An impossible list. In response to the same old Euro-pessimists, I had planned to produce a list of what has been achieved in Europe during this period, generally, and, in part, correctly, considered as being not very fruitful, if not harmful. I gave up, because there was so much to include. The EU decisions that have a positive effect on peoples' lives are so numerous that to list them would be practically impossible. Every Community action that, in my opinion, comes into that category would have to be summarised and the way in which it is good for the ordinary citizen explained case by case. That would be a bit like producing a copy of a large part of our daily bulletin! If I were to restrict myself to the past week, I would include the decision that improves the quality of bathing water, rules increasing safety in mining extraction sites (the pollution of the Danube with cyanide in 2000 and of Andalusia with heavy metals in 1998 would have been avoided had the new standards been in place then), promotion of river transport, various consumer protection measures. Need I go on? Most of the advances in “citizens' Europe would not have been possible without Community action. A single Member State could take national steps, but, as such, these would impede the free movement of goods and the mobility of people and would damage competition. European measures often encounter resistance from economic or national interest groups, but the common good has a greater chance of winning the day at European level.
Transparency acquired. Having given up on my list, I will restrict myself to stressing that the European decision making process is becoming more and more transparent and democratic. What used to be decided between the Commission (which proposes) and the Council (which decides) without impinging at all on public opinion is now subject to the approval of the European Parliament, with the often lively and impassioned debates that follow. Parliament-Council co-decision has transformed the democratic face of Europe, and Parliament exercises its role as legislator in a generally efficient and sometimes striking way. European debates often have a far wider coverage in the Press, on radio or television than previously, but the majority of commentators and political forces have failed to recognise this development. Some commentators, who speak on European matters two or three times every six months with a smugness as great as their ignorance of reality, continue to pontificate on an arrogant Europe that people cannot understand, instead of showing the development taking place before our very eyes. Let us be clear: praising the open and healthily contradictory nature of EP debates does not mean agreeing every time with the outcome, which one may or may not like. But criticisms of Parliamentary decisions seem sometimes to come from a false idea of democracy. The democratic way can result in decisions that one does not like, because they reflect majority opinion at the time. Whoever is unhappy can try to have it changed.
Accepting outcomes. I personally I believe that Europe has long been mistaken, and, is still so in part, in the defence of its agriculture and world agricultural trade. If this results in decisions which are, in my opinion, wrong, I don't want to change the system, rather I try to argue my case and win over the readers. Mr Bolkestein was wrong when he accused Parliament of giving in to the interests of this or that group in rejecting its proposal on take-over bids, just as Mr Catania was mistaken in insulting the Parliament because it did not accept European citizenship based on residence. Public opinion can change if good arguments are put forward. The main thing is that there is debate, that it is open and transparent and that everyone can express his/her views. In spite of the gaps and some departures, this is happening in Europe with Parliamentary co-decision (without forgetting that the Council - made up of national Ministers - also has its democratic legitimacy).
How many times has Parliamentary scrutiny of a project brought it closer to what the majority of Europeans want, or rejected it when the majority was against, as happened last week with port services? I think the slow development of the REACH legislation, where pressure groups and differing interests were able to put forward their reasons, and a clear Parliamentary majority approved the final compromise is a wonderful example. Of course, those who are unhappy have the right to say so, as long as they accept the outcome for the moment.
(F.R.)