Facilitating the Participation of EU Citizens in the Brexit Negotiation Process

  • Natassa AthanasiadouEmail author
Part of the European Administrative Governance book series (EAGOV)


Given the significant future impact of Brexit on the Union, citizens and other stakeholders have not merely relied on the established mechanisms of representative democracy, but have been seeking and actively using any available means for information and direct participation. This chapter aims to examine the available mechanisms for citizens and representative associations to scrutinise and participate in the Brexit negotiations at the European Union (EU) level. Effective citizen scrutiny and participation presuppose transparency and access to information. It is therefore first examined what means have been used to inform the public throughout the process. Subsequently, the different institutional forms of EU citizens’ direct participation in the context of the Brexit negotiations are examined. As an overall aim, this chapter assesses the standards which the Brexit negotiations have set and the shortcomings which remain with respect to openness, transparency and citizens’ involvement at the EU level.


Brexit EU citizens Democracy Transparency Participation Civil society Citizens’ initiatives 


  1. Abazi, V., & Hillebrandt, M. (2015). The Legal Limits to Confidential Negotiations Recent Case Law Developments in Council Transparency: Access Info Europe and In’t Veld. Common Market Law Review, 52, 825.Google Scholar
  2. Bonnor, P. (2006). When EU Civil Society Complains: Civil Society Organisations and Ombudsmanship at the European Level. In S. Smismans (Ed.), Civil Society and Legitimate European Governance (p. 141). Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  3. Brusenbauch Meislova, M. (2019). The European Parliament in the Brexit Process: Leading Role, Supporting Role or just a Small Cameo? In T. Christiansen & D. Fromage (Eds.), Brexit and Democracy: The Role of Parliaments in the UK and the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Bunea, A. (2018). Legitimacy Through Targeted Transparency? Regulatory Effectiveness and Sustainability of Lobbying Regulation in the European Union. European Journal of Political Research, 57, 378.Google Scholar
  5. Buth, V., Högenauer, A., & Kaniok, P. (2019). The Scrutiny of Brexit in National Parliaments: Germany, Luxembourg and the Czech Republic Compared. In T. Christiansen & D. Fromage (Eds.), Brexit and Democracy: The Role of Parliaments in the UK and the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Council of the EU. (2017a, May 22). Decision Authorising the Opening of Negotiations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for an Agreement Setting Out the Arrangements for Its Withdrawal from the European Union.Google Scholar
  7. Council of the EU. (2017b). Guiding Principles for Transparency in Negotiations Under Article 50 TEU, 22 May 2017, XT 21016/17.Google Scholar
  8. Craig, P. (2017). Process: Brexit and the Anatomy of Art. 50. In F. Fabbrini (Ed.), The Law and Politics of Brexit (p. 50). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cuesta Lopez, V. (2010). The Lisbon Treaty’s Provisions on Democratic Principles: A Legal Framework for Participatory Democracy. European Public Law, 1, 123.Google Scholar
  10. Curtin, D. (1991). Transparency and Political Participation in EU Governance: A Role for Civil Society? Cultural Values, 3, 445.Google Scholar
  11. Curtin, D., & Meijer, A. (2006). Does Transparency Strengthen Legitimacy? Information Polity, 11, 109.Google Scholar
  12. Dougan, M. (2011). What Are We to Make of the Citizens’ Initiative? Common Market Law Review, 48, 1807.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. (2016). Proposal for an Interinstitutional Agreement on a Mandatory Transparency Register, COM(2016) 627.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission. (2017a). Approach to Transparency in the Article 50 Negotiations with the United Kingdom.
  15. European Commission. (2017b, March 13). Stakeholder Outreach Concerning Article 50 Negotiations with the United Kingdom.
  16. European Commission. (2017c). Better Regulation Guidelines, Commission Staff Working Document, SWD (2017) 350.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission. (2018a, March 28). Second Report to the European Parliament and Council on the Application of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011, C(2018) 157.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission. (2018b, April 13). Reply From Commission President Juncker to the Ombudsman’s Letter Concerning Securing Appropriate Stakeholder Input in the Brexit Negotiations and Potential for Further Progress on Transparency, Case SI/1/2017/KR.Google Scholar
  19. European Council. (2017, April 29). Guidelines Following the United Kingdom’s Notification Under Article 50 TEU, EUCO XT 20004/17.Google Scholar
