The doomsayers of Europe are increasingly finding their match in the resurgence of ideas for the future of the community.

The European Union, and some of its key institutions and mechanisms that bind its members together have gone through a valley of tears for a few years. And nobody should be overly sure that the EU has climbed out of it for good yet.

But it is encouraging to see how a mix of new and older crop of politicians are beginning to articulate more and more strongly, more and more happily, that there is not only a core purpose and benefit to an ever closer union, but also that the way to it is through an open and popular debate. This is a remarkable shift from the position of the EU political elite of the day in the 2000s. Then Giscard d’Estaing chaired the efforts to develop a Constitution for Europe on the basis of a conversation of those who were members of the Convention only those already in the inner circle: Commission, MEPs and government representatives. Only they had real possibilities to participate and shape ideas.

Emmanuel Macron’s recent speech at the Sorbonne on the future of Europe was a combination of proposals of which some are probably in close reach, while others still further off. But one key point he puts forward for the very near future: a democratic and open debate about the future of Europe, a debate that moves beyond the practice of developing Europe, which as he puts it all, has often been too often ‘despite of the people’, rather than because of them. He argues that there is no reason to be fearful of engaging in a popular and broad debate about Europe, no reason to fear the creation of a democratic system in which European officials get directly elected, and a European Parliament which includes an increasing number of members elected in transnational constituencies. He is confident of the broad support the project retains, and encourages others to become more outspoken and positive about it too.

With his positions, Macron puts himself in the front row with others who have become more and more outspoken and assertive of the role of people and people’s representation in the design of the Europe of the future. Consider for instance the voice of the European Parliament. While there is a lot to be done about popular perception and also accountability of the body itself, this assembly of MEPs has carved out a pretty powerful role in the determination of EU policy and law over the last decades already. It has established parliamentary scrutiny and accountability of the Commission, as well as become pivotal in the making of rules and policy. The EP stands now on an equal footing with the Council of Ministers to decide on proposals on a vast array of policy fields. Consultation has given way to participation. Going through the EU Parliament has literally become the “ordinary legislative procedure” for the EU, rather than the exception or merely consultative route that it was not so long ago. And in the current BREXIT process, The EP has not failed to emphasise a number of times that in particular the question of treatment and rights of EU citizens (the same people who elect the MEPs for that matter) will be a litmus test for its support of a final BREXIT agreement.

So much is moving, but none of this will go smoothly. Across Europe, with varying strength, political voices have established themselves also in the parliamentary system which are actively arguing against the European Union, against a pathway towards political, economic and social integration for a continent which remains open to the rest of the world including the promotion and protection human rights, accepting the realities of global migration and cultural exchange. Their problem is that they have no vision to propose, just a destructive approach which will leave many people in less favourable conditions than those they can enjoy today. This lack of imagination and negativity about the future in a changing world needs to be exposed and shown as what it is, a naked ideology of fear and retrenchment that holes people up instead of liberating them.

So there is a job to do in each national setting where these forces are part of the landscape in which further EU integration and reform will need to be negotiated. There is certainly a boundary to how much and what kind of iconoclastic behaviour and discourse such as by the governments of Hungary and Poland can be simply absorbed or ignored without damage to the credibility of the existing EU framework. Yet there are indications that these views are not as widespread or attractive as the proponents of nationalist approaches suggest. Despite all the popular challenge to the EU positions during the Euro crisis, there is a groundswell of support for the EU and the Euro also in the broader electorate in hard hit countries. And there is a simple reason for it: it is of great benefit to be part of the EU, and in many ways also the Eurozone. The structural politics and economics are one part: while the safety net provided by the Eurozone proved to have big holes and some tough ropes to cling to, it has managed to keep the group together. In the process also much more work has been done on what solidarity must mean in the moment of crisis. The EU has shown it can learn and change when theory hits reality.

Other important benefits of the European project are less tangible than the economic side. They relate to the opportunities for millions and millions of individuals who wish as to shape their future in an open and culturally diverse space of learning, social relationships, professional development, and quality of life without being trapped by national boundaries and limitations that come with it. Globalisation without elements of protection and safeguards against exploitation especially of those with lesser economic and social bargaining power is problematic. The promise of the European Union is to create a space which, while stretched to encompass a wide cultural and economic diversity, provides a broadly safe space in which its citizens and residents can develop their own lives, attempt to realise their ambitions with a good chance for success, and are accepted as individual valuable contributors to the EU societies as a whole, independent of their origin and place of residence. This is what the EU can and must deliver within its area. In contrast the critics of the free movement principle essentially deny the idea that people who belong in a common space should enjoy equal opportunities in it. This is pure discrimination.

Macron’s speech speaks to both the structural and asprirational parts of the EU project, and that’s why it is important to recognise the importance of setting out a vision above and beyond the details of the individual proposals. Those whose first reaction is to drizzle up each idea and point out its problems may in fact be playing dangerously to the agenda of those opposed to the success of the EU project as such. The liberal consensus has to become much more united around the positive appreciation of the future of the EU, and avoid its penchant for doubt and negativity.