Many European Commission officials spend days and nights analysing the effects of European Union legislation. So, what could be wrong with some help from national administrations? It alleviates the workload. And national officials, after all, are more familiar with the quirks and hues of domestic contexts.

The answer is ‘lack of trust’. A national review of EU legislation is associated with repatriation. The British government review announced last Thursday (12 July) has its foundations in the coalition agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. That agreement makes clear that this review has already made up its mind about one piece of legislation, the working-time directive, whose application is to be curtailed, come what may.

Moreover, the fear is not just of repatriation but opportunistic repatriation. No regard will be paid to commitments to others or to the balance of interests between parties, to which any agreement must pay heed.

There are also worries about tone. It was reported that the Liberal Democrats want the report to be a low-key exercise. But intuition says that an invitation to citizens to say what is wrong with Europe will soon become a forum for jingoistic rants about what is wrong with Europeans.

There is another, more positive interpretation of this process.

It is, first, surely the business of any government faced with two legal orders in its territory, the European Union and the national, with different qualities, capacities and constraints, to think how they can be married together to produce the best lives for citizens. This review is particularly imperative when much EU law is very old and when there is no substitute process. Commission reviews are only of secondary legislation. Their level of detail is unclear and they do not set out the impacts on particular national territories.

Secondly, this review could strengthen the social contract between the Union and its citizens. The central concern of Union citizens with EU law is how it affects their lives. This will vary but its impact will be felt most directly in quintessentially local processes of application and enforcement of EU law. The most resonant democratic engagement will place the constellations of actors involved in these processes at their forefront. They are the ones who experience EU law most acutely and are likely to have the most to say about it. This will be easiest in local settings more attuned to particular concerns and more accessible to actors with limited resources or political self-confidence.

Finally, if this review leads to a renegotiation of EU treaty law between the United Kingdom and other member states, it may, instead, lead to a rethinking of traditional orthodoxies about the primacy of EU law. It opens the way for a more mature balance between different legal orders in which each brings different goods to the table and in which, in cases of conflict, there are circumstances where it is right that one applies and circumstances where the other should apply.

In this regard, it is right that EU law be taken seriously. However, EU law is harder for almost any individual member state to change than national constitutions, irrespective of the devastating effects an EU law might have on citizens. National constitutions are also typically short for a reason. It is understood that entrenched law should be short and about fundamental principles as it forecloses democratic contestation. This is not the case with EU law. It includes, beyond the treaties, about 8,400 regulations, 2, 000 directives and more than 9,000 judgments from the European Court of Justice.

Whether the UK government’s review will be about opportunistic repatriation or democratic engagement will ultimately depend on the processes deployed. It is early days but my impression from the announcement is that it veers towards the latter.

The review is to be extensive. It will last for two years, involve all UK government departments, and wide consultation with as many interests as possible. It will not provide any recommendations. Indeed, the timing of its conclusion, the end of 2014, is likely to make it a reference point for debate by the different parties at the next British election.

This is all to the good. There are, however, three ambiguities.

The first is how non-British interests will be represented within the review. The EU institutions or other national governments will be involved. It would also be advisable to take evidence from other European and non-European citizens even if the interpretation of such evidence is a matter of political judgement. To take one example, the free movement of students: it is, of course, right that the views of British universities and British students be heard. However, even the most hard-nosed assessment of the British interest might think it valuable to hear from EU citizens who so enjoyed time at a British university that they settled and built a successful company in the UK.

The second ambiguity is about the detail of the review. It is important that the processes be vibrant and thorough ones. Yet the sheer volume of law threatens to make the task overwhelming. It is not yet clear how this will be done

The third ambiguity is how judgement calls are made about the effects of EU law. To take another example: the EU abolition of the cap on compensation awards against employers engaging in sex discrimination undoubtedly increased costs for British industry. Yet it also removed some de facto employer impunity, most notably the egregious practice in the British army of forcing pregnant British soldiers to have an abortion or lose their jobs. Valuable in itself, this has also facilitated recruitment in the British army at a time when it was struggling. No amount of consultation will give clear answers to how to balance these issues or how to determine when something is a product of EU law or not.

Conducting this review is, thus, like hosting one’s first dinner party. Eager to impress we develop a complicated and ambitious menu. If all goes well, it will be an engaging and enriching experience that may end up being imitated. If it goes badly, it will be an embarrassing dog’s dinner. We will know only with the eating.

Damian Chalmers is a professor of European law at the London School of Economics and Political Science.