It is often disparagingly said that the process of European construction is the result of negotiation and compromise. There is nothing wrong with that. Negotiation and compromise are at the heart of democracies; they guide the evolution of any social and economic process and have characterized all the stages of European integration, from the Treaty of Rome to those of Maastricht and Lisbon. They have been there at the enlargement of the Union and in the myriad of large and small decisions reached by EU heads of government at European Councils. Indeed, in most stages of this process, the dominant force driving forwards difficult decisions has been the political will of participants; economic considerations, although the raison d’être behind many of the initiatives, have generally been of secondary concern.

In the current environment of collective self-doubt about the future of the European project, a recurrent criticism is that Europe is a project of the elites. Frequently vocalized by populist politicians looking to capitalize on public discontent, this characterization pits Europe against the average person and has propelled populist parties to high polling numbers and even to electoral triumph. It is, however, also an accusation made by people who do believe in Europe, but feel it has forgotten its citizens in the process – people who feel that to move forwards, Europe needs to pause, correct its course of action and regain the confidence and trust of the Europeans it has lost, presumably because it has strayed from its original purpose and ideals.

So there it is. An elitist construction, the result of negotiations and compromises made in dark rooms, behind closed doors – today’s Europe in a nutshell, according to many of its critics. As reductionist as it may be to describe the EU in this way, it has to be acknowledged that there is some truth to it. Despite the signs of economic growth and the general sense that Europe has emerged from the economic and financial crisis, there is a general EU malaise.