SMS costs interest citizens. It is the EU that imposed a radical cut in the costs of mobile phone calls from one state to another. It is the European Commission which has just proposed an equally big reduction for written text messages (SMS) and for data transfers (EUROPE 9734). This project will have to go through the European Parliament and Council but its simple announcement produced a vast echo in the media, and positive commentaries from consumer organisations which are aware that the only appropriate level in this arena is European. Two British MEPs were among those displaying satisfaction with this development: the Conservative Giles Chichester affirmed that the industry ought to lower the prices itself but if it does not do so, the EU must act; the Liberal Fiona Hall described the arrogance of the operators as exasperating. The negative reaction from the operators was predictable: they affirm that prices are already falling due to competition and that regulatory measures are neither necessary nor appropriate (EUROPE 9748).
The initiative behind this project comes from two women: Viviane Reding, very efficient and combative in her work as a commissioner for the information society and Meglena Kuneva, in charge of consumer protection. Ms Reding is planning on a tight deadline: the in-principle agreement at the Council before the end of November, the vote at Parliament in the spring and entry into force of the new tariffs in June 2009. Citizens feel directly involved and we can understand why: the average cost of a text message is expected to fall to 11 cents, when its current average price stands at 29 cents, with peaks of 70 cents. Nonetheless, the anti-European fashion alluded to yesterday in this column also had its word.
A living example of the citizens' debate. I followed the lively and instructive discussion on this subject in Jean Quatremer's blog (in the Paris based newspaper Libération) with curiosity and interest, where opponents and supporters of European construction regularly cross swords in full freedom of expression.
The positive judgements on the Reding project highlight the impressive number of people affected (37 million tourists and 110 million who communicate by SMS from one member state to another for work-related reasons) with the following remark: “It's through this kind of very concrete action that the EU is proving that it is acting on behalf of citizens”. Critical commentaries focus on the nature of the initiative, sometimes with a sarcastic tone: “Ah! We can now stop worrying about the tourists and businessmen and all the poverty-stricken hatefully exploited by the telephone companies” or, “the mobile phone operators will make up on normal communications, and when all is said and done it will be the housewife phoning up school to explain that she'll be late fetching her daughter who will pay the London trader”. Jean Quatremer subsequently ridicules this whinging demagogy: “Does Europe do anything good? The goal should obviously not be a curb on the market or telecom operators but to give the City traders more money, to the detriment of the housewife…” Other contributors appreciated the spirit of the project by stressing that “it is not just tourists and businessmen affected by this measure: what about students who go abroad to study or do a course? Thank you Viviane Reding, let's hope the project is put into practice”. Someone else pointed out that the ceiling proposed for international text messages is lower than for national SMS prices in several member states and added that “this is enough to make the operators lower their national prices”. Another commentator who asserted that it would be better to lower petrol prices received the following reply: “I really hope that petrol prices won't be harmonised downwards. If it's a toss up between your wallet and the planet, I've made my choice” (not forgetting that taxes on petrol help to finance social security deficits in favour of the less well off).
An absurd attitude. I followed this “citizens' debate” further by focusing on a relatively minor subject because it both demonstrated the mentality of criticising Europe whatever it does (a principle of deploring any kind of initiative whatsoever) and the response from citizens who recognise what is positive for them. If the lies that poisoned the Irish referendum had been subject to an examination of this kind, the Lisbon Treaty would today be in a much more favourable position. The attitude of criticising European construction as a whole because of a single detail one doesn't like is absurd. There are even examples of this at the European Parliament.
(F.R./transl.rh)