From regions to states. The European institutions have refused to give their opinion on the possible intention of one or other of the EU regions to become an autonomous state - the most striking cases being those of Catalonia and Scotland. The official silence is logical - the EU is made up of sovereign states and if new states are born and recognised they will have to ask to join the EU if they want to be a member. It is not up to the current institutions to create problems or to give their opinions on states that do not exist (yet).
A matter that must remain European. The growing complications around the appointment of a member of the executive board of the European Central Bank (see Tuesday's edition of EUROPE) are rightly discussed in the framework of the European institutions. Whatever the differences, this is the legitimate framework - although the project to regulate the presence of women in the decision making organs of private companies is a national affair belonging to member state competence. Let's avoid confusion. Let's also look at the following point.
A pointless quarrel? A specific Community regulation for the hairdressing sector will not come into existence. What is strange - at first sight - is that ten member states deemed it necessary to make a formal approach to the Commission to underline that they oppose this (see EUROPE 10722), as if they had the impression that a project like this had been envisaged. It is true that hairdressing professionals have agreed on issues including ventilation systems and banning staff from wearing high heels, and it is also true that a few zealous European officials asked if an agreement is lawful and if a European regulation would be fitting. The Party of European Socialists (PES) protested against the approach of the ten member states (including Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands) describing it as a "prime example of an attempt by ministers to block the process of social dialogue", asking the Commission not to be intimidated and calling on the ministerial Employment and Social Affairs Council to take charge of the matter.
The social partners from the sector concerned are very probably amazed at the weight that their initiative has acquired. At first sight, this is a case of pointless European interference. It's for the lawyers to decide if the "hairdressing" agreement is in conformity with competition rules - but the EU is leaving it to each member state to act as it pleases.
What we don't dare to acknowledge. Is humanity in the midst of gradually making Earth an impossible place to live? Several scholars are quick to affirm that the permanent expansion of the world's population justifies this question mark. Man is leaving ever less space to animals and nature. In Europe, attempts at disciplined cohabitation between human activity, on the one hand, and wolves or bears, on the other, often end in failure. Man is also getting faster at destroying elephants and whales. The challenge is not only represented by animal species but also by natural resources - in Africa, the water problem will become dramatic if the flow of water from the Nile to the banks of Egypt is hindered.
Man should understand that he is not the boss of our small planet, but one of its inhabitants alongside animals and nature. These considerations follow the observation of conflicts between wolves that have been re-introduced into some areas in Europe and the local sheep farmers, as well as information published in EUROPE on the boosting of European funding for family planning in developing countries. It's not about hindering births but about giving women who want it the possibility of delaying or avoiding pregnancy - they are estimated at 200 million, married women and young girls. The number of unwanted pregnancies could be reduced by over 70%.
Humanity is saving new-born babies and at the same time prolonging the life of old people - this is good news but it must be accompanied by an effective control on the expansion of the human race.
Difficulties and optimism. I've recently had the chance to listen to Viscount Etienne Davignon - a historical figure in European construction, who is still involved in developments currently under way. He gave his frank opinion on the current situation and noted that people are helpless, asking questions, and doubtful, no longer understanding where European construction is going. He does not like the political Union formula, which is ambiguous in his opinion. He prefers to speak about shared sovereignty. Where we are going needs to be clarified - instead of limiting ourselves to creating instruments. And he admits to a certain amount of ambiguity with regard to the future.
After a long description of the difficulties and obstacles, he concluded: "So, I'm optimistic". This conclusion is strange at first sight, but it invites reflection.
(FR/transl.fl)