More and better news

If Europe had been one of the themes of high-school final written exams, students would most likely not have opted for it. This is true across EU27. EU integration history; European citizenship; institutions’ role and activity; policies and programs and European citizenship are unheard of by the great majority of students. And they are of no interest whatsoever for one every two Europeans – as the record-breaking abstention rates in the past June 7 elections for the renewal of the Euro-chamber have shown. It’s an ancient plague, which instead of healing, in time has become chronic, and which is becoming increasingly worse. In this atmosphere, which is far from being ideal, the after-vote period is to become the mere aftermath of the pre-vote period. Not only as relates to the electoral campaigns, which focused more on domestic rather than on European issues – the latter being but a remnant of the past -, but also in reason of the superficial reading of Member States’ and world events provided by EU officers during the past five years. This is especially true when it comes to the European Commission, which is always ready to please one of the many governments or one of the many national interests, to the detriment of EU interests. This was evident with the failure of reforms, with the substantial cancellation of social policies from the agenda of Brussels and Strasbourg, with the pantomime on the “REACH” Directive on chemicals with the complicity of the European Parliament, with the dissimulated lack of interest towards the family and workers in a period marked by financial and economic crisis. And which went so far as to create a political vacuum inside and outside the European Union. Unfortunately or fortunately, we have reached the point for a new departure. And the players are mostly the same, which is not a good omen. Also, the same questions remain: will it be possible to find the political will of endowing EU institutions with new rules that keep pace with the times? Will Europe’s commercial drive be supported by equal political force? Will EU leaders have the needed dignity and strength to rid themselves of the ‘yes-sir’ countenance and fulfil their mandate in the legitimate interest not of Member States but of citizens themselves? Will the European Parliament speak with a strong voice and ensure that national parties devote more space to the claims of European party groups and related issues? The first testing grounds are the dossiers on agricultural reform and on the future regional, political, and cohesion policy after 2013. If it’s true that abstention-rates could be due to a negative view of the EU (even though the relationship between abstention and general improvement is yet to be proven), it’s equally true and it would be hypocritical and unjust not to acknowledge that European Union also means peace, freedom, cohesion, development and competitiveness. Not only in writing: the positive pages outnumber the negative ones. But who talks about it? Perhaps this is the core of the matter, which we must start working on immediately. Europe is hardly ever debated, and when it happens it’s to highlight its flaws. To this regard, the realms of communication and education have even greater responsibilities than governments and institutions do have. Provided that they realize and address the issue. For the past ten years SIR Europe has been promoting this view and will continue offering its professional contribution by informing and providing elements of reflection so that mature European thought may develop within the Church and across societies.