As EU leaders once again try to deal with the rejection of the EU constitution, two Dutch activists, Sammy van Tuylland Arno Uijlenhoet, have suggestions
Ireland and the Netherlands have in common the fact that they once rejected a European treaty.
They also have in common a history of having to deal with larger neighbour countries.
This week, the German presidency of the European Union is aiming to make decisions about a new treaty, which will end the "period of reflection".
In the Netherlands, this period of reflection has hardly been used, and the Dutch government is now taking a position that does not reflect general public opinion.
Therefore, the outcome is likely to be rejected yet again.
On the other hand, a result that would reflect the main concerns of the Dutch people may also be in the interests of other small member states - and probably of every European citizen.
Public opinion in the Netherlands is much more pro-European than many may think following the rejection of the EU constitution. The major reason why the treaty was rejected was because people felt they had lost control over European decision-making.
And rightly so: when analysing the decision-making process, one cannot but conclude that, in a union of 27, the smaller member states, including the Netherlands and Ireland, have little say. The power is concentrated with the larger member states.
The union's institutions were originally designed for a community of six. Decision-making takes place through representatives of the member states.
With six member states, this posed no major problem: when there were six around the table, everyone could express their views and would have had some influence.
Even with nine, 12 or 15 member states, each member could have a say. But with 27, this is impossible.
Power will instead be concentrated with the four or six larger member states, which are likely to make compromises among themselves.
They will thus have the lead in the decision-making process.
The extension to 27 member states is a regime change and yields an EU that is quite different from the one we used to know.
We therefore have to find new methods for ensuring there are checks and balances in the institutional framework, which was not done before the constitutional treaty was agreed to.
This is one of the main reasons why the Dutch people are not comfortable with the current EU.
As citizens of a smaller member state, they realise they no longer influence the making of decisions.
A solution would be to make European decision-making much more democratic and accountable.
This does not mean yielding more power to the EU, but only means ensuring that the power the EU already has becomes accountable.
We should move from the Europe of the capitals - where small member states have no say - to the Europe of the citizens, where the view of each individual is taken equally into account.
An important feature of this would be giving more powers to the European Parliament.
However, the parliament itself would also have to be modified.
Many people currently feel disaffected by the European Parliament. One of the reasons for this is that its members are selected in national elections, which makes the parliament an element of the Europe of the capitals.
This has two consequences: the larger member states have more influence, and people cannot follow what happens to their vote.
In the Netherlands, you can vote for one of 27 delegates in a parliament of 785. But unlike Dutch national elections, it is almost impossible to track what happens to your vote after this.
This would be different if people could vote in EU-wide elections, for instance for a European socialist, liberal or conservative party.
Thus, one could vote for an election programme that is recognisable to all EU citizens.
Of course, one would be able to vote for a fellow countryman othat list, but his or her position in the parliament would be much more recognisable.
By electing the parliament through EU-wide elections, the view of Europeans would be clearly expressed.
Citizens of smaller member states would have an influence on European decision-making, which they do not have at present.
Also, citizens of larger member states would benefit from a more accountable and democratic EU. Citizens would be able to influence European decision-making directly, without their views being filtered by national politicians or civil servants.
Of course, one cannot change the election system entirely at once. But electing half the seats in the parliament through EU-wide elections would be feasible.
A next step would be to elaborate on a new system of checks and balances between citizens and member states - smaller as well as larger - so as to take into account the new European reality.
It is in the interest of Dutch citizens - and citizens of other smaller member states - to aim for a Europe of the citizens.
The objective the Dutch government is currently pursuing - a bigger say for national parliaments - is obviously without any significance. It would only complicate decision-making needlessly.
Other smaller member states will probably realise what is in their citizens' interests and aim for a result we do not have to reject once again.
Sammy van Tuyll is chairman of the Liberal Democrats in the Netherlands. Arno Uijlenhoet is a board member of Newropeans, which describes itself as a trans-European political project founded to democratise the European Union