Just as the European Parliament is getting ready to take position, are there any lessons we could learn from the incidents concerning the Parliament and the Barroso Commission, which will continue to be valid whatever the result of Wednesday's vote in Strasbourg? Let's give it a try.
European democracy is moving forward. The first lesson is the underpinning of European democracy. We have our proof that the way members of the Institution are appointed, which is at the heart of the "Community method" and the way the Union works, is not the exclusive preserve of the national governments. The Heads of Government chose the President, the Parliament was in favour, the President designate proceeded to give out the portfolios, and the Parliament then used its powers with spirit and authority. Certainly, what we call "political games" had their part to play, with the manoeuvring this involves, which is not always entirely straightforward, rivalries, calculation. I criticised various aspects of these games, which I don't feel are always entirely appropriate (see this column of 20 October). But at the end of the day, all of this is part of politics: if the European Parliament is no exception, there's your proof that this is a real Parliament and not just a talking shop. The European Council does not take the decision on its own, and in order to take up its duties, the Commission must talk to the Parliament, sometimes even negotiate with it. The institutional balance is a reality, to a large extent, and the Constitution will hone and boost some elements of it even more.
The general public feels directly involved. The second lesson concerns the scale of the public debate (by which I mean the debate outside the hallowed halls of the Parliament: in the press, on television, in discussions between citizens) about the appointment of the new Commission in general, and the Buttiglione affair in particular. Formerly, the appointment of the "Brussels Commissioners" and their President left the general public cold, because they just didn't know about it; now, everybody, or just about, knows of its existence and talks about it. Mario Monti said recently that ten years ago, most of his friends and acquaintances asked him why on earth the rector of Italy's most prestigious university would agree to go off to Brussels to be a Commissioner, but that now, nobody is at all surprised at his inclination to stay. People are starting to get the measure of the importance of the EU and of its institutions, for the citizens and their daily life.
Europe often gets feelings running high. The third lesson, which is, to a degree, related to the second, is that this "cold monster", which is how certain people seem to think of the European Union, very often gets feelings running high. This outpouring of emotional, occasionally irrational factors into the European debate was not what was expected. It is true that these factors have never been entirely absent, but they have always been just under the surface of all arguments between federalists and sovereignists, and this whole business about "Christian roots" caused something of a stir; but very rarely did they come into technical discussions or appointments. This time, the debates surrounding Rocco Buttiglione's nomination focused on the most sensitive issues for the general public: the role of women, gay rights, the role of religion and of Roman Catholics, the limits of secularism… Certainly, some of the stances taken had a whiff of the excessive about them: those who were talking about a new persecution (or thereabouts) of Catholics, should take a closer look at places in the world where churches and old convents are burned or torn down, and those talking about a wall of Catholic fundamentalism descending on our societies should be aware that there is nowhere in the world where religious imperatives are less weighty and less oppressive than in Europe. But these excesses also confirm that Europe often excites passion.
A long-lasting interest. It seems unlikely to me that this change of view and renewal of interests about European affairs will subside once again after this Wednesday's parliamentary vote. It will be followed by other debates which are just as passionate, starting with those already underway about Turkey and the ratification of the Constitution. As always, my view is that whatever the initial side-slipping, misunderstandings and differences of opinion, Europe has everything to gain from these debates, because the main enemy of European integration, far more so than those who oppose it outright or even fight against it, is the ignorance of what it is actually all about, its objectives and its effects. The European dream is not something you can be cured of, if you understand it. (F.R.)
Plenary session of the European Parliament