Podcast Summary

Episode Title

Two Challenges to Democratic Citizenship: Is the EU the Solution or Part of the Problem?

Podcast: LSE Public lectures and events
Host: LSE Film and Audio Team
Date: 7 May 2008
Speakers:

• Richard Bellamy (Professor of Political Science, UCL)
• Damian Chalmers (Professor of European Law, LSE, and commentator)
• Simon Glendinning (Moderator, LSE)
• Audience members

Overview

This episode tackles two major challenges facing democratic citizenship in Europe and interrogates the role of the European Union (EU): does the EU provide a solution to contemporary issues of citizenship and democracy, or is it part of the problem? Richard Bellamy presents a robust defense of the current structure of EU citizenship, arguing it is often misjudged both by Eurosceptics and Europhiles. His analysis is followed by commentary from Damian Chalmers, who expands and questions aspects of Bellamy’s position. The discussion further includes thoughtful questions and interventions from the audience on legitimacy, human rights, political identity, and the evolving relationship between the EU, member states, and citizens.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Setting the Stage: Theoretical Background ([04:59]–[10:55])

• Simon Glendinning introduces the event series “European Identity in Question,” previously featuring Pierre Rosanvallon’s contrast between majoritarian and unanimity-based democracy.
• Tonight's focus: How current European structures handle democratic citizenship.

2. Bellamy’s Core Lecture: Citizenship and its Two Key Challenges ([10:55]–[47:58])

a. The Nature and Purpose of Citizenship

• Definition: “Citizenship is a condition of civic equality. Its aim is to secure fair terms of political association whereby the laws, both in their conception and implementation, treat all those subject to them with equal concern and respect as autonomous individuals.” ([13:10])
• Citizenship contains both liberal (autonomy, individual rights) and democratic (political equality, self-rule) elements.

b. The Two Foundational Challenges ([29:00])

1. Provision of Collective Goods:
   • States struggle to manage public goods and harmful externalities, especially across borders (e.g., environment, security).
2. Weakening Civic Bonds:
   • Citizens’ willingness to cooperate for collective goods is fading, undermining political equality and solidarity.

c. How the EU Interacts with These Challenges

• Eurosceptics’ Critique: The EU undermines national sovereignty and democratic control.
• Europhiles’ Critique: The EU is too intergovernmental and fails to create a genuine European citizenship, remaining subordinate to national identities.

Quote:
“For Eurosceptics, the very status of citizenship of the EU conjures up the specter of a European superstate ... For Europhiles, the status represents all that's disappointing about the current EU.” – Richard Bellamy ([11:58])

Bellamy’s Defense:

• EU citizenship complements, not replaces, national citizenship.
• The real strength is “combining an increasingly global market with the capacity of citizens to shape their collective public goods ... to reflect national political cultures.” ([45:30])
• Danger: Dismantling the national dimension would erode both the liberal and democratic aspects of citizenship.
• EU’s greatest legitimacy is in areas like trade, security, and environmental policy—low electoral salience, win-win externalities.

Key Concept:
“The beauty of the current citizenship provisions, I think, lies in them guarding against [the erosion of national citizenship]. They seek to allow citizens to move and trade freely between member states, but ... constrain such rights by the need not to disrupt the rights enjoyed by national citizens.” ([42:22])

Bellamy’s Conclusion:

• EU institutions can and should support national democracies in facing global challenges but should not seek to replace them.
• Strong support for “democratizing how we think about the EU within member states and deepening our understanding of its important complementary role.” ([46:55])

Memorable Moment ([46:55]): “My answer is yes to all those questions … but only if its role is that of strengthening the democratic citizenship of the member states … less by democratizing the EU per se, and more by democratizing how we think about the EU within the member states.”

3. Damian Chalmers’ Commentary ([47:58]–[59:48])

a. General Agreement, With Nuanced Critique

• Chalmers agrees with Bellamy’s diagnosis but probes the “plasticity of citizenship”—can EU citizenship truly exist independently of national citizenship?
• Quote:
  “Is it really possible to have EU citizenship that is not contaminated by national citizenship? ... There is politics or law. It can't avoid being contaminated.” ([48:32])

b. Two Areas of Tension

1. Public Goods and Social Integration:

   • Different approaches to healthcare (inclusive, market-driven) vs. education (dependent on social integration) highlight dilemmas in granting rights.
   • Raises concern that EU citizenship may reinforce exclusionary practices (e.g., requirement to prove “integration”).

