What citizens do not know. All those who own a bankcard in Europe have been informed by their bank of the abolition of, or radical reduction in, bank charges for cross-border payments in euro since 1 July. But, as far as I know, not one single bank has pointed out that this decision was not taken following unexpected and excessive generosity on its part but in application of a binding European Union regulation, approved on 19 December 2001 in codecision by the European Parliament and by the Council on a proposal from the European Commission. The regulation does not abolish fees but bans application of higher bank charges to intra-Community transactions than for transactions made within a Member State. To put it clearly: if withdrawal of euros by bankcard can be done free of charge at the national level, then it must also be the case at European level - withdrawing euros anywhere in the EU must cost the same as similar withdrawals in the country that issued the card.
The scope of this measure is considerable, as the costs invoiced by certain banks on withdrawals, as well as on transfers in euros from one Member State to another, had reached a considerable level (4 euros on average for every 100 euros). This was harmful not only to the client but also to the image of European currency. The legislative initiative taken by the Parliament, the Council and the Commission was therefore to the advantage of citizens and also increased the trust placed in the single currency. But citizens do not know to whom they owe this advantage, and they continue to see the EU as a distant bureaucracy that grants them no direct advantages. This banking affair is yet another example of the reasons why Europe is not more popular among citizens, in addition to the reasons I gave under this same heading on 29 June.
Let me explain. In one case, certain banks cited the Community regulation: but it was in order to announce restrictions to withdrawals free of charge by bankcard at national level! The manoeuvring of these banks is obvious: the EU has not banned the fee (that is not its task in a market economy) but rather all discrimination in invoicing the use of bankcards throughout the euro zone. A fee brought in for certain "national" uses may be applied at the same level for use abroad, there is nothing unlawful about that. But, if the bank tells its clients that the new bank charge results from a Community regulation, then it is wrong. Once again, it is the EU that is presented to the citizen in a bad light, although, in reality, its intervention is along opposite lines. From the Commission's point of view, this is a double show being put on: a) If all the banks carry out the same operation, it is an illegal agreement against which the competition authorities may act, whether national or European; b) if the initiative is limited to just a few banks, the clients may know this (thanks to compulsory transparency), and they may choose the bank that charges the least, bringing competition into play. But all this is complicated, and once again Europe is presented to the citizens in a bad light.
Still more unpleasant … The second example I wish to cite is even more unpleasant - the campaign of British Eurosceptics who use Hitler as an argument against the euro. The eventual arrival of European single currency in the United Kingdom is assimilated to the project of invasion of the English coast by the nazi leader. Such a gross exaggeration could be almost amusing. But how much truly objective information on the EU manages to reach the ordinary British citizen? The message could be seen by the man in the street as a warning: - twice during the last century, the UK was victim to attempts of aggression (which failed, fortunately) from the Continent, and the attempt to replace the pound by the euro is of the same kind. So these pictures of Hitler with the slogan "ein Volk, ein Reich, ein euro" are close to being vile. Tony Blair, moreover, himself used the adjective "disgraceful" when stressing that the vision of Europe given by this campaign is "half a century behind times".
The problem is that no campaign that speaks the truth is sufficient counterweight to the Hitlerian advertising projected onto UK screens. I am not speaking of pro-European propaganda but of a few simple truths: the construction of the united Europe has made all possibility of war between the countries taking part disappear, and the risk of invasion of the British Isles has gone for ever, while you only have to cross Community borders to note enduring conflicts and hatred. Alongside peace, European construction has brought freedom and democracy. Half a century ago, there were still dictatorial regimes on the Continent which have today become structurally impossible. And we must not forget that participation in the euro is voluntary: the British will themselves choose, in full freedom of choice, whether they wish to join , it is not the euro that is making them do it. A platitude? Yes, quite true. But nonetheless the image that British television viewers see is that of Hitler who wishes to impose the euro.
(F.R.)