Today, I'll be looking at three interesting subjects that affect the EU and its citizens.
Ms Redding's initiative. Good European news for citizens? There's some every day. I'd even thought about including a periodical on this subject in this section. But I'm now not so sure of its usefulness, given that the frequency of European achievements being ignored never ceases to amaze me. An example? Practically none of those who have seen the two films about the lives of some young people spending some of their studies abroad on the Erasmus project know that Erasmus is funded out of the EU budget.
In the same way, when mobile phone users shortly notice that prices for phoning another Member State have been radically reduced, they won't know that this is due to an initiative by European Commissioner Viviane Reding. During examination a year ago of the tariffs for international mobile phone calls (roaming), she revealed abuses that were incompatible with the principle of the common market. She then urged telephone operators to do something about it. Nothing happened. Some prices even increased in the meantime! The Commission therefore decided, on the initiative of Ms Reding, to intervene via the introduction of regulation. Current costs for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises are huge let alone for the young, who have had to stop calling. The tariffs are illogical and totally arbitrary. If a Maltese citizen goes to Latvia and wants to phone home, a four minute conversation will cost him € 13. There has been some progress in Ireland and Belgium but overall the dire situation continues. In the European Union a citizen cannot be charged every time he crosses an internal border. By establishing some order, operators would get less money for each call but they would be compensated by an expansion in overall calls made and this would really benefit citizens (although, in principle, excessive or obsessive use of the “mobile” should not be encouraged).
This example of the mobile phone is just one example of how the EU directly benefits citizens. We could also highlight other initiatives by Vice President Jacques Barrot involving the “black list” of airlines and the project just beginning to see the light of day (even if its implementation will be gradual) of the European driving licence. There are also loads more initiatives by other Commissioners.
Who to European employers want to get through to? The event is well-known: at the last European Council, President Chirac walked out because the president of UNICE (European employers' organisation) addressed the Heads of Government in English, although he is of French nationality. Ernest-Antoine Seillère's explanation was simple, “English is the language of business”. It's not up to me to decide on the internal rules and customs of UNICE. The question is, to whom do employers seek to communicate? If they want to speak amongst themselves that's (if we can say) their business. But if they also want to communicate to the outside world, get their views over to the public, then Mr Seillière's explanation doesn't hold water. To communicate in Europe, two languages are the minimum, even more so given that French is one of the official languages of the country where UNICE is based, and this is not just a matter of addressing Heads of Government but also for press conferences and press releases. Fifteen languages is too much to handle but two languages is reasonable and, in my opinion, absolutely essential.
Shareholders rule ok. Jean-Claude Juncker's examination of how the authorities acted in certain mergers and takeovers, mentioned in this section on 29 March, should not create the impression that the Luxembourg Prime Minister (and President of the Eurogroup) believes that governments have to impose their views in takeovers. Mr Juncker himself has clarified, in the specific case of the Mittal takeover bid for Arcelor (steel) that his government would not rule against the operation, because legal bans did not conform to their “tradition”. The authorities can request those making a hostile takeover bid to explain their industrial project but the decision rests in the hands of the shareholders. The government spokesperson added that the latter believes “Arcelor's industrial project is better than Mittal's and that in its opinion, the analysis of shareholders would reach the same conclusion. This clarifies the meaning in Mr Juncker's general declarations, which have already been discussed. Gather information, evaluate the repercussions and then give an opinion, yes but decision-making is up to those who have the right to decide (and if the State is a shareholder, then it will decide as it deems fit).
(F.R.)