EU’s ‘Democracy Shield’: Brussels and the Art of Manufactured Consent

"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes." ~ Benjamin Disraeli

From The European Conservative

By Norman Lewis

A stage-managed public feedback and consultation turns citizens into extras in a play about democracy while silencing the very questions that might challenge the Commission’s authority.

On October 9, the European Parliament staged a debate with the modest title ‘The Need for a Strong European Democracy Shield to Enhance Democracy, Protect the EU from Foreign Interference and Hybrid Threats, and Protect Electoral Processes in the EU.”

Enter Michael McGrath, the EU’s Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, Rule of Law, and Consumer Protection. McGrath, who is responsible for the Democracy Shield initiative, solemnly warned that foreign interference, information manipulation, and disinformation were endangering Europe’s democratic future. But not to worry, the Democracy Shield was almost ready, having benefited from what he called ‘a wealth of input’ from Parliament, member states, stakeholders, and—wait for it—‘the citizens of Europe.’

Really? The citizens of Europe? If McGrath refers to the public ‘Call for evidence’ and a ‘Consultation’ held from March 31 to May 26, 2025, then this is consultation theatre, with the citizens cast as extras.

The grand total of responses? Well, there are two sets of results, one from a ‘Call for evidence’ which records 1,574 responses (which includes details of the feedback from 1,410 EU citizens) and another, from a ‘Consultation’ with 3,958 responses (of which 3,677 are from EU citizens), which does not make public the content. 

That gives a total of 5,087 EU citizens, out of 400 million eligible EU voters. That’s 0.00127%. Or to put it another way, that’s 1 in 78,700 EU citizens. A ‘wealth of input’? Only if you count grains of sand as deserts.

There is something curious about this process. Having both a call-for-evidence stage and a more detailed questionnaire-style public consultation at the same time, while plausible under EU practice, they usually follow one another, not being held simultaneously. But what is unusual (or at least notable) is that one of those (the ‘public consultation’) does not have its contributions published, while the feedback/call for evidence does. Given the EU’s emphasis on transparency norms, this raises questions and concerns. What is being shielded? I have emailed the relevant authorities for access to the consultation data but have had no response to date. It is unclear whether the public consultation responses are being withheld, delayed, redacted, or simply not displayed due to technical or moderation reasons.

But surely Mr McGrath was not referring to the details of the publicly available results from the ‘Call for evidence,’ which details the responses of 1,410 ordinary citizens, 94 from NGOs, 15 from academia, 14 from businesses, and a handful from assorted organisations? 

If he was, then—Berlaymont, we have a big problem! We ran an AI analysis* of this data and discovered some astonishing facts:

• Only 79 citizens out of 1,409 were in favour of the DS. 
• Of the 94 NGOs that gave feedback, eight oppose the DS. 

That most NGOs enthusiastically endorsed the DS is unsurprising. That’s what happens when the same Commission funding the NGO ecosystem then asks it for feedback. As for the citizen responses, it is clear that Brussels and Mr McGrath are simply ignoring them, given that they have clearly given the ‘wrong’ feedback. 

What is even more damning is that this publicly disclosed response from ordinary citizens is the result of a ‘Call for Evidence,’ which is less an inquiry for real input than a confirmation ritual. The PDF outlining the ‘Call for evidence’ can be accessed through the page with the publicly available submitted evidence. In true Commission style, the call defines the problem in advance (‘foreign information manipulation and interference and disinformation’), cites polling to portray distrust in institutions as the product of misinformation rather than institutional failings, prescribes the cure (‘media and digital literacy and critical thinking’) before hearing a word from citizens, and gives equal if not more weight of consultation to the familiar Brussels-funded NGO circuit; even the disclaimer that ‘no impact assessment is needed’ makes clear this is not about gathering evidence but about staging support for decisions already made.

If you think this is manipulative, then look at the questionnaire for the public consultation, which is a brazen, self-conscious exercise designed to legitimise—not question—the Democracy Shield.

The questionnaire’s structure alone betrays its purpose. In the section on foreign information manipulation and disinformation, respondents are asked to rank a list of ‘measures’—all of which expand Brussels’ power to monitor, regulate, or fund the information space. You can choose between ‘information sharing among Member States,’ ‘support for fact-checkers,’ ‘dedicated EU structures,’ or ‘AI tools to detect threats.’ There is no option for ‘less regulation,’ ‘greater speech tolerance,’ or even ‘public debate as the corrective.’ Every possible answer leads to the same conclusion: that more centralised intervention is needed. It’s a consultation where the act of answering affirms the premise—that the EU must police speech to save democracy.

A section on a ‘healthy information space’ repeats the trick. Citizens are invited to decide which initiative deserves more funding—‘trusted information,’ ‘scientific research on disinformation,’ or ‘civil society organisations fighting manipulation.’ There is no choice that recognises the value of open contestation or dissent. Even the token nod to free expression—‘while safeguarding freedom of expression’—functions as a fig leaf, inserted not as an option to discuss but as a pre-emptive disclaimer. The result is a perfect loop of bureaucratic confirmation: whichever box you tick, the policy gains another justification.

The same pattern runs through the sections on elections and ‘societal resilience.’ ‘Reinforced EU cooperation,’ ‘media literacy from an early age,’ and ‘awareness-raising against narratives’ sound virtuous but all rest on the assumption that the public cannot be trusted with unmediated information and must be tutored into correct thinking. Ordinary citizens appear only as the targets of instruction, while ‘independent experts’ and ‘trusted organisations’ are granted authority to define reality on their behalf. It is not a consultation about democracy’s future; it is a rehearsal of its managed form: an exercise in manufacturing consent dressed up as public participation.

The consultation does not measure public opinion; it manufactures policy validation. It is an excellent example of the Brussels version of free choice: you can answer however you like, if your answer proves them correct. It’s a bit like the old state telecom monopoly that let you buy any phone you wanted, so long as it was black.

The sheer brass neck is astonishing. McGrath stood before Parliament and peddled the idea that a call for evidence/consultation backed by less than a thousandth of one per cent of voters somehow represents the will of ‘the citizens of Europe.’ We do not know what consultation data demonstrates, but from the publicly available data available so far, this is not just dishonest; it’s deeply contemptuous of the EU citizens who bothered to respond and who oppose the DS for very politically sound reasons. The elitist technocratic gumption is breathtaking.

This serves to illustrate how this so-called consultation is a PR fig leaf designed to launder a policy that curtails free speech and entrenches NGO gatekeeping over democratic debate.

And here’s the kicker: even that paltry 0.001275 of voters is still more democratic legitimacy than either McGrath or the Brussels-funded NGOs cheerleading the Shield have ever managed to secure at the ballot box.

McGrath’s speech wasn’t a warning about foreign disinformation. It is this disinformation that poses the greatest threat to European democracy. The gravest threat to European democracy isn’t Moscow, Beijing, or Silicon Valley—it’s the EU Commission itself, which is busy manipulating its masquerade to shield unelected officials from the electorate. 

Pictured: Michael McGrath, European Commissioner for

Democracy, Justice, Rule of Law, and Consumer Protection.

---

* We downloaded all the data from the feedback data recorded at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14587-European-Democracy-Shield/feedback_en?p_id=19397 and ran a sentiment analysis on the responses. It is very clear that the vast majority of this feedback strongly opposes the DS.