Let's not over-dramatise the situation. The shift of a section of public opinion to a position hostile to European construction should not be ignored but it should not be over-dramatised either. In several EU countries, the media has identified a rise in Eurosceptic support. At the same time, centre-left and leftist political forces have pointed to gains being made by the far right in several national elections. Faced with these new developments, several commentators have adopted a dramatic tone and have drawn conclusions that, in my opinion, are excessive. They consider that people no longer believe in the European project and the Community dream has been extinguished. The two subjects should not be confused. Divergences between the different political forces and electoral disappointments illustrate how democracy functions because it is the people who decide and scepticism about European construction is, in fact, a symptom of the crisis.
With regard to the first aspect, it is quite normal that certain political forces do not appreciate election victories by the right. Nonetheless, if the people of a country vote for the right in such a resounding way as they did in Hungary, the left should accept it, whilst preparing their vengeance. A few days ago, this column did its best to illustrate (with a certain naivety, perhaps) that a government, which was in principle, Eurosceptic held the Presidency of the Council and could gradually begin to become aware of the real Community situation, despite its previously prevailing prejudices. Obviously, this government must respect (even at a national level) Community principles and rules. The Hungarian government did, in fact, agree to revising a domestic law on the freedom of information, which had raised a number of misgivings at the European Commission. Prime Minister Viktor Orban also said that he was prepared to allow his country's new constitution to be examined (reservations were also expressed in this regard).
The EU is not a prison. The question of Euroscepticism, which is taking root in the public's consciousness, is entirely different. There are radical Eurosceptics who oppose their countries' participation in the EU and those that reject one or other aspect of European construction. The first kind of Eurosceptics have been around forever but there are not many of them and previously they have been unable to voice their opinions in the institutions. Now they are able to do so and so much the better. A recent shock was provoked by a French political movement that has always opposed European construction. This organisation won 20% of the vote (one out of every five voters) and is advocating that France abandons the euro and leaves the EU. The response is still the same: the EU is not a prison and the door is open for those that wish to leave. Nonetheless, I do not believe that these extreme developments will last. They are a façade and a way of getting over a different message involving immigration problems.
Confused and irrational. The situation is very similar elsewhere. What people are looking for is not the end to European construction but the revision of certain of its goals and the way in which some of the apparatus operates. The institutions in Brussels are not crowd-pleasers and the current wave of Euroscepticism that we are experiencing is often a form of nostalgia for national autonomy. This is a partly confused and even irrational response. The EU is sometimes criticised for its inability to take united action in areas in which it does not really have any power at all. In the context of the Libyan drama, the EU is criticised for its inefficiency and lack of unity, although its institutions are unable to take action as they currently stand. Other criticism levelled at the EU focuses on its misgivings about enlargement, although it is the candidate countries themselves that are still failing to respect the necessary conditions for joining. In this context, Euroscepticism is irrational and absurd because the EU27 is criticised for leaving candidates waiting at the door, whilst claiming that the EU is disappearing! Those who consider that the EU is something negative, should advise non-EU countries to remain far removed from it and not call for the door to be left open for them to join. Public opinion is shifting away from support for the EU, although third countries have only one aspiration and that is to join the Union. Make sense of that if you can.
Rejection or misunderstanding? It should also be added that the effects of certain election results have been largely exaggerated. The explicitly Eurosceptic Finnish political party, which is opposed to any additional funding for countries experiencing difficulty in the euro zone, obtained around 19% of the vote, less than a fifth of the electorate. The new Prime Minister (whose party obtained more than 20% of the vote and has several allies) denied that his government was advocating a significant change in European support for Portugal. Much of the election was fought around this issue but the Prime Minister has underlined the fact that parties that participate in the new government will have to support this programme. Obviously, far right and often Eurosceptic parties have made progress in several member states: Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, and Austria. Nonetheless, these parties' goals generally relate to feelings felt within the national arena when they are linked to questions involving Muslim immigrants.
I definitely consider that the current wave of Euroscepticism is largely superficial and irrational. People have forgotten or are ignorant about what Europe was like when it was divided. For example, those who protest that the borderless Schengen area of free movement is not being respected, do not understand that if no European unity existed, this area would not even exist and the borders would be re-erected and that without the euro it would be necessary to change money each time one crossed the border and to declare what goods one was transporting. European citizens forget what a united Europe really means in their daily lives.
These general considerations, however, are simply banal and repetitive if they are not backed up by specific examples and two senior figures who have spoken out in this context may be called on to provide assistance in this connection.
Support for a new treaty? Two days ago, EUROPE 10362 provided a broad analysis of the speech in which the Italian Minister for the economy had given his support for the idea of a new treaty. Giulio Tremonti advocated a treaty in which Europe would no longer be considered as a technical instrument, “associated with interest rates, but something much hotter”, a treaty that is developed on reflections on the European economic and social model. The EU must be able to display both a human and social face, without being exclusively concerned with the economy and finance. This principle had already been asserted by a number of other senior figures (Jacques Delors, Mario Monti, etc.). Mr Tremonti, however, is the first senior figure with direct responsibility for the euro and economic governance to suggest negotiating a new treaty. He is convinced that no one is seriously considering leaving the Union and that what is needed is more Europe not less of it.
It has often been said that the difficulty a new treaty would create is due to the number of years that would be required for putting it into practice. Would it be impossible to attain the objectives indicated by using the instruments that already exist and which have so far largely been aimed in the opposite direction?
Safeguarding national identities. Ernesto Galli della Loggia considers that, “the gradual cultural cleavage between the highest and lowest levels in Europe” results from the fact that, “the mass of ordinary people have been denied the only culture that would have allowed them to integrate into the universe of modernity and the perspective of emancipation: the culture of the nation, the only one in which the respective European peoples historically recognise themselves”. This thesis constitutes a useful factor if it means that national identity should be safeguarded and that no country has to fear its dissolution into a uniform whole. They should, on the other hand, be able to preserve their way of life, their landscapes and Finland, for example, will never become Greece and vice versa.
It should be understood that this aspect is being respected.
The young will understand. Ultimately, everyone has a right to his or her own point of view. It is true that the EU has to do more to provide itself with an image in which money management is not the main or almost only concern. It is true that the different nations cannot be ignored because people cannot forget their own countries. It is true that electoral upsets have to be accepted because this is the rule of democracy. That said, I do not believe that people are really tired of Europe and that they want to leave it. Above all, I do not believe that if young people had the possibility to really examine what is at stake, they would be prepared to re-erect the national borders and barriers. If they often give the impression that they are not bothered about a united Europe, it is because for them, it already exists. It is, in fact, something they have been born with and something they feel has been definitively achieved. Generation Europe is the title of the research carried out among those taking part in the Erasmus programme (set up Jacques Delors and in which young people can carry out some of their studies in a different member state, thanks to a European grant). This research focuses on young people who have known no other currency other than the euro, who casually cross borders as they so wish, who have never experienced customs controls and who are used to studying in different countries and in different languages etc. These are some of the privileges, although it is true they are symbolic.
I can remember the day when my eldest son told me that one of his best friends at school was Dutch and the other was German. I pointed out to him that if a united Europe did not exist, he would perhaps be at war. His answer was not at all what I expected from him: it is fantastic what you have done! No, his response was “Wwhat idiots you were before!”
I believe that if the real stakes at play are explained, young people will not be prepared to abandon the quest for European unity. (F.R./transl.fl)