The European Union’s legislative machinery is accelerating, yet a growing gap separates Brussels from the national capitals that are meant to shape its decisions. While EU institutions experiment with artificial intelligence to handle increasing workloads, many member states still rely on outdated methods, understaffed permanent representations, and weak stakeholder networks. This imbalance threatens to turn some countries into mere reactors rather than proactive shapers of EU policy.
Staffing Shortages and Technological Gaps
According to a 2019 report by the Danish think tank Europa, the size of member states’ Permanent Representations in Brussels varies dramatically. Western European countries such as Germany, France, Belgium, and Austria employ between 150 and 200 representatives. A middle group—including Romania, the UK, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Poland, Czechia, Finland, and Ireland—ranges from 103 to 147. At the lower end, smaller or Eastern European states like Lithuania, Portugal, Hungary, Slovakia, Luxembourg, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Cyprus, Slovenia, and Latvia have only 69 to 89 staff members—two to three times fewer than their Western counterparts.
This manpower deficit becomes especially visible during a country’s Council of the EU presidency, when hiring external talent is difficult and core staff are overstretched. As Spain’s recent diversion of €310 million from education to cover presidency staff pay illustrates, the strain is real. Meanwhile, EU institutions are deploying AI tools to manage their own workloads, but many capitals lack the budget or political will to adopt similar technologies.
Weak Stakeholder Ecosystems
Democratic policymaking relies on feedback from voters, industry representatives, experts, and NGOs. Yet in smaller member states, the connection between EU policy and these stakeholders is often weak. Domestic trade groups must operate as broad umbrella organizations to survive, limiting their specialization. The media sector lacks capacity to cover EU affairs proactively, and public debate on EU legislation often begins only during the transposition phase—when changes are largely off the table.
This leaves policymakers making decisions based solely on inter-institutional dialogue or limited interactions with a few proactive stakeholders. The quality of public debate remains poor: delayed at best, non-existent at worst, trapped between glossy EU press releases and a defeatist, overly critical tone.
Lessons from Ireland and the EU
The EU’s “Have Your Say” consultation platform, despite its flaws, offers an inclusive model that member states could replicate. Ireland has already done so, inviting stakeholders to share views on its EU presidency priorities and specific legislative files, such as the recent call for feedback on the EU’s Digital Networks Act. Such open, transparent systems contrast with the traditional roundtables and ad hoc meetings used by most countries, which are no longer effective.
As the conversation on the Single Market and a more pragmatic federation gains traction, smaller member states must follow the best practices of more effective peers—and even EU institutions—to enhance their representation. The alternative is to remain on the sidelines, watching Brussels set the agenda without meaningful input.
