The main regret. It is election week - and it is difficult to enter it without a word. Not in order to make propaganda, however. The only propaganda I would allow myself would be to promote a good turn-out. The main regret is that Europe has not managed to make people aware of how important such elections are. A large part of the press continue with their dull, habitual refrain about Europe's democratic deficit, about the all-powerfulness of the Brussels bureaucracy, and about the lack of information provided for citizens. These are issues to be discussed, of course, but on condition that public opinion is also made aware of the vote's import. And yet it is simple to prove to citizens that the new Parliament they are to elect will largely determine the direction taken by and the content of European policies. Gradual generalisation of Parliament/Council co-decision means that hardly any Union laws can be adopted without the European Parliament's approval. One should therefore tell citizens that they are the ones who are deciding what tomorrow's Europe will do. Vote to the right or to the left according to your convictions. Vote Green if you feel the environment is a top priority, vote separatist if you are against European integration, but do not listen to those who say Europe is no more than a bureaucracy and that the wishes of European citizens are not taken into account.
As much as any government. Messages along these lines have been given out. All the ministers who, in the 25 Member State governments, are responsible for European affairs, have said in a common text addressed to citizens that the Parliament is a key player in European construction. Most of the common rules affecting your life go through it. They urge: Do not allow your future to be decided without you. This concept should appear in every information notice or comment announcing the elections and in every televised debate on the subject. Some newspapers have proven that the EP has "become a place of power" (expression used by Le Monde), citing cases where parliamentarians have imposed their views against projects of the Commission or the intentions of the Council: - rejection of the first directive on public takeover bids, strengthened environmental legislation, slowing down (postal services) or acceleration (electricity, rail freight) of certain liberalisation, and opposition to the liberalisation of port services. The direction taken by the Parliament for its main choices has sometimes been appreciated, sometimes criticised, but that is not what counts. The main thing is to understand that the vote by citizens is effective. EP President Pat Cox has said he would like citizens to understand that, by sending someone to Strasbourg, that person is being given considerable power of influence when it comes to making laws that concern our everyday life. He went on to say that in areas in which the Parliament holds legislative power, a good representative's capacity to influence is the same as that of any government as, at the end of the day, in conciliation procedure, the Parliament has the same power as the States.
Quality. Pat Cox went on to add, however, that such influence is not created by magic but depends on the quality of the representatives elected. He touches here on a very sensitive but essential point. Europe needs members of Parliament that do their work full-time, with assiduity and passion, and who are close to their voters. A number of irregularities of the past have been or are being corrected. Double or triple terms of office are being phased out. Celebrity candidates on lists to attract voters, candidates who know in advance that they will resign as soon as they are elected or that they will remain in the EP for appearances sake only without ever taking part in plenary sessions or committee work, should be abolished. Voters need respect. In the past, the fashion was for governments to give little importance to EP decision-making (the EP's habit of giving its views on everything, and especially on matters for which it had no influence, partly justified this attitude). Now, national authorities (governments and parliaments)understand that the EP's influence is becoming decisive, and they have changed their attitude towards it in consequence. Detailed studies have been carried out on the assiduity of MEPs, their participation in voting, the distribution of posts (presidencies and vice-presidencies of Parliament, committees and political groups) and reports (number and importance).
Influence and prestige, however, cannot be improvised - they must be deserved. This is why every time the EP goes through its five-year renewal, it should put forward a blend of strong newcomers and representatives that are already well-experienced. It is dangerous for the political parties not to keep among their candidates a hardcore of well-known people who know how the institution works, who master acquis communautaire and who have proven their worth (just think of the stir caused in France when Olivier Duhamel was taken off the list of candidates, after he had represented the EP in the Convention, had had press galleries on the subject of Europe, and had been entrusted by a TV channel with a documentary on the future of the Union). (F.R.)