Several events that currently arouse very lively debate and particularly captivate public attention are a matter for Community competence. Purely national positions bear limited weighted. Who is aware of this? Who has really understood it and duly takes account of it?
GMOs and shale gas. The first example concerns the highly controversial issue of certain GMOs (genetically modified organisms). The media is talking about them and people are discussing them - all too often ignoring that it is a European dossier and that it is a Community agency that has deliberated this issue from the outset (taking decisions which are currently strongly contested). Moreover it is an MEP, Corinne Lepage, who has led the review of the arrangements currently in force. But this is not an isolated case. It is the EU which is deliberating the exploitation of shale gas. It is the EU as a whole that is studying a global solution for the problems of steel. It is the EU again which is working on common rules for the reception of asylum seekers. Luckily our Bulletin is here to explain the European competences and the common management of these different dossiers.
In the most spectacular dossier - the one on genetically modified maize produced by the American company, Monsanto - our Bulletin has recorded severe criticism of which an EU agency (EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority) has been the object. It is in the Community framework, and not elsewhere, that effective measures can be taken. France has requested the suspension of the EU's authorisation to import this maize (see EUROPE 10693). Meanwhile, the images of rats disfigured by the genetically modified maize and suffocated in their tumours - which had already appeared in several weeklies - have just been broadcast on television. The book, “Tous cobayes!” (“All guinea pigs!”), by Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, will soon be in the bookshops and the film, “Tous cobayes?” (“All guinea pigs?”), by Jean-Paul Jaud in the cinemas. Monsanto had carried out analyses before obtaining authorisation to spread its genetically modified NK603 maize throughout Europe, but its tests were stopped in the third month of the rat's life - and it is exactly after three months that the anomalies observed by Professor Séralini began to appear. Is this chance, or was Monsanto well aware of it? The gravity of the accusations is clear.
Huge interests are at stake, as well as the credibility of a Community agency (situated in Parma), and, in top place, public health. Taking account of the time needed for new analyses, I believe that the following demands of Corinne Lepage should essentially be followed: suspend the use of NK603 in the EU; generalise 2-year tests on rats; appoint a committee of independent experts; include representatives from civil society on the panels; associate the European Parliament in the choice of the people responsible for the different panels and give it a right of veto with regard to an expert whose independence could be suspect. It is the EU itself that must clarify everything.
I will be schematic on other current issues: (1) energy. The exploitation of shale gas should be placed within a common energy policy, but… it doesn't exist. While we wait for it, the environment committee at the European Parliament asks that even the simple exploration of oil shale be framed by robust rules. But the majority of the energy committee considers that each country of the EU has the right to decide if it wants to exploit its shale gas - with the committee limiting itself to asking for robust rules. At the international level, opinions are not uniform. For the United States, as we well know, shale gas represents an essential weapon for freeing itself from the blackmail of oil countries and reducing the cost of energy. It is essential that Europe have valid rules for all the member states. (2) Asylum. The reception of asylum seekers at the EU's external borders must respond to common standards if we want to safeguard the free movement of persons without control at the internal borders. (3) Steel. The fight of an isolated member state cannot be effective at all - Community action is indispensable.
Conclusion. The EU is the protagonist in all aspects of the life of Europeans. The person who too easily speaks of leaving it, or of limiting its competences, is not aware of reality. Of course, national decisions continue, fitting with the approach that aims to make Europe a federation of nation states, each country keeping its nature, its traditions, its way of life. But it is more and more together that the approaches and decisions should be defined, which will allow Europe to play a role in the world.
(FR/transl.fl)