Now that the Conference on the Future of Europe has been launched, with the official aim of allowing the citizens to have their say, would it be unreasonable to point out that their opinions are already regularly sought in surveys carried out by request of the Commission and the European Parliament? For instance, we already know that health is now the number one problem they feel the EU is facing (+16% compared to summer 2020), followed by the economic situation, then the public finances of the member states. Most citizens (55%) see the recovery plan as an effective instrument and nearly half of them (49%) have faith in the EU, the highest level since spring 2008 (last Eurobarometer, 23 April). The Conference should set its sights higher than simply reinventing the wheel.
For many years now, the European Parliament’s image has been measured regularly, unlike the other institutions (fear of the people’s verdict?); the last snapshot shows 37% of opinions in favour (the highest level since 2007), 17% negative (a figure that has fallen steadily since 2017), while “neutral” remains relatively stable at above 40%. On the other hand, the Europeans clearly want the EP to have a stronger role within the Union; this idea has gained traction since 2016, peaking at 63% in the survey carried out at the end of 2020. That’s fairly clear, then!
As regards the citizens’ positions on the political stakes these imply, the MEPs are increasingly well-informed. Their institution boasts an extremely reliable Directorate General Research; within its DG Communication, moreover, there is a unit that permanently monitors public opinion. Before every single plenary session, therefore, the MEPs receive a summary of the available data on what the Europeans think about the main issues to be debated at the session. This means that they are aware, for instance, that 81% of the citizens who responded consider that it is important for the EU to make respect for the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law a priority in its relations with major international players such as China, Russia and Turkey, and that 51% believe that protecting human rights at international level is the value of the EU which the Parliament should defend as a priority. In the EU, according to the vox populi, the EP’s key priorities should be measures to reduce poverty and social inequality (48%), followed by measures to fight terrorism and organised crime (35%), improve access to quality education for all (33%) and protect the environment and biodiversity (32%).
The use of this “social compass” is reflected in many positions taken by the assembly, such as the draft directive on a minimum income, its support for the Erasmus programme, its ambitions for the European Green Deal and its stubborn refusal to accept dictatorships. Incidentally, the EP has made itself the champion of the EU’s general interests, indefatigably highlighting the need for new resources for its budget, exercising its powers of political control, reaching its positions within the normal time periods in the framework of co-decision (in which any delays can usually be put down to stalemate situations over at the Council), activating article 7 TEU against Hungary and making the case for the EU to open access negotiations with North Macedonia and Albania. It is more progressive than the other institutions in terms of defending the rights of women and sexual minorities, migrants, ethnic minorities and journalists.
The Parliament decided to carry out an in-depth analysis of the trade and cooperation agreement with the United Kingdom (did the representatives of the member states and the lawmakers of Westminster do likewise?) before voting on it. But it worked quickly on the ‘Covid 19’ certificate project, whilst sticking to its guns over a few principles: the protection of personal data, the free movement of certificate-holders and that PCR tests should be free (see EUROPE B 12709A1). Across the EU, the cost of these tests range from zero to €300: so busy with its stand-off with the EP, the Council heaps repeating ad nauseam the argument of national competence; but without calling that into question, it would be entirely within the bounds of possibility for the states to agree on not charging for these tests, due to the obvious sanitary benefit of this and the fact that it would, for once, mean respecting the equality of citizens as set out in article 9 TEU.
The Parliament was also the first to propose a system for the organisation of the Conference on the Future of Europe (15 January 2020); although the Council kicked off proceedings by starting the dialogue, a year could have been gained. The EP then had to fight, alone, for the executive committee to be required to take account of the recommendations of the plenary session.
Despite the obvious serious practical problems brought about by the public health crisis, the President of the Parliament, David Sassoli, managed to get things moving, a far more complex challenge than for the other institutions. The EP maintained its productivity, even on the most highly technical dossiers; it is respected by its partners. The fact that Mr Sassoli is the object of retaliatory measures decided upon by Moscow is an accolade; he stands up for what he and most MEPs believe in.
At the Social Summit of Porto, he did not mince his words; alongside the Green Deal and the digital strategy, a third pillar is needed: social rights, tackling inequalities and poverty. At the inaugural session of the Conference on the Future of Europe on 9 May, he took it upon himself to champion a procedure that puts the citizens at the heart of the European project – and rightly so, as 92% of them would like their opinions to be taken into consideration more in the decisions that are made on the future of Europe (special Eurobarometer 500, November 2020). David Sassoli argued the case for the Parliament to have a right of initiative, the possibility for citizens to state their preferences for the Presidency of the Commission, the all-important discussion on unanimity at the Council. In Strasbourg and in Porto alike, he has called for taboos to be broken.
At the European Council, opponents of the EU carry more weight than they do at the Parliament, which has a very clear pro-European majority. It will fall to the institution with the greatest democratic legitimacy to strike new paths to bring salvation and set an example, despite the pitfalls; furthermore, it represents the highest moral authority, as attested to by its resolutions and decisions. Its President has become not just the defender of his institution, but, these days, the moral voice of the whole EU.
Renaud Denuit