An independent Britain run by a junta of Army officers would be preferable to a united Europe controlled by a multilingual parliament

An independent Britain run by a junta of Army officers would be preferable to a united Europe controlled by a multilingual parliament.That is not, I think, the view of the British people. That’s why the most intelligent of them, including Michael Portillo, have been careful not to crow too loudly this week, for fear that we take the demands for greater accountability seriously.Scratch ‘em and many Europhobes are nationalists first and democrats second. And the problem with providing that democracy is not supra-nationality, but nationality.So, of course, it is the Europhobes who feel most threatened by all this talk of new institutions and accountability. It will (they argue) lead to an unwelcome politicisation of institutions that rely upon consensus, and to a tendency for commissioners to play to the public gallery, rather than to do their jobs in stolid and unspectacular fashion These are, indeed, the drawbacks of democracy But what Europe needs right now is democracy. We can do much, much better.The establishment objection to this surfeit of democracy tends to be a technocratic one. That’s OK, Tony, anyone can make a mistake – let’s change it to an open-list system for next time.And why should not commissioners be directly elected in their own countries, such elections to coincide with those for the European Parliament? The idea floated yesterday, that they be formally approved by the House of Commons, adds little accountability.

There we will need to distinguish between the individual candidates of the different parties. Indeed, there is a case for allowing it to appoint the commission president. Unfortunately the closed-list system of proportional representation, by which MEPs will be elected in the UK, will not suit the People’s Europe. So People’s Europe would require that decisions taken at the European level should be democratically accountable to bodies elected at that level. Thus, the European Parliament should have powers of scrutiny, censure and recall, complete with the full paraphernalia of hearings and vetoes. And all should be subject to the three great virtues of openness, transparency and accountability.

Which is to take hold of the project and make it ours; to create a proper European political entity. In this entity all decisions should be taken at the lowest appropriate level. After all, the Commission in its present form is their creature, kept undemocratic, because to make it democratic would be to make it a threat.And then – oh joy – there is the new Third Way. This group wishes for the advantages of union, while refusing to give up the power and privileges exerted by national governments. The second is the old school of Euro-dither, which will want to do as little as possible in the wake of the mass resignations. First, of course, there are those who wish to discourage the project, and – that discouragement failing – wish to disengage from it This is, I think, the logic of the Hague position.

And without an Anglo-Saxon anywhere in sight!And yet, despite the defensive tone of much of this article, so far I find myself elated by this week’s events. All of a sudden, as though a fog has lifted from a mountain peak, I have seen, spread out, what Europe could be like. Instead of the deadening bureaucratic complacency of the established pro-Europeans (and their sponsors back in the much-vaunted nation states), a brief vision has been afforded of a democratic, disputatious, vibrant Europe From this week, instead of two camps there are three. It would also be fair, I think, to celebrate the extraordinary speed of the EU’s Committee of Independent Experts, whose H-bomb of a report was detonated within six weeks of the Committee’s establishment.