The dialogue is there. We know how greatly anticipated it was, the direct involvement of civil society in the reflection on the future of Europe and on the relaunch of the constitutional draft. It is now here, and the European Parliament has shown itself to be particularly open to dialogue. So far, so good, but it's not yet time to start talking about miracles. As it happens, civil society has always had an ear at European level. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has existed since the EEC came into being, and its role is precisely that of making the voices of the various interests of our society heard by the legislative and executive institutions. The Confederation of Trade Unions has always held dialogue with the institutions and, after a shaky start, managed to acquire indisputable weight and prestige. The same is true of the organisation which represents the employers, Unice. Over the years, other bodies have enjoyed regular and effective dialogue with the European institutions: everybody has heard of BEUC, an organisation which defends consumer interests, the EEB, which keeps an eye on environmental protection, the WWF, Greenpeace and Oxfam. The list is a long one; the criticism which is sometimes levelled at these bodies is that there is an excess of interventionism rather than the opposite. Their effectiveness, however, is beyond dispute.
That said, the specific contributions of civil society to the reflection underway are extremely valuable, particularly as they focus on the essential themes of this reflection, and the European Parliament was absolutely right to organise meetings and dialogue. In recent days, our bulletin has reported back on two specific cases: in yesterday's edition, we summed up the document "Les citoyens face à l'UE”, (literally, The Citizens Facing the EU), which was drawn up by four members of the Permanent Forum of European Civil Society, and in this very bulletin the results of the forum organised by the committee on constitutional affairs of the EP, together with the platform of civil society networks, were printed. These events prove the potential of dialogue between the institutions and civil society.
Respecting the roles of those elected to Parliament. For my part, without getting into the content of the aforementioned document and meeting, I would like to make a few general observations on two dangers to be avoided. The first lies in the temptation to de-legitimise the parliamentary function. It is very fashionable to speak ill of Parliament and of parliamentarians, and the MPs themselves must do all in their power to improve their own image, because there can be no doubt that they hold a share of the blame for this deterioration. However, the principle remains that parliaments are the only place where the reconciliation of sectoral interests is possible and where the general interest can emerge. The civil society organisations represent a single category or defend an opinion or doctrine, and on occasion, they can lead to conclusions which are too unilateral or which go too far. One example of this is the BEUC which, with its consumer defence mission, only takes this concept into account. In the dossier on Chinese products, for example, it may reach some appalling conclusions: as long as the price is lower, it takes no consideration of the repercussions of imports on employment, nor those of piracy, or quality. All that is taken on board is the apparent advantage to the consumer, ignoring the fact that consumers can only be consumers if they have a job giving them disposable income. These remarks are all the more valid for bodies which represent sectorial interests. In one sentence: civil society organisations must be listened to with interest, but without forgetting what they represent, and it is up to elected members of Parliament to boil them all down.
Avoiding a talking shop. The second danger is one that I'll describe as a "generic talking shop". Anybody who has the floor cannot always resist the temptation to use it to voice their own personal views (which, on occasion, are quite some distance from the subject under discussion). Last month, I attended an initial dialogue meeting, which was held at the European Parliament, during which the debate was thrown open to the floor. I listened to three speeches from the floor: a university professor presented a mechanism of his own devising to increase the representation of civil society; the German MEP sketched out an ideal Constitution (direct election of the President of the Commission, Commissioners appointed irrespective of their nationality, etc); a Unionist explained the reasons for the French and Dutch "no" votes in their constitutional referendums. Interesting ideas, but they bore absolutely no relation to the very simple question which had been put to them about the constitutional treaty: should it be kept as it is? Should it be considered dead? Should it be changed? I learned nothing, and so I left. (F.R.)