Misinterpretation. The percentage of voters in the European Parliament elections remains low. In a few member states it has increased slightly and in others it has continued to fall. This is regrettable but I reject the idea that this means the public are disenchanted with the idea of European construction. This interpretation is, above all, the idea advocated by political forces whose voters did not support them as they expected. I think this is false.
Polls illustrating support for European construction in itself, on the contrary, indicated increasing support often going above 60% and sometimes 80%, to the point that even the most explicitly Eurosceptic political currents were quick to emphasise that they were not opposed to unity in Europe but rather to the form that this is taking. At the same time, every one of the countries on the EU's current borders is queuing up to join the EU - this is their one and only aspiration. The EU is surrounded by people dreaming of joining the EU, even when geographical considerations cast some doubt on whether they are actually in Europe. The idea of European unity is not under threat - it has never been so alive and kicking. “Europe fatigue” is an invention, apart from a few fringe elements of the population who are obviously free to express themselves as they so wish. The level of their ideas can now be calculated and, if needs be, they can be invited to carry out their wishes and further distance themselves.
Excessive blame. Why was voter-turnout so low then? I believe there are two essential reasons to explain why. The first is the level of blame the election campaign heaped on the Community institutions for their mistakes - the European Commission's inefficiency, the level of Community bureaucracy, the failings of Parliament itself. This discrediting has not left any blemishes on the European idea but has partly done so with regard to those who represent this idea, above all, the habitually abstract notion defined by the term “Brussels”, remote and up to no good, when in actual fact, the management of the EU is increasingly the result of a complex institutional dialectic, which is far from perfect but which is often dynamic and contradictory (in the sense that all the different political currents can express themselves”) and pretty efficient.
Misunderstanding. The second reason for the resounding silence from a section of the European population is obvious: both the political class and the means of information employed have been unsuccessful in helping citizens understand the importance the European Parliament has with regard to their future and everyday lives. Awareness that this Parliament is the author of laws and regulations governing the EU as a whole and thus each member state (and this role will increase) has not been sufficiently conveyed. The most obvious examples existing are unknown, badly explained or misunderstood. The most spectacular case is that of the “Bolkestein directive”. Parliament radically amended it and removed the aspects that provoked the most fear and concern. Despite this, certain political forces often disingenuously blamed Parliament, instead of congratulating it, for a text that no longer had anything to do with the initial draft. A lot of the credit should also go to the European Parliament for a number of other success stories, such as the regulation on chemical products (even if, logically, it did not satisfy everyone) and the European position on climate change (which should have a decisive effect at a global level). The EP's position will also be decisive on other essential questions regarding the future of humanity, particularly the issue of agriculture/environmental protection/risks to the food chain.
Each to their own. To explain this absenteeism, Mr Herzog declared on Sunday evening that citizens had sought to send out a message: “We don't like Europe as it currently stands”. Well, by giving them the chance to decide on the composition of the European Parliament for themselves, the elections were an invitation for citizens to decide exactly what kind of Europe they wanted. Those who voted did so and those who didn't vote failed to understand.
It is encouraging to see that the citizens who decided to answer this invitation largely voted in favour of the political forces supporting a deepening in European construction, who are working within the institutions and Parliament to this end. Those who have seen the European elections simply as preparation for their national ambitions have often come unstuck. Although the Eurosceptics may have made progress in this or that member state, the result should not be any cause for alarm. Everyone is free do decide for himself and the country in question will have the chance to remain on the sidelines of a deepening in European construction but without being able to block the rest. (F.R./transl.rh)