The media and public opinion: who influences whom? The British government has taken a decisive step in its political and psychological movement in the direction of the European project. Foreign Minister Jack Straw's comments are genuinely revolutionary compared with his country's standard position: "We need to re-think our attitudes to concepts like "independence" and "sovereignty" … In today's world, more interdependent than it has ever been, the EU provides the surest guarantee that our voice will be heard in the world". These ideas are not new to most of our readers, but it makes an impact to hear them expressed by a British Foreign Minister. Particularly since they come at a time when Tony Blair is taking on a leading role in the European Community whether in terms of the euro or the desire for the UK to be a full partner of all EU initiatives.
We need to keep our head on our shoulders - nothing is yet certain since democracy is no empty word in the United Kingdom and nothing will be possible until public opinion has been won over (largely formed by the media). We could of course ask whether it is the media that so strongly influence public opinion, or public opinion that leads the media? The answer from the Financial Time's correspondent in Brussels, Peter Norman, is carefully formatted. He recently said that in his country, where various newspapers fiercely opposed the European Union, the situation changed when Tony Blair came to power and tabloids like the Daily Express started to see things differently. He explained that Euroscepticism still sells newspapers and the anti-Europe culture stopped people from getting a better understanding of Europe - it's a vicious circle.
Tony Blair's political determination and energy (relying on a growing understanding of the reality of Europe) may be capable of smashing out of the vicious circle, which would be a minor revolution in the history of a united Europe.
Mr Barnier disagrees with European Parliament. A few days ahead of the "seminar" that the European Commission is organising on its views ahead of the Laeken Summit (particularly considering the setting up of a Convention to prepare for institutional reform), I want to highlight four aspects of Michel Barnier's speech to the European Parliament's Constitutional Affairs Committee (summarised in EUROPE of 22 November, p.4).
a) The Convention's tasks. Mr Barnier again confirmed his disagreement with the European Parliament over the final text to be produced by the Convention, saying that although the Committee had called for a single proposal, he felt that the most important thing was to choose a method that enabled as ambitious position as possible to be taken and therefore preferred options, as long as some of them are encouraging and have broad support, rather than having a single text that would inevitably have to seek consensus at the lowest price possible. He expressed his firm belief that the Convection should provide recommendations for the IGC.
b) The unevenness of ambition. Mr Barnier confirmed his view that Member States have not and will not share the same views on the future of Europe. In reality, different desires and ambitions exist within the EU on issues like common defence, asylum and immigration and a series of issues where exceptions and derogations apply to the Treaties and that the differences were objective. Centrifugal forces will inevitably increase with enlargement and may even extend to areas that are currently sheltered from this explosion of different views like how the EU is funded, the policy of solidarity between regions and countries, the Common Agricultural Policy, competition policy, etc. Mr Barnier did not repeat the conclusion he has drawn on other occasions - the need for an avant-garde (open to all, of course). It is well known that the EP is far more prudent here too.
c) The nature of the process. Without doubt, we are in a constitutional process when we talk about the fundamental rights of citizens or the powers of the Union or decision-making procedures.
d) How the EU operates. The Community method should be gradually extended to new areas. Citizens are currently very vocal in their demands on issues of freedom, security and justice.
The national level is inevitable. At the forefront with regard to the aspects cited above, Michel Barnier calls for caution on another tricky institutional subject. In his view, the demands of the "constitutional" regions (to simplify, those holding legislative power) go too far. The most radical of these regions, which enjoy a high degree of autonomy at national level, would, in practice, like to establish direct relations with the EU institutions, without having to go through the national authorities first. The European Commissioner responsible for both institutional reform and regional policy acknowledges the fact that the regional and local powers must make themselves heard more in Brussels, in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity. We could summarise this by saying: Mr Barnier considers Europe must be made with the regions and that the implementation of common policies should be decentralised, but that there should not be a move towards a "Europe of the regions" in the place of a "Europe of States". He explicitly affirmed such a direction when speaking before the Conference of the presidents of European regions with legislative power, held in Liège on 15 and 16 November, and confirmed it in the "Carte Blanche" published in parallel in a Brussels daily ("Le Soir" of 15 November).
After having underlined the substantial differences that exist in the way the regional autonomies are organised in the Member States, Michel Barnier stressed: "The Member States administer their territory as they see fit and the European institutions must remain neutral towards the choice of each Member State (…) Can one think that the fact that certain rights are recognised for certain regions only, within the European institutional framework, would have no effect on the organisation of the powers within the States?". The European system "needs the national level for arbitration between the sometimes divergent interests of regions that go to make up each of our States". The European institutions are not able to carry out such arbitration. The States can even decide to have themselves represented by a regional minister (instead of a national minister) within an EU Council. This is what Belgium is doing on certain matters: - but it is their choice, their decision.
Mr Barnier considers that the Committee of the Regions should play an active part in the work of the Convention that is to prepare the next institutional reform, but he doubts it would be appropriate for a new institution to be responsible for ensuring the correct application of the principle of subsidiarity. "Rather than increasing the complexity and the slowness of our decision-making systems, it would be better to get organised in order to have the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality respected by the current institutions". The latter must "pay more heed to the regions when it is a question of implementing, and also conceiving, policies", but it is not a question of short-circuiting the national State, except if that State agrees. Regarding the method, Mr Barnier's approach consists in tackling these problems in a "practical, not ideological, way with the concern that our institutions should work as simply, effectively and legitimately as possible".
"Constitutional" regions between demands and scepticism. Given the Commissioner's position, a generally moderate tone was adopted during the unfolding of the Conference in Liège, but its fundamental demands were finally also maintained (see the summary of their resolution in our bulletin of 23 November, p.5). In favour of a "Europe of the Regions", several speakers included above all the representatives of the Spanish regions, plus Mr Formigoni (Lombardy) and Mr Martini (Tuscany). Mr Pujol (Catalonia), however, did not seem very optimistic about the possibility of rapid breakthroughs being reached on this (he no doubt knows how very reticent Mr Aznar is …).
At a general level, the regions with legislative power appear sceptical about the possibility of the Committee of the Regions obtaining what they want. It is true that their "resolution" in Liège takes up the demand for a strengthened role for this Committee, but this request is followed up by a remark that speaks volumes: the regions with legislative power consider that the current institutional role and framework do not allow the Committee of the Regions "to meet the needs or fulfil the expectations of all the different intra-State entities that it should represent". These regions therefore speak out in their own defence, stressing the "need" to have their place within the European decision-making bodies and the need to "play an active and direct role" in the European decision-making process. The Summit of Laeken should include this theme among the discussion topics at the Convention, explicitly citing the role of the regions concerned at three levels: legislative, executive and judiciary (the right to appeal to the European Court of Justice is mainly required). The regions in question call for direct representation within the Convention, considering as "unsatisfactory" the composition of national delegations which are limited to one representative for each government and two representatives for each national parliament. In putting forward this avalanche of requests, the regions with legislative power have not forgotten to slip in a reminder of the fact that "some of them play a role in the procedure for ratification of the treaties" (in Germany, ratification of the Senate, composed of regional representatives, is indispensable), which is an additional and not negligible factor for putting on pressure. (F.R.)