Contact with public opinion is vital for politicians, highly useful for public officials and essential for journalists. I am lucky enough to have contact with public opinion very often, most recently at a meeting organised by the 'Réalités européenne du présent' association¸ quoted in my column the day before yesterday on the speech by Eneko Landaburu (issue 9294). During the public debate, two speakers particularly stick in my mind.
General rejection? A French speaker spoke about general rejection of the Constitutional Treaty by the people of Europe. I pointed out that the Treaty, rejected by two Member States, had been approved by fifteen others, and three more would be approving it this year. Without challenging the results of the referendums in France and the Netherlands or the legal legitimacy of the resulting deadlock, I think it is going too far to speak of overall European rejection. France is clearly at the heart of the European project but it is not the only country at the heart of it; and the views of other countries should also be respected. All the same, we often hear talk in France of a draft treaty 'rejected by the people'.
Do young people know Europe? Second episode: a speaker obviously younger than most of the other people there (it is fortunate that young people are attending meetings of this type) expressed surprise at the planned ceremonies to mark the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, asking what there was to celebrate about a treaty which only had one aim - to introduce extreme free market ideas into Europe. I pointed out that right from the start, the European treaties had had essentially political aims (clearly set out by the 'Founding Fathers') starting with the first one, the ECSC. But I'd like to leave statements of principle aside. The preliminary press release of 3 June 1950 said that the Treaty's aim was to 'pool production of coal and steel and establish a High Authority whose decisions will be binding'. Steel at that time was something wars were fought over and giving the management of steel over to a High Authority with supranational powers was the equivalent back then of an agreement these days between Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran to create a Community headed by a High Authority made up of citizens of all those countries with supranational powers to manage the chemical and nuclear industries. Later, generalising the Community institutional system, the Treaty of Rome introduced economic measures to stimulate growth, along with the principle of solidarity with less advanced countries.
The political results are there to be seen - reconciliation between countries which were only just emerging from the most horrendous world war in history has become a permanent fixture and there have not been any further wars in Europe (apart from among countries which were not part of the common enterprise). Statistically speaking, given my advanced age, I should now be experiencing my third European war. Even considering just the aspects outlined above, how could one suggest that there is nothing to celebrate next year?
The anecdote I have just recounted may not be particularly earth-shattering but it does illustrate the extent to which young generations are ignorant about the European project and its significance. Damage wreaked by ignorance and occasionally the bad faith of people who should be reporting the truth… We should have no regrets about celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome next spring.
The Constitutional Treaty and energy. When I recently pointed out that it is not possible at present to define and implement a European energy policy, I observed that the necessary legal basis would have been provided by the Constitutional Treaty, if it had come into force. Some readers asked in what way and to what extent. Well, Article 256 of the third part of the draft constitution is perfectly clear, explicitly mentioning an 'EU policy in the energy domain' with three vital objectives - healthy functioning of the market, security of supply and energy savings (through saving energy of course but also developing new and renewable energy sources). Over and above these general objectives, the essential aspects lie in legal instruments. Currently decisions in the energy field are taken by unanimous voting and the European Parliament can only submit its opinion. The draft constitution foresees that decisions would be taken by qualified majority voting in codecision with the European Parliament (except for tax issues), leaving Member States the choice of which energy source to use (it is not the EU's job to impose or ban nuclear power). Together, these measures would be a revolution.
(F.R.)