Against a very bad habit. European democracy sometimes works better than people let on. Several recent debates and votes of the European Parliament, and a number of discussions of the Council and Commission, demonstrate this. But to say it out loud goes against the grain of what it is fashionable to state in this difficult face of European integration. Yet it is the ambient defeatism which is one of the very causes of the general public's wariness. Too many politicians seem to have the impression that to blacken Europe is useful, that it pays off, but then act surprised at the effect this produces. The president of the Commission, Mr Barroso, has spoken out against the demagogical absurdity of badmouthing the EU five days a week and then expressing astonishment when the citizens vote against European projects on Saturday and Sunday.
Let us leave to one side all general considerations, to prevent us from sliding into the rhetoric of the opposite position, which claims that all is perfect in Europe. Democracy resides in precisely the liberty of debate, in which sectorial opinions and interests clash with a view to agreeing on the general interest. And at the end of the day, it is the majority elected who will decide. It is true that in the EU, the Parliament does not make laws on its own; the member states, logically, have their say within the Council. But the EP is increasingly a co-legislator, whose approval is obligatory (and this will be the case more and more if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force).
A controversial dossier. Whilst pointing out the debates on the financial crisis and the initiatives to be taken (the rapporteur Poul Nyrup Rasmussen was able to state that the EP is at the head of the reflection on the vital regulations on the financial markets), I would like to lay emphasis on a dossier over which the opinions of the MEPs differ enormously: harmful emissions from cars. Environmental groups, the automotive industry and other pressure groups reacted strongly to the plans being discussed, which have also been spoken of at length by the press, but under a certain amount of confusion, giving the impression that the EU had already agreed upon and laid down standards for the future. Fortunately, our readers have been able to apprise themselves of the actual situation, which is as follows: one of the Parliamentary committees, the committee on the environment, took position in favour of the cut-off date of 1 January 2012 to make obligatory an additional reduction in emissions from new cars (whilst the Parliamentary committee on industry preferred the cut-off date of 2015). The new deadline was seen by the environmental organisations as major progress in the defence of the climate, and by the automotive industry as a bad sign for the European economy. But it is only a stage: the Parliament has still to discuss the issue at its plenary session (which it is likely to do in November), and then negotiate the new emissions standards- just one aspect of highly complex legislation- with the Council. The deadline of 2012 featured in the initial proposal of the European Commission; that of 2015 represents an attempt at compromise ahead of the negotiations between the Parliament and the Council.
Open debate. Why are these incidents so important? Because they place the Parliamentary debate, which is open to the public, right at the centre of the decisions to be made. The opposite parties have valid arguments with which to support their positions. On one side, environmental protection is being promoted: the quality of the air we breathe, the role of Europe in global discipline in the face of climate change; on the other, it is about keeping the continent's largest industry under viable conditions of competition, the competitiveness of the European economy, protecting jobs. The car builders stress that they are not refusing to act, but they feel that the additional time given to them by the compromise figure put forward ahead of discussions with the Council is vital. Politics has its role to play: taking account of the various interests at stake, and arbitrating on behalf of the general interest. The European dimension is indispensable because in this dossier, a purely national dimension would be quite meaningless.
In my view, this case represents a major example of the role of European democracy in discussions which determine the future, taking account of the viability of our industry and employment on the one hand and, on the other, safeguarding nature and thereby the future of humanity.
At the same time, the EU is taking ever more initiatives in the direct interest of the citizens. The initiative of the European Commission radically to reduce the cost of mobile telephone text messages (SMS) between member states has had its share of media attention. The debate between the institutions is only just starting, but the debate between the citizens is already in full train; I shall discuss this tomorrow.(F.R./trans.fl)