Monday's "open debate", in Brussels, between EU Foreign Ministers on the "dialogue with citizens" certainly did not stir up the crowds. Let's be honest: generally-speaking, citizens are not even aware that such debates exist and that they can attend. This does not mean that they always lack interest. Monday's (summarized in our bulletin of 17 July, pp.4/5) deserves a few remarks.
A healthy reaction. Some ministers reacted to the tendency of exaggerating the indifference, hostility even, of public opinion vis-à-vis Europe. According to Portuguese Minister Jaime Gama "we must not broach this debate with a bad conscience". While acknowledging the shortcomings, the positive aspects of European integration need highlighting; and he pointed to the single market, the euro, progress in Cfsp and Esdp, measures regarding employment, the environment, food safety, stressing that "Europe has a place in the world today that we never had before". Other ministers also considered that permanent self-flagellation was not a useful exercise, nor, moreover, warranted by the facts. Ms. Lydie Polfer (Luxembourg) urged her colleagues "not to denigrate our own institutions".
I believe this to be a healthy reaction. Self-criticism is salutary, necessary even, and Community institutions must not wallow in a kind of gloating satisfaction, neglecting the warnings stemming from the inadequate turn-out in elections and referenda on Europe or Euro-barometers. But when we know full-well that something is good for Europe and for its citizens, we must defend it, and make it known. Council President Louis Michel is right in denouncing the dangers, but I'm not sure that he is justified in speaking of "incomprehension, indifference and hostility even, of a part of public opinion regarding European integration". I do not believe in the attachment of the European peoples to the idea of a united Europe to be in danger; and when it is, the fault is partly that of the attitude of these national authorities that tend to channel their citizens' discontent towards Europe (the Irish case is instructive, see this section in yesterday's EUROPE). Furthermore, by setting out the "lines of action" to take, after Monday's debate, Mr. Michel himself included the requirement to "avoid governments' using Europe as scapegoat". Some criticisms of Europe, even and especially from so-called intellectual circles, are absurd and at times ridiculous (I shall be returning to this shortly).
Some preliminary indications. An initial effort at synthesis of a "national debate" on the future of Europe has been undertaken by France. National debates, we know, represent the first phase in preparing the review of the Treaties, scheduled for 2004. They should in principle take place between now and the end of the year, then to leave it to the Convention or Forum which should, in the course of next year, define the broad outlines of the new reform. This Convention, or Forum, would then remain permanently open to later contributions, so that the different sections of "civil society" may continue to express their opinions.
We don't know a great deal, for now, on the unfolding of these "national phases". That's why it may be useful to turn to the very first assessments made in France, country that structured its debate and created a body (of which a journalist, Philippe Lemaitre, former correspondent for Le Monde in Brussels is also part) to follow the process. Under the slogan "together, let's build Europe", meetings are following each other, slightly lazily for now (summer break obliges) but with renewed gusto expected in September, to reach the planned figure of 26 regional debates. The first meetings - in Nantes, Clermond-Ferrand and Chalons-en-Champagne - enabled some observers to draw the following conclusions: a) the general tone of the meetings have tended to be clearly pro-European; b) associations, federations and other organisations which have spoken up have called for "more Europe" in several fields, rather than "less Europe" (criticisms of "European interventionism" have a "ritual" character, according to one Commission observer, but as soon as specific sectors are mentioned, it's often to consider that Europe is not present enough); c) there have been no requests of radical changes, nor, so far, "innovative proposals". The general impression is that these "national debates" will especially enable the populations to have a better grasp of Europe, but that it will be difficult to draw operational guidelines from them. Let's wait, however, as the exercise has only just begun. It's too early to assess the effectiveness and interest of these national debates, in France as elsewhere.
(F.R.)