Impact on the everyday life of citizens. What could be a more appropriate time than Easter, a time of resurrection, for sending a message of optimism and confidence? The message is that the European Union's activity is particularly intense during this period. The criticism and dissatisfaction caused by the failings and weaknesses in Europe's construction are justified by the discrepancy that exists between ambitions and reality, and the uncertainty about what the future holds, but this should not be taken to the point of hiding or underrating the truth. The fields in which Europe is active are expanding all the time and its decisions often have a positive direct influence on the daily life of millions of Europeans.
I know that, sometimes, the EU is rightfully reproached for going overboard: There is criticism of its excessive intervention, its wanting to have a finger in every pie. I am not referring here to the number of texts or to the excessive use of rules and regulations (a fault that the European Commission is fighting and which, for the most part, it cannot control), but to the growing and positive impact of European activity in the political, economic and social fields. The image of Europe generally put across by the media is incomplete and biased. There is no shortage of coverage on Europe but such articles and reports do not, and cannot, give a true overall picture of Europe. If we were not as modest as we are (an ugly fault - not being modest but lacking modesty), we could say that only Agence EUROPE seeks to give an overall view of Europe every single day.
He who does not see the distance covered over recent years and the developments in progress has lost all sense of history or has quite simply forgotten the past. Europe is building, on the sound basis resulting from the Treaty of Rome, the other essential chapters that were needed for it to be united: common foreign policy, security and defence policy, and a single area of freedom, security and justice. Today, the political and legal instruments for developing these new areas exist, and the debate on the final goal has begun. The "economic base" of the European edifice has already been and is still going through changes that are sometimes little known or misunderstood. A serious body such as the Ceri (Paris) summarised in the following way the transformation that is taking place before our blasé and distracted eyes: "One must realise that in just one decade the EC then the EU have accompanied the end of the Cold War, have completed the single market, created an embryo of common foreign policy, begun to organise an area of freedom and security, and lain the foundations for an army likely to take part in peace-keeping and peace-restoring operations", without forgetting the advent of single currency, "a major stage on the road to integration". We give a few pointers below.
The ill known process. In the socio-economic field, the importance of the Lisbon Process is seen by circles directly concerned but not yet by public opinion. Too many texts, too many projects in too many directions, too many achievements in progress but not yet tangible. Romano Prodi seems to have understood, as he announced to the European Parliament (debate on 4 April on the results of the Stockholm Summit) that, as from the "Spring Summit" next year, the Commission will present a single report in order to "make work more transparent and clearer" and to allow the Heads of Government to concentrate on political aspects rather than on technical details, by making the stakes "more understandable for the public opinion". I have tried to present in my editorials (dated 22 March and 26/27 March) an overview of the significance and the ambitions of the Lisbon Process, and of its essential characteristics which consist in a single approach covering both the social and the economic aspects. But I am well aware that Agence EUROPE is not the most direct means to reach the public … Our loyal readers know what a mass of achievements are involved in the Lisbon Process, and that, for example, all the Member States are already preparing their national programmes "against exclusion".
I have two remarks to make. The reactions of trade unions and of certain authorities to the plans for restructuring the Danone and Marks & Spencer multinationals (with job losses) is exclusively based on European directives. Without such directives, no protest or action of any kind could even be contemplated. The directive that Ms Diamantopoulou and Ms Guigou would like to see rapidly adopted is that which relates to worker information/consultation by national enterprises, while the instrument for the multinational companies already exists and its reinforcement is being studied. It must also be stressed that the principle of a European "economic" authority (at least for the euro zone), alongside the ECB as monetary authority, is growing in people's minds (and also, very slowly, in practice).
Influence that is already determining. The failings in common foreign and security policy (CFSP) are real, and it would be naïve to expect sensational developments in the short term. But Europe's political influence exceeds what people often imagine, and it is really decisive for third countries that aspire to stronger links with the EU. Without it, some moves towards democracy, freedom and respect of human rights would be far slower and intermittent. In some Central and Eastern European countries, in Turkey, in some Mediterranean countries, and in Africa, pressure from Europe is a determining factor. This fact is so striking that I should like to make a specific comment on this.
