There is a lot of talk about the need to listen to the representatives of civil society in order to re-establish the confidence of the general public in European integration, and we have seen efforts underway in all areas to achieve this. The European Commission is taking initiatives, the European Parliament is doing the same, civil society itself is trying to get its voice heard. Against this backdrop came the conference held at the end of September by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), the official voice of civil society in the EU, which was attended by many representative organisations. Most opportunely, the conference was not dealing with the issue of the doctrinal problems of listening to civil society in general, but the progress with, and shortcomings of, the draft new European treaty from this point of view (see the summary in our bulletin 9515). This is no new subject for this column, which has already taken the opportunity of laying emphasis on the need for the EU to listen to civil society, whilst avoiding the excesses which would call into question “representative democracy” that is based on elected parliaments.. Taking the view that there is always something that we can learn, I attended the final part of the EESC conference.
A stage. According to Henri Malosse, the president of the employers' group of the EESC, the “democratic deficit” still exists; whilst it has brought in improvements, some of which are highly significant, the new treaty does not fully plug the gap. The current draft is even more “heavy and incomprehensible” than the constitutional draft which it replaces. But above all, Mr Malosse continues, we must not try to change it: we would be running the risk of having to start it all again from scratch. The main thing is to think of it not as a destination, but as a stage.
Speaking for the “various activities” group, Staffan Nilsson criticised the great many opt-outs in the draft, as well as the absence of structures and channels for the consultation of civil society; but at the same time, he rejected the tendency to lay everything that is not working at the door of the EU, when the real responsibility often lies elsewhere, in the member states, for example. The president of the workers' group, Mario Sepi, pulled no punches when he discussed the shortcomings of the draft (non-binding-nature of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, uncertainties surrounding social dialogue and regarding the social services of general interest, etc) and he was also particularly critical of the lack of transparency of the intergovernmental conference underway: once again, the general public is left with the impression of a “Europe which is governed by an elite”. Nonetheless, he concluded that overall, the new treaty is positive and that it is worthy of support.
Other criticism was voiced by those taking part in the debate. Jean-Marc Roirant spoke out against certain contradictions which “jar our awareness” and, like many other speakers, criticised the fact that the European symbols (flag, anthem, etc) have been dropped. A Polish speaker who took the floor voiced fears that the European single market could be separated into several separate markets, because too many restrictive national rules have been let through and, speaking on behalf of the association “ATD Fourth World”, Paul Collowald asked that “those who have no voice” also get a fair hearing. Two of those who took part slipped, in my view, into anti-European rhetoric, one speaking of a “abominable treaty” (he was British), and another (French) who dug up the fable of the so-called European burial of the services of general interest; but he was immediately challenged by a Unionist who stressed the progress which the new treaty brings to precisely this area, because it confirms the principle of the “universal service” and authorises state aid which is designed to make it reality.
Clear approach. By and large, the majority view was quite clear: although criticism, even very strict criticism, was not lacking, the general conclusion was that the new treaty brings with it significant progress and is worthy of support. According to Antonio Marzano, president of the Italian CNEL (National Council for the Economy and Employment), the overall thrust of the debate was too pessimistic: there are gaps in the text and concerns are justified, because we must always do better, but the new treaty proved that on the whole, Europe is moving forward. The EU has even undertaken to draft a proper common energy policy, and the new treaty will make its life easier. Its conclusion was quite simple: “Without European integration, everything would be worse”.
Mr Marzano spoke out against the ambiguity between those pursuing the objective of integration and those who would prefer just a free-trade zone; what can be done if a country definitively rejects the new treaty? Nobody discussed the option given by this treaty to any member state which feels uncomfortable in the EU to leave it. When the time comes, this hypothesis must not be excluded, if it is needed.
(F.R.)