Even Mr. Verhofstadt… The debates open to the public organised more or less efficiently in different countries of the Union, as well as the latest opinion polls have confirmed it: EU citizens consider the general debate on the future of Europe is placing too much emphasis on institutional issues. Citizens' desires are concrete: the common area of freedom, security and justice, food safety, the safety of maritime and air transport, and so forth. They are obviously right. But at the same time, politicians know that these desires can only be satisfied if the EU has strong institutions and effective decision-making mechanisms, that is to say, if it rigorously manages its institutional reform. So, how not to speak of it?
Look at the sketch of the "Laeken Declaration" that Guy Verhofstadt is now submitting to his colleague heads of government. The first pages represent both a mea culpa and a promise. The mea culpa is, to my taste, too much like a kind of self-flagellation, with the denunciation of a "gap" between European institutions and the citizens who, according to the Belgian Prime Minister, find that EU decisions are "too often devised in closed sanctums, without their knowledge, without democratic control". And here is the promise: : "what's important, is more results, better responses to concrete questions, and not European institutions that meddle in everything". Then, most of the document contains questions that will need addressing in view of attaining the goals sought: and these questions are practically all of an institutional nature! .Some examples: how to make the distinction between the powers of the EU and Member States? How to organise political and jurisdictional control on the exercise of powers? Should there be a distinction between binding standards and framework-legislation? (see the list of the questions in our bulletin of 1 December, p.6).
Acting in three directions. Mr. Verhofstadt is too intelligent not to understand that it is not his questions that will rekindle the excitement of the man in the street. And yet, it's by providing them with satisfactory answers that the EU can transform itself, become more effective, more transparent, more democratic. We see the difficulty of having citizens participate in the debate. I believe we should act in three directions:
- retain a few institutional reforms that may themselves interest citizens. Jacques Delors' latest suggestion of "personalising" the Union by the appointment of a "President of Europe", appointed for two-and-a-half years goes along those lines (see this section of 14 November);
- try to explain simply and clearly the key elements of the EU's institutional workings, the radical innovation compared to what has been done previously in the history of the States, that is to say, the "Community method";
- make it understood that institutional reform has no relation with the fight for power and usual jealousies, in the world of politics, between the different institutions, but precisely represents the way of satisfying the demands of the citizens. This is no discovery: when presenting the appeal "Wake up Europe", Jacques Delors had emphasised the indissoluble interweaving between the ambitions of the institutions, as there is no purpose in "providing ourselves with ambitions without the means of achieving them" or of "providing ourselves with the means without knowing what to do with them". It's a truth that cannot be repeated too often.
From this point of view, the latest speech by Romano Prodi before the European Parliament seems to me to be a good example of what has to be said. The Commission President stressed that citizens were always asking more of EU to resolve issues that only the European dimension can tackle with any hope of success: management of globalisation, , combating terrorism and organised crime, stabilisation and development in the Balkans. With current its instruments and its workings, Europe is in no position to do so effectively: "Today, we are living a situation of asymmetry between the policies we want to deploy, the expectations of the citizens and the available institutional instruments", said Prodi. The new reforms must exceed what is provided for by the Nice Treaty; the Convention will have t be able to broach all issues that will "secure adequate support".
And I return to the "Community method". It's essential, and yet difficult to get public opinion to understand that. I still have not come across a satisfactory definition: some insist on certain legal details, others stop at the principle of majority voting. What to do in this case? Invent one's own definition. That's what I shall try to do tomorrow, in the same section. (F.R.)