Conform to history. Why, in this column, have I never taken a stance on the row over whether or not to include a reference to our Christian roots in the preamble to the Constitution for Europe? It is because I feel the debate in progress is biased and unpleasant, and does more to divide than to unite Europeans. Those who take position are not, I believe, making a sufficient distinction between the historical aspect and the ideological aspect of the matter. For me, this distinction is fundamental. I am "against" the reference in question if it takes on an ideological value, as Europe as such should not have to choose between different religions or philosophical leaning. This is a private matter for all citizens, and the Constitution should not give any indication of preference. I am "for" the reference if it is quite clear, without any ambiguity, that it refers to the history of Europe, and if it also gives in some form or another the Greek, Roman and Enlightenment roots of our history.
It is undeniable and obvious to anyone that Christianity has fashioned Europe to a great extent: - its towns (with Roman, Gothic, Baroque and neo-classical churches, and its historic centres), its landscapes (with monasteries and abbeys), its roads (according to religious itineraries) and even more the way its inhabitants live: the annual social life being organised around four key events of the Church, and our daily lives following the sound of church bells announcing the different religious ceremonies. Should one also speak of artistic creation? Should one cite Monteverdi or Bach, or the centuries of painting and sculpture essentially inspired by the Holy Scriptures? But these are just banalities. Even the more profane or erotic subjects came from passages in the Bible or the Gospels in order to be cleared, such as the episodes of Susanna and the elders, or Salome.
If this is the reason for referring to our Christian roots, then I do not believe it necessary to add the adjective "Jewish", as European civilisation and our way of seeing and feeling were, in my opinion, mainly fashioned precisely by what did not exist in the Jewish tradition: the story of Christ and of his passion and resurrection, and of Mary his mother. So, if I were to decide once and for all whether I was for or against, I would answer that, if I were to stick to the lines I have just described, then I would be in favour of a reference to our Christian roots, as I am for a reference to our Greek and Latin roots - but this would require another analysis.
Mr Juncker and Mr Dehaene. If I were to point out a pragmatic way of doing away with the artificial rivalry between the large, medium and small states of the Union, I would quite simply invite the princes who govern us to announce, from today on, that the first long-term president of the European Council will be Jean-Claude Juncker and the next Commission President Jean-Luc Dehaene. It would be the proof that these functions are not created for nationals of large countries but for personalities with a rich European experience and undeniable European convictions. It would also open the door to similar developments in favour of the nationals of acceding countries, as soon as they have shown proof of their merit (mainly within the Community institutions).
I'd better wake up now. Still, it was a nice dream.
An idiotic slogan. In celebrating its 50th anniversary, the European Parliament's Socialist Group has made a lot of room for young people in its team (see our bulletin of 9 October, p.5). The very youngest of all, Catherine Stihler, was among the speakers alongside Jacques Delors, the Nobel prize-winner John Hume and other celebrities of the same ilk. Ms Stihler's speech was sincere, generous and brave. There was just one thing I found a little off. She used the idiotic slogan about the EU which spends two euros a day for each of its cows, when there are millions and millions of people in the world who live on less than one euro per day. It is obvious that these two euros used by current demagogues to polemic over European farming do not go to the cows but to the farmers who handle them, so that they too have the possibility of living like other citizens, of sending their children to school, of benefiting from social insurance and even, where possible, of having paid leave. Or perhaps Catherine Stihler does not think farmers are entitled to this? There is an alternative to farm subsidies: give up agriculture in Europe, destroy our traditions and our landscapes and feed our population with imported food. I do not think that that is what Socialist parliamentarians have in mind. (F.R.)