more on trying to influence policy at the national level than at the European one.
  4. The compartmentalized nature of policy-making within the Commission requires that groups be able to monitor and respond to policy developments in multiple directorates-general. They need to go beyond the DG that deals most obviously with their policy area and work with other DGs as well, but they often lack the staff to do so.

Article 11: Citizen and Association Dialogue

  1. The institutions shall, by appropriate means, give citizens and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action.
  2. The institutions shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society.
  3. The European Commission shall carry out broad consultations with parties concerned in order to ensure that the Union’s actions are coherent and transparent.
  4. Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may…