How (Difficult Is It) to Build Consensus on (European) Consensus?

Abstract

The Consensus 'Game' 'Consensus' is a 'riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma'. 1 It has various meanings, 2 is used in miscellaneous contexts and for a variety of purposes, and may therefore perform diverse roles. The core component that remains constant across its different definitions, conceptions and uses is the existence of some sort of agreement that enables the 'making' of a decision. Yet, the precise nature and extent of the agreement that underpins consensus is elusive. It spans from anything between a broad, shared understanding (in the sense of concurrence, like-mindedness or general opinion) to (explicit or implied) unanimity that entails a veto power for anyone who participates in the consensus-making process. Different shades of consensus exist between the two extremes of this continuum, depending on the 'looseness' or 'rigidity' of the rules of its formation. The pluralism or ambiguitydepending on one's point of viewin the conceptualisation of consensus is but one of the complexities with which it is fraught. Even if one were to ignore or avoid the definitional pitfalls, consensus cannot become fully operational as a decision-making tool unless the 'rules of the game' have been established: who are the eligible 'players', what are the conditions of validity for its formulation, what is the effect of a consensus/no-consensus outcome, and who is the arbiter of the outcome, that is, who has the authority to recognise the 1 This famous turn of phrase is borrowed from Winston Churchill, who used it in a BBC radio broadcast on 1st October 1939 to describe Russia's unpredictable reactions. See www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/RusnEnig.html. 2 See the chapters contained in Part I of this book, and especially Chapters 4 and 8 by C. Djeffal and S. Douglas-Scott, respectively.  existence of consensus? Clarity in outlining these 'contours' of consensus translates into (legal) certainty on its modus operandi and its outputs. The 'contours', of course, are arguably as important as its definition, as together they are necessary conditions for the functionality of consensus and for its effectiveness. Consensus as a decision-making tool, therefore, encapsulates a paradox: its ability to operate effectively is predicated on the existence of consensus 3 on its meaning and on the layout of its 'contours'. And this inevitably requires an authority 4 that will set the rules of the 'game'. Speaking of games, the allure of consensus apparently transcends the boundaries of academic discourse, judging from the homonymous board game that relies on the assumption that in any given group of people, even the most trivial question is bound to attract a variety of different responses. 5 The rules of the board game are simple. Each player must vote which of the nouns on their common list best matches the adjective on the board. The answer favoured by the majority of players wins. Thus, in the 'Consensus' game, the majority rules 6 and the designer of the game is the authority that defines the meaning, function and purp...