2. The Imaginary of Citizenship

   • Flags importance of European citizenship as a new form of “political agency” or “imaginary,” especially for minority protections and fundamental rights.
   • Cites EU roles in anti-discrimination law, enlargement (democratic locking-in), and evolving national identity.
   • Quote:
     “I would say that there is another ethic out there, which is this ethic of the European citizen ... it's the nation also is insufficient. It's the idea that we should reimagine political community, political community not just as the foreigner, but as the marginalized within us.” ([55:11])

4. Exchange and Debate: Key Q&A Highlights

a. On Legitimacy and Human Rights ([66:18]–[68:21])

• Audience questions government tendency to blame the EU for unpopular decisions.
• Discussion about whether courts or EU legislation undermine national democracy or reflect a lack of domestic political will.

b. On Central Banks and Economic Policy ([69:00]–[72:32])

• Debate over national vs. European control of economic tools (central banks, fiscal governance).
• Bellamy notes the issue is democratic accountability, not just technocratic distance.

c. On Regionalism and the EU ([82:26]–[85:55])

• Question: does increased sub-nationalism (devolution) show the “European identity” is weak?
• Bellamy: trend is toward regional, not European, identity—EU enables and sustains this, sometimes deliberately.

Quote:
“Indeed it does … the Scottish Nationalists party used to have, you know, ‘Scotland in Europe’ was one of its slogans and that was sort of echoed in a number of other parts of Europe too.” ([85:10])

d. On European “Imaginary” ([87:01]–[90:27])

• Is “European citizenship” a useful imaginary, or just another layer of homogenizing values?
• Chalmers: The “European mirror” forces nation-states to reinterpret themselves, enabling pluralism not just uniformity.

Quote:
“I would be very strongly against the sort of thing that you rightly critique of just sort of a super level cosmopolitan value system. … that point of external self-critique, almost feeling that there is an external reference, even though it's you that's saying it. Quite useful.” ([90:19])

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Richard Bellamy ([11:58]):
  “Eurosceptics overlook the degree to which EU citizenship … serves to buttress and sustain national citizenship, while many Europhiles appear oblivious to the value and virtues of this very achievement…”

• Richard Bellamy ([13:10]):
  “Citizenship as I see it is a condition of civic equality. Its aim is to secure fair terms of political association whereby the laws … treat all those subject to them with equal concern and respect as autonomous individuals.”

• Damian Chalmers ([48:32]):
  “Is it really possible to have EU citizenship that is not contaminated by national citizenship? … It can't avoid being contaminated … by national citizenship.”

• Richard Bellamy ([70:59]):
  “... it's not uncontroversial that you should never adopt inflationary policies. Sometimes they can be beneficial, and it's also not uncontroversial that those involved in setting interest rates, etc., will … have the interests of the economy at large at heart…”

• Audience ([77:57]):
  “Liberty, equality, and fraternity ... two practical examples of things we would not have here if it wasn't imposed by the EU would be the Working Time Directive … and clean beaches.”

Timestamps for Major Segments

• 04:59 – Simon Glendinning’s Introduction, framing the debate and speakers
• 10:55 – Richard Bellamy’s Lecture begins
• 13:10 – Definition of citizenship and its dual components
• 29:00 – Identification of the two key challenges to citizenship
• 42:22 – Bellamy discusses the merits of the current EU citizenship model
• 45:30 – Summary of EU’s strengths/limitations and advocacy for its supporting role
• 46:55 – Bellamy’s memorable summing-up and “Yes, but…” answer
• 47:58 – Damian Chalmers’ commentary
• 55:11 – The EU as an imaginary for inclusion and minority protection
• 66:18 – Audience questions: Human rights and legitimacy
• 69:00 – Discussion on central banking and economic policy
• 82:26 – Changing sub-national allegiances and EU impact
• 87:01 – The value and risk of a European “imaginary”
• 90:27 – Final words, thanks, and close

Tone & Style

• Analytical, Theoretical, and Pragmatic:
  Both speakers balance normative political theory with practical policy examples, debating the real-life effects of EU structures.

• Engaged and Self-critical:
  Speakers frequently challenge one another and themselves, with a willingness to probe assumptions (“Maybe I misunderstood you …” – Bellamy).

• Witty and Accessible:
  Occasional humor and accessible analogies lighten intricate constitutional debates (e.g., “the person who can stay in the politics pub longest wins the argument”).

Summary Takeaway

The EU, far from simply being a democratic deficit or supranational threat, plays a crucial role in buttressing democratic citizenship within its member states by enabling them to face the challenges of globalization and collective action. However, its legitimacy and function rest on complementing—not replacing—national citizenship, with real dangers lurking in attempts to overreach its remit. Both speakers advocate nuanced appreciation for the EU’s capacity as a support structure for democracy and pluralism, not as an alternative to national communities, and suggest that reimagining citizenship—within member states and in the EU context—requires humility, transparency, and constant democratic renewal.