The European Parliament has yet to define a clear line for its involvement in the reflection on the future of Europe, and the majority of the governments are keeping quiet for the time being (see this column yesterday), but the organised political forces at European level are taking action and trying to lay down their views as clearly as possible. This is true of the Greens, it is true of the Socialists (the Party of European Socialists has just held a meeting between the Socialist ministers who are members of the Economy/Finance Council of the EU and a conference/debate on a new social Europe, which enjoyed the support of the European Trade Unions Confederation), and this is true of other organisations. The defining characteristic of the meetings held by the political forces is that their subjects do not relate so much to the Constitution and its relaunch, but rather to the economic and social policies of the Union. The tendency is to concentrate efforts on measures which will answer the concerns of the citizens, rather than on institutional constructions, and we are seeing this more and more.
A fashionable exercise (particularly in France). Given this trend, I would disagree with the impression that the EU is going through a period of being practically blocked up, and that it isn't producing anything either useful or efficient in the interests of the citizen. This is a kind of "European defeatism", of which we see far too much, and which I feel bears little relation to reality. To speak evil of Europe, to the point of claiming that European construction is, in itself, a failure, has become a highly fashionable exercise, particularly in France, among both those who favoured the rejection of the Constitution, (who laid the blame for all their country's woes at Europe's door), and those who supported the "yes" vote, who are bitter and disappointed by the results of the referendum. The result is a chorus of laments, from which Europe comes off the worst. A few isolated voices attempt to point out that the pivot for national growth is not in Brussels, but in the Member States themselves: School and training, research, justice, infrastructures, competition, red tape- all of this depends solely or mainly on national decisions. And in cases where decisions are European (for which read: taken jointly), the national authorities had a direct part in this, and the European Parliament is increasingly involved as co-legislator. European rules are the same everywhere, and yet certain Member States make progress, others don't. France, like any other country, needs first of all to find dynamism and enthusiasm in itself, together with the strength to overcome this period of dejection and scepticism. Other Member States have done so before it, the results are there, and I feel that Germany has drawn up the blueprint for how this can be done. Europe's action helps and makes a contribution to these efforts, unlike what is being said in France and Italy, which seemed to be the two current poles of Euro-dejection.
The central (and growing) role of the European Parliament. In reality, the list of sectors in which the EU is moving forward is not a short one, and most of the selectors on it have a direct influence on the citizens. What happens under our noses in sensitive areas such as co-operation in the fight against terrorism, the safety and security of the citizens and immigration policies, and in the field of defence, were quite simply unimaginable a short time ago. The cohesion policy has been considerably improved by new regimes in favour of rural development and in terms of State aid. After years and years of discussions which remained too theoretical, and industrial policies being mapped out. Those legislations which discipline companies' behaviour have been tightened up so as to make it impossible to repeat certain unacceptable slips of the recent past. In a few areas, such as energy, progress has been such as to transform the entire global panorama. And I could go on.
It is true that all of this is moving forward in fits and starts, amongst the arguments, blockages and opposition; this is only to be expected, because the role of the European Parliament has become a central one. The draft on the liberalisation of services ("Bolkestein directive") continues to stir passions, as do the rules on chemical products (REACH). This is the proof that European democracy is alive and well and that the accusations levelled at the European Constitution are false. The constitutional rules would not have the determining role, in any sense, in defining the content of policies: it is the results of elections which shape the decisions made by the EP and the Council. The Parliament sometimes plays a motivational role (towards harmonising and liberalising), and sometimes acts as a brake, because it reflects developments in public opinion much more than it is given credit for. European legislation, which is defined jointly, often touches all aspects after broader and deeper debates than solely national ones.
Over the next few days, I will take a look at a few fields in which the reality is quite pleasantly surprising, such as social dialogue, energy, transport and the environment. (FR)