Teaming up for Europe

Elections for the renewal of the European Parliament (EP) are around the corner. From 4 to 7 June all twenty seven member States will vote simultaneously. Around the corner, however, there are also different ways of interpreting the electoral rounds. There are some who rightly see and foresee this as an opportunity offered to Europe and its nearly 500 million citizens – through the only EC institution whose composition, since 1979, has been determined via direct universal suffrage – to make its presence felt despite the surviving impediments of the legislative and beaurocratic labyrinths of Brussels. Others, however, see this as just another occasion to use Europe for internal purposes, to “export” and dislocate elsewhere, their national party disputes and diatribes. In this case it would amount to a lost occasion. And unfortunately, this is precisely what it will be in many cases. The fact that local themes are discussed in a European context is in itself not to be criticized. At times it is even necessary in order to enable the partner to better understand the real internal situation and the different political positions in regard to certain matters (positions that it would be pretentious to expect to converge only because of loyalty to a common passport). Moreover, the European Parliament itself is divided not only into Commissions but also into Political Groups, and the National Delegations are organized within context of the European political families. To speak of one’s home country seems all the more fitting if we consider that three quarters of the laws discussed and adopted on the level of the Member States are transpositions or adaptations of EC norms within the internal legislative systems. As in all earthly matters, the problem arises when limits are passed and consequently one loses sight of the true nature of European parliamentary representation. The bad habit of division and the failure of team work is evident not only in the halls of the Parliament. Mutatis mutandis, similar situations are common also in the context of the employees of the Comunity where very often leading positions of considerable, even strategic importance, are decided without taking into consideration the European dimension of these offices. If, after the end of the Cold War, after the expansion to the East and at the beginning of a serious world economic crisis with few precedents, the European Union remains a structure limited to eternal affairs for national political parties and their exponents…then nothing has been learned. Today, more than ever, we face the duty and necessity for the electoral campaign for the elections of June to be played out on genuinely European themes, such as a common foreign policy, defence of the environment, immigration, the fight against social exclusion and the new forms of poverty, the promotion of social assistance and health care for all, the free circulation of professions, recognition of titles, European education, intercultural dialogue. The risk is that, to the contrary, voters will be subjected anew to televised electoral debates and meetings of various types, typical of political elections where Europe becomes an introductory pretext, to be archived after the first five minutes. In this case we will once more have lost the train for Brussels (not just the States, but their citizens will have lost it) and we will have given preference to short range thoughts and projects rather than to thoughts and projects that could create a great future for Europe – the future envisioned by its Founding Fathers – for itself, for the individual countries and for the entire world.