Under European Union law, there is a way for everyday citizens to directly affect policymaking in Brussels. Here is how the European Citizens’ Initiative works.
The European Union is often accused of lacking democratic accountability or being detached from the problems and concerns of everyday people.
Back in 2009, the authors of the Lisbon Treaty, the fundamental rules underpinning the functioning of the EU, acknowledged that gap and included plans for a citizens’ initiative in the treaty.
These are effectively petitions that call on the European Commission to design and publish proposals to address certain issues. If 1 million people from at least seven different countries support an admissible initiative, the Commission must respond.
After lots of legislative back and forth, typically long-winded negotiations and late-night headaches, the rules entered into force at the end of the last decade and since then 11 initiatives have received official replies from the Commission.
These include petitions aimed at banning the trade in fur, cosmetic product testing on animals and the practice of shark finning within the EU. Others have focused on water as a human right and regional equality.
In some cases, the Commission just replies and says why no action will be taken. In others, the EU executive has actually launched legislative action, including a revision of drinking water rules and risk assessment criteria. It is rare but it happens.
Other initiatives were deemed not to be eligible and were refused, including a petition to ban the use of nuclear power, another that insisted the EU break off negotiations on the controversial TTIP trade deal with the United States and a proposal to sing the European anthem in Esperanto.
The reasons for the refusals were largely to do with the fact that they ask for changes that the Commission simply does not have the power to affect.
A number of causes are currently open for signatures, ranging from air travel passenger rights, building renovations and factory farming to food label transparency and psychedelic therapies.
Although the scheme has won praise for crossing the democratic gap somewhat, the citizens’ initiatives have also been criticised. Much of the flak has been levied at the design and technical aspects of the policy.
Other shortcomings that have been identified include varying criteria between member states and data protection hurdles.
Improvements have been made to the system and the proof of its success may well be in the fact that new initiatives are being registered on a frequent basis.
