The conference on the European Union’s multiannual financial framework (MFF) has just ended. In it, a listener could find three intertwining trends: (1) National governments face times of austerity, (2) while the European Union budget faces a financial era, not just because its own budget needs deciding on, but of course also because of lingering economic unease and uncertainty, and (3) the issue of legitimacy will return with a vengeance if an agreement on finances is going to be the result of horse trading and secrecy.

In current times, the last point is the most crucial for the EU as a whole. Deciding on a budget was always going to be a bumpy ride. Despite the fact that bailing-out Eurozone countries has not, strictly speaking, anything to do with the European Union budget, it certainly did not help improve the EU’s image in public perception. Faceless the Commission might have been for many citizens in the years passed, these days it seems to be Hobbes’ Leviathan, the worst of all wasteful bureaucracies. An exclamation that it is not would hardly convince any sceptic that regards the Union as an unwanted extension of national sovereignty, and mentioning the small size of the EU budget, especially compared to the EU’s gross national income, is too easy a hand to play as well.

Moreover, with national governments having to cut on their budgets in ways almost unprecedented, politicians will want to convey a message that the EU will not find an escape route that leads to an increase in budget size, whatever reassurance prior agreements has given to Brussels bureaucrats.

There are two sketches one might expect for our European budget. (1) National governments trade political issues like cattle, trying to keep all members on the table happy by harsh, intellectually unwanted compromises. This can either be done publicly or behind closed doors, but if leaders do not set out to gain results in the public interest, there is little hope they will do so publicly, hence we would again be faced by a disconnection between those governing and governed.  (2) The European leaders take an interest in Europe’s future in a different sense, at the very least by not obscuring the process that has to lead to agreement on the Multiannual Financial Framework.

Were the first scenario to occur, few would cherish hope that the Union’s budget would increase, but for maybe inflation correction. If, however, the process is relatively open (we should not kid ourselves, when cameras are upon politicians, the hallways only will witness the crucial political steps), ground will be gained on at least one issue: The public could be involved, whether that be by press publications or by personal interest. I do not consider it probable this would significantly increase the odds to a greater EU budget, yet it should be helpful in legitimizing the next budget.

The euphoria would stop dead in its tracks if government leaders would, as they usually do, present a balance of national gains and losses as opposed to European ones in front of their national constituencies. But without an open process, a lack of public knowledge will inevitably shape part of the debate. I’m not the first, nor will I be the last, who has argued that EU politics, legitimacy and popularity depends as much on what government officials tell their own constituencies, or more important how they convey agreements were reached (i.e. we decided instead of ‘Brussels’ made me), and it is no different now.

In the concluding words of the EU’s conferences on the MFF, a number of questions were asked that relate strongly to this issue: Where does European money go? What is it spent on? Answering these questions is a relatively simple task if ones dives into the archives and traces where it does actually end up, yet this would only be the case if (1) the money ended up where it was supposed to end up, (2) the original spending intentions match the results achieved in reality and (3) the public recognized this as a good, i.e. justifiable, cause.

Nothing of this would find support if no attempt is made to deliver the message and convince people that Europe is more than mere solidarity with member state, or an endless well for money deposits. Voters know our economies are intertwined beyond anything we’ve witnessed before – not just the Eurozone, but the global financial market, too. For some reason, it is easy to grasp – or accepted – that China and the U.S.A. are an essential part of our economies; we cannot prosper if they stumble and fall.

That, then, is the task of Europe’s leaders. Not just to alleviate the short term financial pain all countries are bound to witness in the months or years to come, but to convince, to show, that Europe’s internal market is an invaluable asset to integration and wealth, something well worth striving for, and something that, due to its size, tasks and complexity, requires a budget that enables it to achieve its objectives.