A difficult birth. The composition of the political groups at the new European Parliament will be known next week. We will then have some kind of basis on which we can assess the real power of the different political forces, the probable and possible alliances and therefore, at the same time, the perspectives for the first operational decisions, particularly on the presidency of the Parliament itself and the votes for or against a further mandate for Mr Barroso as president of the European Commission. What we are able to see and hear at present on this subject and on a few other pressing matters, emanates from more or less subterranean machinations that are likely to change at any given moment. The balance of power will be different if the socialist group attains (by changing its name) around 20 MEPs from the Italian Democratic Party, or if these MEPs are spread across several different groups (the decision is planned for this Wednesday). The situation regarding the Eurosceptics, following the decisive annihilation by voters of the movement funded by Declan Ganley, depends largely on whether the British Conservatives obtain a sufficient number of partners to set up a homogenous group. We could extend this listing further but what would be the point? All will become clear in a few days' time. In the meantime, the analyses and reactions to the elections continue and three points warrant a few comments.
Support for a united Europe is borne out. First point: an opinion asserted in this column (EUROPE 9916) is making headway. I believe that the low voter turnout, regrettable as it is, does not mean that the public is turning away from European construction. Four elements support this: 1) the opinion polls preceding the elections indicated over 60% support everywhere for European construction and participation in the EU, and often reached a figure of 80%; 2) countries on the EU borders aspire to joining the Community and are exerting pressure to obtain this goal; 3) citizens who voted, largely supported political figures who came out in support of further European construction, and broadly rejected those who were only interested in objectives at a national level; 4) the Eurosceptics were wiped out by the voters.
This evaluation is being increasingly backed up. The high abstention rate did not indicate a disinterest on the part of the public towards the European idea and even less so, a rejection of it. It bears out, on the contrary, a broad misunderstanding of the role and real powers of the European Parliament. It was the Eurosceptics and Europhobes who did not achieve the results they had hoped for.
Encouraging a high abstention rate? Second point: one previous MEP who was fortunately re-elected, Alain Lamassoure, provided another reason behind the high abstention rate: the excessive strictness of the rules that restricted the freedom of the candidates' action almost everywhere. In his opinion, “there is such a fear of the candidates going above their spending ceilings and one form of the media putting them in a good light to the detriment of their opponent, that silence and inaction remains the only way in which they cannot be faulted”. At a time when politicians should be speaking out most and voters expect them to, their means of speaking out is cut from under them. According to Lamassoure, the monitoring bodies “play the role of 'Supreme Abstentionist Council'”. This said, in his opinion those who do not vote are always wrong: “they will not be taken seriously when they complain of the decisions taken by the leaders they allowed others to elect”.
One might also refer to the fact that in the older member states, voter turnout remained just about stable. It was, to a large extent, the member states of Central and Eastern Europe that had the highest abstention rates. But what for? The public in these countries have even more reason than the others to learn how the EU works at an institutional level, as well as about the direct repercussions resulting from their MEPs' decisions on their daily lives. A few more years will be needed before they are totally aware of this.
Reconciliation definitively accomplished. Third point and perhaps the most instructive: in the opinion polls, senior citizens once again indicated that the benefits of European construction include peace and an end to fratricidal European wars. Young people never indicated this; for them a war between member states is inconceivable. We, the older generation, are happy to take note of this because it means that the most important goal of the founding fathers of Europe, reconciliation between countries that formerly tore each other apart every 20 years on average, has been attained. Young people consider peace as just a dream in areas still plagued by war. Europe has achieved this dream and we no longer give it any thought because we are looking further afield, which can't be a bad thing at all. (F.R./transl.rh)