The "marked turn" in agriculture. The new conception of agriculture, which is to be seen in EU and which is making headway in the world as a whole, comes from Europe. I am well placed to evaluate such progress, as I cannot forget the sarcasm aimed at me when I made my first stance in favour of multiple-function agriculture and against assimilating agricultural products with industrial products from the commercial point of view. How can one forget the time when the Agriculture Council seemed to be a subsidiary of the agricultural organisation and the European Parliament's agriculture committee was dominated by the producer and trade lobby? Of course, there is still much to be done on the international level: for example, the OECD is again running late. It continues to calculate support to farming as a "serious loss" for exporting countries (and an additional cost for consumers), ignoring the role of farming for the environment, food security, territorial balance, biodiversity, and the quality of food. But the European Commission, the Council and Parliament have taken a marked turn, even though many battles are still to be won in order to give concrete substance to the theory. Authorities and economists have still to be convinced that the expansion of agricultural trade must not be considered as an aim in itself as it may have negative repercussions if it makes poor countries develop single crop farming for export instead of encouraging food production for local populations. If this concept also makes headway, it may be said that Europe has won a vital battle for the future of the world.
The impact of the euro can already be seen. How easy it is to speak ill of the euro, to be contemptuous of its mediocre exchange rate and to denounce the time it is taking to actually reach the pockets of citizens! Such criticism is partially justified - Europe must do better. But one should not forget that, before the birth of the euro, the EU was shaken by recurring monetary crises, both humiliating for devaluated currencies and deadly for the functioning of the common market. Europe has come out of the latest monetary crises unscathed (Russia, Asia, Brazil, etc.). All serious observers admit that, without the euro and the fixed exchange rates that it implies, more than one European currency would have been carried away by the storm.
Growing weight of the European Parliament. Despite the failure of the Nice Treaty, the democratisation of the EU is moving forward on one aspect: the rise in power of the European Parliament. The weight carried by votes in Parliament, its brilliant initiatives and positions and the quality of its debates have made serious progress. The time when journalists would go to Strasbourg to listen to a celebrity speaking before the EP without being part of it is not so far away. Today, the Parliament improves Community legislation (conciliation procedures with the Council nearly always result in improved texts), opposes sometimes successfully Commission projects that it considers of no positive interest (timetable of liberalisation of postal services, regulation of public offerings for acquisition of companies), challenges guidelines that seem to be full of holes (Commission document on the development of European production of high protein crops; see our editorial dated 30 March, p.4, and the result of the parliamentary debate in the bulletin of 6 April, p.11), takes initiatives that have worldwide effect and may influence the situation in a given region of the world (invitation to Afghan Commandant Massoud to attend the plenary session and support of his combat against the Taliban).
A daily worksite. The above list could be longer. I have been flicking through our bulletin of 6 April cited above, and I note the significant news that it announces: the launch of the development phase of the Galileo project (a decisive test for affirming European identity), the greater competition on the telecommunications market, the parliamentary debate on the "golden share" in the context of privatisation, the announcement of measures against the unnecessary transport of live animals, and the ban on animal testing for cosmetics … All this in just one day, chosen by chance.
My message of optimism and confidence is over. We, as Europeans, should never forget that the EU is considered by a growing number of people throughout the world as the place to aspire to, the place where women's rights (so dramatically violated in whole continents) are recognised. Those who are complacent about placing emphasis on the still unfortunately numerous failings and delays, should not forget how many people, and sometimes children also, risk their belongings and sometimes even their lives to join. Being European is today a responsibility and a privilege, that we must both appreciate and deserve - but we must not unwittingly destroy what has been built up over the past half a century.
(F.R.)