If Mr Vitorino explained… The initiatives of the governments of the Community countries in the field of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) are multiplying. The latest published in the Official Journal is an joint initiative by France and Sweden aiming to establish a "European network for the prevention of organised crime" (O.J. N°362 of 16 December 1000). Several Council decisions have already been taken by this procedure that derogates to the Commission's exclusive right to initiative.
Of course, in the field of JHA, this procedure it legal, being explicitly foreseen by Article 34 of the Amsterdam Treaty. Though it is not necessary, notably for the European Parliament and for us journalists, that the Commission takes a stance on these national initiatives? That it states his assent, or his possible reservations? Or at least that the Commissioner responsible Antonio Vitorino makes known his opinion without awaiting the time of the parliamentary vote? The perplexities are numerous. If the Commission feels that an initiative is opportune and useful, why does it not propose it itself? In a contrary situation, why does it not express its reservations?
More generally, we would like to know if the Commission feels that this right to initiative by the Member States represents an inopportune exception to its exclusivity, or if it is justified by the nature and the partially intergovernmental nature of this field.
Translate Sénèque. A maxim of Sénèque cited in this section two days ago, with a few attempts of translation, interested a certain number of the readers to the extent that the following day I had already received two suggestions from translations; excellent, I have to say. The topic of discussion was the need that Europe gives itself two aims to promote progress (see this section in the Bulletin of 9 January). The original text of the Latin poet/philosopher says:
"Ignoranti quem portum petat nullus ventus suus est" (sadly he had been quoted with an error, "portus" instead of "portum", while it obviously concerns an object. The mistake was immediately signalled by Mr Johannis P. Anemaet, from Brussels, thank you, a good point for him).
The translation suggested by the same Mr Anemaet is as follows: "for he who does not know towards which port he is headed, no wind is favourable". It deserves clarity, and that of safeguarding the meaning the voluntarist meaning of the verb "petat" (he wants to head), which was lost in the translation by Mr Bourlanges that we quoted.
On his side, Mr Michel tried to maintain as much as possible the concision of the Latin text, by proposing: "No favourable wind for he who knows not which port he wants to reach". And he notes with satisfaction not having exceeded the 12 words (in French), as with the translation by Montaigne, while being more clear (against the 8 words of Sénèque).
The importance is that now, in one or other translation, the maxim is understood and followed by the leaders of the European building process.