A taste for disparaging EU. I am feeling perhaps a little less isolated in my efforts to present a balanced picture of European construction in this column, which includes the difficulties and failures as well as the progress it has made and its success stories. This is because we have to realise that there have indeed been a number of accomplishments made. I also begin to see a trend developing that recognises these accomplishments and which refuses to surrender to an obviously appealing taste for denigrating Community activity out of some kind of principle. The professional doom and gloom-merchants have largely succeeded in obtaining a public following that considers Europe today as being both weary and lethargic, and serious analyses do not appear to change this at all. I recently referred to a factual historical study of conflicts throughout the world which explained that no continent or group of countries has ever experienced a period of peace as long and as stable as that of the European Union since its existence. Just over the border, there is nothing but conflicts and the EU tries its best to put a stop to them. We are also aware that the EU is surrounded by countries that are striving to join this much decried Union and people attempt to cross its borders in an effort to enter the Union, even illegally. It makes you think about what a relief it would be if those who are always proclaiming their fatigue and even distaste for European unity really would leave! ?
Damage inflicted by fashion for pessimism. I now get the impression that the number of political leaders and observers who are beginning to respond to the pessimistic refrain is increasing. They are opposed to the repeated and systematic nitpicking and, above all, the damage inflicted by this pessimism. Even when the scandals are real and the difficulties serious, efforts are indeed being made not to leave out encouraging achievements.
The Greek example. The Greek prime minister pointed out that the current crisis may actually be “an opportunity for both Greece and Europe to succeed in the further deepening of the integration of economic governance”. He also said that his country “possessed major advantages and a potential that had been mismanaged in the past”. In this connection, he highlighted improved use of European structural funds (EUROPE 10473). It is true that Mr Papandreou avoided mentioning three developments in this country that are indispensable: changes to military spending, taxing ship-owners, and certain church real estate and activities. These developments might be forthcoming but what is in fact even more important is the involvement of the banks in the cost of the operations aimed at reducing Greek debt. Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the Eurogroup, affirmed that the states that bail out the banks, finance them or help towards their recapitalisation must also take part in their management and benefit from their possible profits. He informed the German newspaper Handelsblatt, “people are getting mad at seeing their governments give money to the banks”. The guideline that aims to increase considerably the banks' exposure (they apply astronomical interest rates on the purchase of Greek treasury bonds) to any decrease in the value of these bonds, is one of the positive elements of EU policy being taken against financial irregularities. How can the public, however, be made aware of this positive result?
From farming to aid to poor countries. The previous digression should not create the impression that the appeal for a measured evaluation of the European situation essentially refers to the monetary crisis and problems affecting the euro (these are in fact the result of budget deficits in the majority of member states). My appeal for frankness refers to several aspects of Community activity, particularly recent European Commission initiatives in fundamental areas of Community activity, such as the future of the common agricultural policy and the re-modelling of European development aid policy to poor countries. This requires an assessment of the situation to be made objectively. Becoming the mouthpiece of interest groups should be avoided. These groups have already begun to take a proactive response in attempting to impose their views, which are often dictated by specific interests.
In my opinion, it would also be appropriate to avoid overdramatising the difference between the Community and inter-governmental methods in EU management. This is a real battle in which the institutions are involved. It is imperative that compromises are worked out and which are possible in Europe's interest if we take into account the fact that: (a) we should avoid creating the impression that there is a war between the Commission on one side and the European Council and ECOFIN on the other; (b) on a daily basis Mr Barroso and Mr Van Rompuy often cooperate; (c) public opinion will never feel concerned about questions they perceive as being essentially legal issues and that create the impression of there being personal rivalry.
These three subjects will be at the heart of this column over the next few days. (FR/transl.fl)