I shall not be commenting on the European elections today. The reactions of the political powers (and others), as well as a few predictions on what the political alignments in the renewed Parliament might be, were summarised in our bulletin yesterday. We have time for further comments (including on turnout). For now, I would simply like to make a few remarks.
What the citizens do not know. The perception of European democracy is progressing in a lopsided manner. Sometimes it even seems to be going backwards, and in some new Member States it is next to nothing. Citizens must be given proof that this democracy exists and that their vote is useful, that they can have an effective and real influence on the content of European policies. People must know that it is up to the Parliament to say yes or no to projects prepared in Brussels and that it can modify them. The media do not make much of a contribution to enhancing awareness as all too often it wallows in humdrum commonplace views on democratic deficit and the irreparable divide between the Community institutions and its citizens. Europe is not something abstract, a bureaucracy cut off from the daily life of citizens. In the Member States where citizens are beginning to understand what Europe means, the number of voters is on the rise. But where a large part of the population sees Brussels as an entity that is imposing its decisions upon them from afar, the turnout was mediocre, if not absurdly low. If we are confident in the strength of persuasion of freedom and democracy, the situation will evolve. If, however, a population does not believe in European construction and consciously votes in favour of movements that are opposed to Europe, then the best thing is for that country to pull out of the Union. This was the choice made by the Norwegians but they are no less European for all that. Their economic links with the EU continue but they do not take part in additional actions or in decision-making and common policies. If this is the road that a nation wishes to take, then it must know that it has a free choice and that the way out is open.
What must remain national. As one commentator wrote: "The range of colours in the new parliament will influence the shape of European construction, if only in dabs". It is true that, for some aspects, the EP does not have the same prerogatives as a national parliament. It does not have the power of legislative initiative. Its powers are sometimes purely consultative. It does not directly form the Commission (although it can reject or censure it). It shares budgetary power with the Council. Are these really shortcomings? In some areas, the powers of the EP can and must be extended and perfected, but I believe that it must possess the powers of a national parliament as such, simply transferred to European level. In the EU's institutional system, the Commission represents European general interest. It is up to the Commission to propose laws that are useful for Europe, taking into account the legitimate interests of all Member States. Initiatives are not taken by a majority that could harm the legitimate interests of a Member State . In the budgetary field, the ceiling of Community spending (as a percentage of European GDP) may be modified and increased only with the agreement of national parliaments. The EP cannot have the last word on the overall volume of credits (but it will have the last word on the way credits are used within the ceiling set). I also consider that respect of national identities should be opposed to granting power to the EP in choices made by society such as, for example, on homosexual marriage. The general principles of individual rights, of freedom and non-discrimination must logically be respected but without going as far as to foresee common rules in areas where national sensitivities differ and where the impact of religion is not uniform. In such fields, responsibility must remain with the authorities and national parliaments.
Available for Europe. Former EP President Pat Cox left his post with a great deal of serenity and clear ideas on what the evolution of the Parliament should be (to which he had made an effective contribution). Above all, it was with a great deal of simplicity that he received the rumours whereby he is among the favourites contending for the post of Commission president. These rumours are, he believes, a tribute to the Parliament. In his view, for the first time, a Parliament president is considered as a credible European political player. But, he says, selection remains opaque and mysterious and makes one think of the procedures preceding the choice of Pope. In his view, one cannot be formally candidate to the Commission presidency. If he is one of the "non-candidates", he is pleased for the institution that he has had the honour to be president of, he said. From a personal point of view, he said, Europe is his political life and he would, if the opportunity were to arise, like to continue to serve it. However, he said, in order to serve Europe, there are many possibilities. By this, he is referring to possibilities outside the EP as he would prefer not to be a contender. He would find it difficult to be an MEP on the Liberal party benches requesting no more than three minutes' speaking time on a Wednesday morning in Strasbourg, he said.
