Click here for a selection of links to the European debate

Why did so few of us (across Europe) vote in the recent European elections? How can this be remedied? And why is there such hostility to all things European in Britain? What, in other words, is the problem with Europe?

There are plenty of suggestions on offer: apathy, boredom, and confusion are often proffered as excuses for low voter turnout, but this is no explanation. Why are so many people apathetic, bored or confused? According to some, it is because the European Union is undemocratic, unaccountable, faceless and anonymous. Others argue that the EU is something worse: a corrupt club run by despotic, inept foreigners that threatens just about everything we hold precious. The former, to some extent, is clearly true, but if the latter were the case surely we should have turned out in our droves to express our discontent. In actuality, most of us stayed at home.

The simplistic black and white caricatures of the EU that the euro-sceptic press love to portray are surely as fictional as the utopias and edens envisaged by Europe’s more ardent supporters. The truth, as is so often the case with the EU, is hidden among mountains of bureaucracy. Nevertheless, while the EU may be flawed, there can be no doubt that we’re better off with it—much better off—than we would be without it. I suggest it should be fixed, not abandoned.

I should declare that I am by inclination a supporter of European integration, though not at any price, and I am dismayed that public opinion is deteriorating into a xenophobic howl. The kind of nationalism this engenders is extremely dangerous, and I think media owners in particular have a responsibility not to inflame it.

Having said that, it seems to me that “the problem” with Europe isn’t the constitution, or the euro, or the commission, or indeed any of the favourite targets of euro-sceptic scorn. Rather, the central issue is one of power: in whose hands is it? In whose hands do we want it? And in particular, in whose hands is it seen to lie? (see here for chart)

Presently, euro-power appears to lie in the hands of the Commissioners in Brussels. This is a body of un-elected people who are appointed by national governments through their private club, the Council of Ministers. Real power thus still resides in the Prime Ministers and Presidents of Europe who comprise the Council—including the British Prime Minister—a group that meets behind closed doors to make law and do deals. Meanwhile, the European Parliament in Strasbourg—where our elected MEPs sit twiddling their thumbs—is an open, democratic institution that remains by and large toothless. This ambiguity—some say hypocrisy—looks a bit shabby and breeds contempt. It is contrary to all our political ideals and instincts: that a democratic body stands powerless while an unaccountable one rules the roost. This fact alone goes some way to explaining so-called voter apathy. Why bother to vote for an MEP if she can’t really achieve anything? More importantly, why do national leaders go to such lengths to avoid, or even deny, this blatant contradiction?

The answer, for a change, is simple: national politicians, afraid of relinquishing power, fudge the issue. They trumpet their commitment to democracy and accountability in public, then cosy-up and horse-trade in private.

To be fair, Messrs Blair, Schroeder, Chirac and the others have a difficult problem: how to give the EU credibility and clout without scaring off an increasingly euro-sceptic public? This is no easy task, but they don’t do their citizens, or themselves, any favours by promulgating hypocrisy and cant. Unless they’re careful, the EU as we know it might yet fold. That would be a disaster for all of us.

Appointments to the top jobs in the EU should either end immediately in favour of elected Commissioners, or even better, the entire commission should be re-configured into a kind of European civil service which does the administrative bidding of the publicly elected Parliament. In this scenario, rather than appointed Commissioners, we would have European Ministers—elected by the Parliament (of which they would be members), and heading it all, a non-partisan European President, directly elected by the public.

No doubt such a plan would bring a host of new problems, but at least we would have solved the central bugbear of the current setup—that no one seems to give a damn because nothing happens democratically.

If the EU is to flourish as a popular, robust, socio-economic institution, then the first thing that has to happen is a profound reform of its power structure. This must be clear, consistent, open, and above all accountable. Citizens must feel that their votes count, and that poor performance on the part of officials can be responded to with electoral dismissal. Britain is better than most when it comes to fair play and justice, and we should be involved at every level of this important challenge. Simply withdrawing until “they” get their act together is both pusillanimous and risks enflaming our existing contempt for all things foreign.