editorial" "
The more elderly among us may perhaps have been reminded of Winston Churchill who, in the mid-twentieth century, summed up the differences between Italy and Great Britain by remarking on the antithetical qualities of their respective rulers and people. The uproar in the European Parliament that accompanied the start of the six months’ Italian presidency on 2 July did however confirm some data on which it is worth reflecting. The first is that a shared agenda of European policies does exist: the excellent speech written by the Italian prime minister in fact met with wide support. It is a mistake to over-emphasize the revolving presidencies: the Union is a complex institution that proceeds according to consolidated practice: the various presidencies ought to be characterized by their capacity for action and direction on the current priorities on the agenda. This does not change, between the Italian presidency, the Greek one that preceded it, or the Irish one that will follow it. The agenda remains the same: constitutional treaty, development of relations with the USA for peace, social and budgetary policies, and policies for the support of development in a globally depressed economic situation (cf. Sir no. 43). The second is that there does not yet exist a European political space, as demonstrated by the arguments used in the lively barrage of preventive fire against the Italian presidency and by the dynamics of the inaugural session, with the anti-Berlusconi protests and his reply to them. The absence of a European political space ends up by making way for personal tantrums, long-standing rivalries or the clash between national stereotypes. The third fact on which the sad and astonishing spectacle of Strasbourg invites us to reflect is that relating to the forms of politics-as-showbusiness or “live” politics that characterized the end of the last century. They undermined the traditional forms of political expression and mediation typical of Europe in the decades following the Second World War. Far from stimulating the attention and participation of citizens, they seem to have an opposite effect: to instill underhand forms of violence, which are hardly conducive to the development of the fabric of democracy. What is fortunately emerging at the same time, however, is the futility of forms of radicalism, whatever connotation they have. There are no shortcuts, however alluring, to the patient work of building up consensus and solving problems. What are needed are patience, technical ability, professionalism, and a capacity to listen, to summaries and make decisions. In this sense, European politics and domestic politics are coming ever closer together. So, while the political forces are grappling with a delicate testing process, it is right and proper that public opinion should interrogate itself on the quality of the political debate and that all the social partners should strive to improve it.
