On Friday, June 24th, Europe woke up to the sickening surprise of Brexit. Yet, it should not have come as a surprise, given the years of anti-EU propaganda in the British press.
In addition, the euro crisis and the refugee crisis have placed incredible strains upon the EU – and the Brexit campaign has shown how these can be exploited in the most mendacious manner.
High on the success of Brexit, the French Front National’s Marine le Pen declared the vote a historic moment.
It is time that we recognise the threat for what it is: a far-right attempt to destroy the EU.
As with the euro - when the treasuries of Europe came together to create financial firewalls - we need to design new political firewalls to protect the EU and the peace it provides us with.
In so doing, we have to recognise what are the weak points in the structures of the EU institutions.
The most common complaint made about “Brussels” is that it is full of “unelected and faceless Eurocrats” who impose EU laws.
In fact, most EU laws are adopted by the national governments in the EU Council of Ministers, in agreement with the directly elected members of the European Parliament.
Uncomfortable truth
Yet, behind the unfair criticism is an uncomfortable truth.
The EU and its institutions still resemble a particularly complex episode of Game of Thrones, with an endless cast of characters involved in the decision-making process.
This is the first concern that we must tackle. We must put a face to the decisions made in Brussels.
The European Parliament usually takes the high moral ground, claiming to represent the European people. However, the political reality is that most of the 751 MEPs are simply unknown, especially outside of their countries (though the Irish MEPs are an exception here).
The European Commission – and in particular the Commissioners appointed by each of the 28 EU member states – is also stymied because the Commissioners have to represent the wider European interest and cannot take a national point of view.
The most obvious institution to take responsibility should be the Council of Ministers, given that national ministers are often well-known politicians.
However, the council has turned out to be lamentable at explaining Europe back home - simply because there is never one single minister involved.
Whoever it is that attends a particular Council of Ministers meeting depends on the subject matter involved – whether it is agriculture or economics or the environment.
As a result, no single public figure is held responsible for decisions taken by the council, and ministers frequently blame the EU for decisions they have themselves endorsed.
This has to change. A most obvious reform would be that the council’s meetings be open to the public, except for the most sensitive matters.
However, it is also time to look at the broader problem of national governments’ representation in Brussels so that a single face can be put to decisions taken within the EU.
In fact, there is already such a person working in Brussels. The permanent representative of each EU member state is responsible for the preparatory work of the council.
They are career diplomats of ambassadorial rank based in Brussels and represent their countries at high-level meetings as legislation or policy is negotiated.
They are the “eyes and ears” of their country in Brussels.
They are also utterly unknown to the wider public. In Ireland, except for an occasional article in this newspaper announcing a new appointment, they largely go unmentioned.
It is not in the DNA of career diplomats to come into the light - meaning their role is far from public scrutiny.
The crisis of confidence in the EU means the time of career diplomats as permanent representatives has come to a natural end.
Instead the permanent representative should be a senior political representative who is appointed by the head of government (in Ireland’s case, the Taoiseach).
Chief negotiator
The permanent representative should be the government’s chief negotiator in all matters European, accountable on a regular basis to the cabinet as well as the national parliament.
In parliamentary systems, a pairing system could be put in place for votes to enable the permanent representative to work in Brussels.
The role should be a coveted one, so that it becomes regarded as a “big beast” portfolio in government, setting an important policy lead across departments concerned with European affairs.
This change would provide much greater political scrutiny over EU decisions, not least because the permanent representative would have a strong incentive to explain to the electorate what has been achieved in Brussels.
The beauty of this proposal is that the permanent representative role is already recognised - and so no treaty change is required.
All that needs to change is the personnel.
A declaration by the member states in the council that the role should be taken by a senior member of the national government, in accordance with national constitutional norms, would probably be sufficient (together with pragmatic changes to the functioning of the role, given its more political nature).
For those diplomats reading this and upset at the thought of the loss of their job, I propose they could take the glamorous “Brussels” title of chef de cabinet to advise the permanent representative and assist their team.
Diplomats should not lose their valuable role in the EU but rather revert to one that is more befitting their discreet nature in a time where greater accountability is essential.
The Brexit vote brings a new urgency to showing Europeans that Brussels is directly accountable to the people.
A declaration that each member state will have a permanent representative in Brussels who is a member of the respective governments would send a strong signal that the EU is reforming in order to put democracy at the heart of its institutions.
Of course more profound structural changes will have to be made, but let’s start with a firewall that could be put in place immediately to safeguard the EU - and the peace it seeks to protect.
Benoît Keane is an Irish EU lawyer based in Brussels who previously served as chair of the Institute of International and European Affairs, Brussels branch. All views are personal