Messrs Martens and Pöttering good at calculation. The major manoeuvring for preparing alliances in the new Parliament had begun well before the elections. The first spectacular phase had been amendment of the statutes of the EPP Group, aimed at prolonging co-existence of the EPP party (the traditional motor for European integration and direct heir to the parties of Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer, Alcide De Gasperi and then Helmut Kohl and others) with the British Conservative party, authorised by the new statutes to cultivate its Eurosceptical convictions (or temptations). Some EPP parliamentarians are uneasy with this coexistence. There will therefore be a number of defections from the group, of individual significance but not many in number. Wilfried Martens, Chairman of the EPP Party, and Hans-Gert Pöttering, leader of the EPP group, have calculated well. Defections will amputate the group of a number of key players but coexistence with the British Conservatives and with a number of Italian, French and other forces strengthens the character of the largest parliamentary group, with the advantages that arise from this. Too bad if its political cohesion suffers somewhat …
Under the sign of Europe. The second innovation of any scale announced is the creation of a pro-European party which brings together around the current Liberal group some renegades of the EPP group, the forces close to Romano Prodi (in Italy) and François Bayrou (in France) as well as other scattered forces. Our bulletin gave an account of the debates, sometimes polemical, raised by this project, which would involve new alliances and new divisions in groups (see, for example, in bulletins of 9 and 10 June in the guidelines of Graham Watson and the reactions of Mr Pöttering and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, and in yesterday's bulletin for Mr Watson's forecasts on projects).
It is too soon to speculate on the effect that the results of the elections will have on these projects. For now, I shall simply cite Pat Cox. His presidential functions being ended, he takes up his freedom again as an influential member of the liberal forces (even though he is no longer an MEP). The new Liberal group will perhaps change its name as the word "Liberal" is ill-perceived in some countries. In France, one speaks of uncontrolled liberalism. We are not untamed! It will mainly be a very pro-European group, that could bring together more than its current 50 deputies. Mr Cox recalled that in the former EP, the Liberal Group sometimes voted with the EPP and sometimes with the Socialists. He explained that this was not to be at the centre but in order to follow a real European policy.
Against the "marriage of elephants". I continue to mainly look at the declarations, sometimes ignored, made just before the elections, and therefore exceeding what is immediately topical and sometimes dictated by emotions. According to Enrique Baron Crespo, the European Parliament has gone beyond the stage when votes were essentially determined by the national parties of deputies: "In 90% of cases, MEPs speak according to their political leaning and not their national origin". In this spirit, Daniel Cohn-Benit took a stance in favour of a clear majority within the new Parliament, whether centre-right or centre-left, firmly opposing the "marriage of elephants", that is, an alliance between the EPP and PES that would only respond to the concern of these two groups to share the driving seat.
First decision of import. The first significant decision of the new Parliament will come next month: the election of the president of the European Commission (if the heads of government pledge to designate the president this week). Mr Pöttering insisted on several occasions on the requirement that the president designate should come from the political family that obtained the largest number of seats, and he was opposed to the possibility of his belonging to the Liberal family. Enrique Baron Crespp, for his part, had affirmed that the appointment "should not be against the Socialist Group".
Those we regret. As foreseen, the Parliament has been largely renewed. There are many newly elected MEPs, which is positive for renewing the European political class but at the same time means that several seasoned members are no longer there. Some are already regretted. My personal regrets are worth as much as anyone's but I take the liberty of citing four "old handers" who were not beaten by the voters but who did not run for various reasons: Giorgio Napolitano, Philippe Herzog, Olivier Duhamel and Jacques Poos. I am sure that their European commitment will never fail and that we shall soon have news of them in Euroland.
Rekindling necessary. A number of MEPs are thinking of relaunching the statute of MEP, on which the previous Parliament had worked at length but which came up against Council rejection. Discrepancy between the salaries of MEPs are unfathomable and therefore unacceptable, everyone admits this. But some (Jens-Peter Bonde, for example), criticise the solution of a uniform salary, and Daniel Cohn-Bendit recommends another solution - that each Member State should do as it wants but that the EP pay EUR 2,500 per month to MEPs that earn less, in order to re-establish a certain balance. Public opinion finds the current situation incomprehensible. (F.R.)