Comments on the election campaign. The dice have been thrown, the European elections are under way and the results are already known for one Member State (see later in this newsletter). Now the elections are over, we can safely say that the way the hustings and election campaigning was carried out did nothing to improve voter turnout. It is logical for minority political parties to criticise the authorities in order to pick up votes, whether the authorities be the Council, the European Commission or the European Parliament itself. This is to be expected. All election campaigning involves attacks on opponents, but voters have been left with a nasty taste in their mouth about the European Union as a whole and the European project itself, despite its recent successes and the obvious magnetic attraction of the EU for neighbouring countries. Outside the EU, there are nothing but countries and people longing to join the club and fighting to get in. Within the EU, people tend to be blasé about the whole affair, criticising common policies and measures, rejecting the institutions and calling for a less integrated Europe. It is as if ordinary people, and the people aiming messages at them, had forgotten the importance and underlying facts behind the European Union and had forgotten its achievements - peace and reconciliation among countries that had horrifically hacked one another to pieces for centuries; an incredible economic boom after WW2; protection of farming (and therefore of nature in general), along with traditions and landscapes; the scrapping of border controls; the single currency and other things that make life sweeter and easier.
Illogical abstentionism. Maybe I have gone a little over the top in my description above. There are candidates who are well aware of the above facts and make it clear that the European dream colours their attitude and backing for the European project. It is nevertheless a fact that the constant carping at the way the European institutions operate has fed into Euroscepticism because the carping looks like attacks on the European project itself. Criticisms are to be expected and are necessary. Criticism is particularly lively and stimulating in individual countries. The great difference is that criticism of a national parliament, for example, or of corruption, graft and incompetence among MPs, does not amount to a condemnation of democracy and free elections as such. Slamming miscarriages of justice and lengthy trials does not amount to criticising the importance of the legal system being independent of the government. Things are different at EU level, however, where voters have the impression that what is being challenged is the EU institutional system itself. The European Parliament has greater powers than in the past and the choices made by the voters will largely determine how society operates and how future decisions are made, like the choice of a President and the new Commissioners for the new European Commission. A very large proportion of the population of the EU has decided not to vote despite the importance of everything at stake. I still hope (rather weakly, I fear) that turnout in some Member States will exceed expectations.
Calmly respecting the choices of people wanting to 'remain on the margins'. The second issue I would like to raise is the possibility that Euroscepticism will become a decisive political force in a series of Member States. This possibility should not be overplayed. If it does come to pass, people should react in a cool, collected manner. Democracy is not about electing the 'best' because nobody can agree on what the best actually is. Democracy is simply about knowing what people would like at a particular moment in time. If a country doesn't want to stay in the EU, then it is free to leave and an exit route will be found (the Lisbon Treaty includes just such an option). If a country doesn't want to be involved in more Europe, then it is free to stay on the sidelines.
This situation already exists in domains as important as the single currency and the scrapping of internal border controls. A few years ago, Sweden decided not to join the euro. In answer to a question about whether not being in the euro was a handicap for Sweden, the country's foreign minister, Carl Bildt, who will be chairing the Council of the EU in a few weeks' time, answered that of course it was a handicap and the Swedish economy would find it easier to cope with the crisis if the country were part of the euro. In a Europe of 27 Member States that is going to grow still further, not all countries have to aspire to the same level of integration. The important thing is to decide on ways and means for allowing those that want to move forward to do so. Integration is not compulsory but those that want to remain on the sidelines must not stand in the way of the others and must not demand handouts, funding and other benefits while at the same time ignoring solidarity and the common interest. (F.R. trans fl)