of deliberative democracy. it essentially involves allowing the public to play a greater role in political decision - making processes. ireland provides an instructive example of how this can work. in ireland 99 randomly selected members of the public are brought together to discuss and deliberate on various issues, such as global warming, the challenges arising from demographic change or the law on abortion. the topic of abortion, for example, was for many years a very controversial topic in ireland, and one that polarised society. and so, before a referendum on abortion was held, a citizens ’ assembly was brought together to discuss the issue. the results of the conversations were published in a report and debated in parliament. and while public reaction had initially been divided on the matter, the result of the referendum ultimately largely reflected the outcome of the citizens ‘ assembly, which supported the right to abortion. many participants reported that the citizens ’ assembly had brought logic and structure to the discussion and allowed important facts to emerge. it had also shifted what had initially been a very emotional debate to a more rational plane and helped people to understand complex issues. in the end, the referendum did not lead to a massive divide in society, as had initially been thought. it was instead a process that gave rise to a clear result and social consensus. a similar kind of model for exchanging views and participating in political discussions on european matters could also serve europe well. citizens ’ assemblies could be a helpful way of bringing together citizens in a given country to talk about european issues. the example of ireland shows that citizens ’ assemblies are particularly effective when they discuss a concrete topic. but it could also be helpful to have european citizens ’ assemblies, which would allow citizens of different countries to exchange ideas. it is particularly important that, within europe, we develop additional methods and tools which establish shared values that transcend national borders and cultural differences and give rise to a sense of shared objectives. assemblies like these could also strengthen the dialogue between the people and the eu institutions. eu politicians and civil servants would be better able to understand the concerns of citizens, and thus better able to represent them. and the eu would be brought closer to the people and enjoy greater trust. all of this requires hard work, commitment and perseverance, since diversity can slow down the decisionmaking process. yes, discussions at the european level take longer than those at the corresponding national level. after all, the many different interests and approaches that often have their roots in national traditions need to be thoroughly discussed

aspects of our lives. the eu brings together the shared features of the 28 member states, but also their many differences. successful cooperation requires us to work on the basis of shared values, objectives and cooperation principles, of course. we need to observe the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality that have always governed the eu ’ s powers. these principles help us to ensure that cultural diversity and national identities are recognised and respected. in other words, that we are “ united in diversity ”. this is an approach that has proved its worth and we should continue to build on it in the future, ensuring that political decisions are made as close to the public as possible. and despite all the benefits and the motto “ united in diversity ”, there is growing scepticism about europe. one of the frequent complaints is that the eu always operates on the basis of rigid legal principles, making it seem often technocratic and somehow remote. this criticism applies to all european institutions and we shouldn ’ t just brush it aside. i firmly believe that the time has come for us to redefine the way in which we work and, in particular, the way in which we communicate. and this applies to the european central bank too. the ecb needs to address all citizens, not just an expert audience – without ever becoming political, of course - but only in order to bring facts and explanations to economic issues. “ do good and talk about it ” – in simple and accessible language – should be the motto here. the people of europe need to be given much more information about what the eu and its institutions are doing on their behalf – and that information should be coming not just from the eu institutions themselves but most of all from national governments and institutions. only then will we be able to tackle people ’ s fear and disorientation. only then will we be able to counter the growing polarisation among the people of europe. so we should not be communicating through complex facts, coefficients and rules. this only reinforces the impression that the eu is an arrogant elite that already knows all the answers. we will also need to work fundamentally on our understanding of politics and our culture of debate. communication between the public and institutions needs to involve a great deal of commitment and to flow in both directions. the people need to be included so that we can regain their trust and convince them that the eu works for them and takes their concerns seriously. a concept that has worked well in a number of countries is that