Gulliver, the giant must be set free

“Does the European Union need Iceland?” The bold, direct and perhaps rhetorical question is echoed in the seats of European institutions. It springs from results of the national elections for the renewal of Reykjavik’s Parliament. Iceland opted for guidance by a right-winged party coalition (conservatives and liberals, 38 seats out of 63, both fervent Eurosceptics), while the left parties that contributed – with the help of the International Monetary Fund and EU mediation- to save the country from bankruptcy in 2008 were sent to the opposition. In fact, those very coalitions that plunged Iceland in a serious economic and financial recession that caused the failure of three major banks, are back in power. Three MPs belonging to the anti Europeanist Pirate’s Party, that is becoming increasingly popular across European nations (Scandinavia, Germany and Croatia, just to name a few) were also elected at the national Assembly.In 2010 Iceland obtained the status of candidate country for EU membership and that’s how negotiations began. Meanwhile, anti-EU feelings on the island started to surge, linked to the sacrifices imposed by the economic recovery programs, which, however, are delivering positive results. A recent survey confirms that nearly 60% of Icelanders are contrary to EU accession. During the election campaign the center-right parties have ridden the anti-Europeanist sentiments that paid in terms of votes. From here, then, the question: why should Europe reach out to Reykjavik, if its inhabitants prefer ‘”isolationism”?The results of the votes in Iceland trigger overarching reflections linked to the fact that the questionable stands opposing integration are gaining grounds across a large part of Europe, rewarding anti-European political parties. Just to give a few examples, in the UK, independent UKIP led by Nigel Farage scares Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour. Germany, due to go to the polls in five months, witnessed the emergence of Alternative für Deutschland party, demanding exit from the single currency. France has the National Front, Belgium the “Flemish Pride… Similar movements were born in Italy, Finland, Hungary, The Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Greece… The deep reasons underlying cross-border malaise have been the object of in-depth debates and reflections, which showed that the opposite corners of Europe nurture a rejection of the traditional forms of participative democracy, to the detriment of national politics (wherever participation in the polls decreases and political parties are no more than “empty shells” in the hands of self-proclaimed leaders, or leaders appointed via social networks) as well as at supranational level.But the specific institutional European architecture suffers the most from a “lack of trust in democracy” for two reasons. The first is the distance, which is also physical, that European citizens experience with reference to Parliament, Council and EU Commission, striving to understand their outcomes and resolutions. The second stems from the pernicious effects of the crisis, whose cause has been ascribed to the EU.During his lengthy pro-European engagements, Jacques Delors guarded against some of the above-mentioned drifts. In his memorable farewell address as president of the EU Commission in 1995 after a 10 year mandate, Delors warned of the dangers deriving from the “growing divide separating the ruling class from its citizens” and from a “surging survey epidemics”, whereby policies are not the result of in depth reflection but rather stem from the variables of the public opinion. Delors said: “Only the political awakening of the European Union will prompt the recovery of democracy against the desertion and atony characterizing our cities”. In the same speech, envisaging the transformations due to succeed the fall of the Berlin Wall, Delors warned against the risk of a weakening of the “common home”. He claimed that the new scenario which the EU was preparing for, (enlargement to the East and the adoption of the euro currency) required reforms and political support by Member States, to prevent the “EU from becoming a sort of enchained Gulliver, caused by a want of valid and efficient institutions”. In all likelihood, contemporary Europe could be best described as an giant enchained by a prevailing crisis, by cumbersome decision-making mechanisms, by widespread scepticism, by ever more nationalistic and survey-dependent national leaders. It needs to be politically freed and strengthened in order to provide effective answers to citizens’ expectations.