  20. European Ombudsman. (2014a, July 29). Letter to the Council of the EU Requesting an Opinion in the Own-Initiative Inquiry Concerning Transparency and Public Participation in Relation to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Negotiations, Case OI/11/2014/RA.Google Scholar
  21. European Ombudsman. (2014b, October 31). Decision of the European Ombudsman Closing Her Own-Initiative Inquiry Concerning the Council of the EU, Case OI/10/2014/RA.Google Scholar
  22. European Ombudsman. (2015, January 6). Decision of the European Ombudsman Closing Her Own-Initiative Inquiry Concerning the European Commission, Case OI/10/2014/RA.Google Scholar
  23. European Ombudsman. (2017a, February 28). Letter from the Ombudsman to Commission President Juncker Concerning Information for the Public on the Upcoming Negotiations Aimed at Reaching Agreement on the UK’s Withdrawal from the EU, CASE SI/1/2017/KR.Google Scholar
  24. European Ombudsman. (2017b, February 28). Letter From the Ombudsman to the Secretary-General of the Council of the EU Concerning Public Information on the UK’s Withdrawal From the EU, Case SI/1/2017/KR.Google Scholar
  25. European Ombudsman. (2018, February 23). Letter From the Ombudsman to President Juncker Concerning Securing Appropriate Stakeholder Input in the Brexit Negotiations and Potential for Further Progress on Transparency, Case SI/1/2017/KR.Google Scholar
  26. European Parliament and European Commission. (2011). Agreement on the Establishment of a Transparency Register for Organisations and Self-Employed Individuals Engaged in EU Policy-Making and Policy Implementation, OJ L 191, 22.7.2011, as amended in 2014, OJ L 277/11, 19.9.2014.Google Scholar
  27. Fabbrini, F. (2017). Brexit and EU Treaty Reform. In F. Fabbrini (Ed.), The Law and Politics of Brexit (p. 287). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karatzia, A. (2017). The European Citizensʼ Initiative and the EU Institutional Balance: On Realism and the Possibilities of Affecting EU Lawmaking. Common Market Law Review, 54, 177.Google Scholar
  29. Kaufmann, B. (2012). Transnational Babystep: The European Citizens’ Initiative. In T. Schiller & M. Setala (Eds.), Citizens’ Initiatives in Europe; Procedures and Consequences of Agenda-Setting by Citizens (p. 229). Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Kirste, S. (2018). A Rights-Based Justification of the Participation of Civil Society in Europe. In H. Brunkhorst, D. Vujadinovic, & T. Marinkovic (Eds.), European Democracy in Crisis (Eleven, p. 135).Google Scholar
  31. Kroeger, S. (2013). Creating a European Demos? The Representativeness of European Umbrella Organisations. Journal of European Integration, 35, 583.Google Scholar
  32. Kutay, A. (2015). Limits of Participatory Democracy in European Governance. European Law Journal, 21, 803.Google Scholar
  33. Magnette, P. (2006). Democracy in the European Union: Why and How to Combine Representation and Participation? In S. Smismans (Ed.), Civil Society and Legitimate European Governance (p. 23). Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  34. Mendes, J. (2011). Participation and the Role of Law After Lisbon: A Legal View on Article 11 TEU. Common Market Law Review, 48, 1849.Google Scholar
  35. Mendes, J. (2017) Executive Rulemaking: Procedures in Between Constitutional Principles and Institutional Entrenchment. In C. Harlow, P. Leino & G. Della Cananea (Eds.), Research Handbook in EU Administrative Law (p. 371). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  36. Mendez, F., & Mendez, M. (2017). The Promise and Perils of Direct Democracy for the European Union. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 9, 1.Google Scholar
  37. Morel, L. (2018). Types of Referendums, Provisions and Practice at the National Level Worldwide. In L. Morel & M. Qvortrup (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook to Referendums and Direct Democracy (p. 27). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Organ, J. (2017). EU Citizen Participation, Openness and the European Citizens’ Initiative: The TTIP Legacy. Common Market Law Review, 54, 1713.Google Scholar
  39. Qvortrup, M. (2018). Western Europe. In M. Qvortrup (Ed.), Referendums Around the World (p. 19). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salm, C. (2018). The Added Value of the ECI and Its Revision. European Parliament Research Service, PE 615.666.Google Scholar
  41. Sipala, F. (2007). La vie démocratique de l’Union. In G. Amato, H. Bribosia, & B. De Witte (Eds.), Genèse et destinée de la Constitution européenne (p. 367). Bruxelles: Bruylant.Google Scholar
  42. Vogiatzis, N. (2017). Between Discretion and Control: Reflections on the Institutional Position of the Commission Within the European Citizens’ Initiative Process. European Law Journal, 23, 250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations