On the crucial question of EU reform, reframing the European debate can actually facilitate, rather than obstruct, substantive changes in policy. Substance vs narrative is a false dichotomy.
We must take seriously all the new parties in the European Parliament, not least because they might well be doing us a favour.
The hard fact that 'pro-Europeans' have to grasp is that for many people the EU is not at all that great. Quite the contrary, the EU imposes tough economic rules, yet gives little palpable in return.
Forget better communication or a radical change in its course of action: what the EU really needs is a big, bold idea to move forward.
As a media trainer and committed European I despair that an organisation as valuable as the EU is too timid to employ the basic principles of good communication.
Take note of the very effective frames the populist anti-Europe parties apply. The previous frame was a technocratic European integration doctrine in which ‘there is no alternative’ prevailed. They have opened a new frame to demonize Europe on behalf of ‘the people’.
Six months before the European elections, supporters of EU integration are on the defensive across much of Europe. But they will never prevail if they don't recognise that the EU's flaws are real, and not rhetorical.
In our series on the Polish left, an interview on the future of politics in Europe and beyond with the sociologist, founder of the Krytyka Polityczna movement in Poland, and director of the Institute for Advanced Study in Warsaw.
As long as the British debate about the EU is framed only in terms of the "national interest", a meaningful and nuanced discussion will be impossible. Stop using the term, “national interest”.
The EU must move fast and persistently to convince potential voters to gain confidence in its relevance and abilities. Here is how to reframe the debate.
