Pros and cons: the EU ” “divides political parties

No, the European elections of May 22 to 25 have not have sounded the death knell of the right-left divide that has always characterized Western parliamentary democracies. Not yet, in fact. Although there is a new, bipolar paradigm. On the one side, in the European Parliament sit a number of parties separated by historical reasons and conflicts, but which share the same views on essential issues. The harsh clashes over capital and labour belonging to a distant past have wane. The environmental challenge was first recognized by Green parties, but today, all parties acknowledge the relevance of this theme. Notably, the moderate right, Liberals, Socialists and Greens share a vanishing point that makes up for all other disputes that continue to exist, which mainly consist in quarrels between individuals, lacking ideological foundations.Conversely, all parties share the vanishing point of European integration. The large common market – with its competition policy, its common external trade policy and the euro as common currency – constitutes Europe’s cornerstone. The second pillar is the creation of an area of free circulation on a continental scale that will improve the coordination of a world on the move with 3% of global population in a migratory situation. Finally, a third pillar consists in the perspective of a European power capable of defending its own interests and values in the world. Taken together, these three aspects – organizing the large market, ensuring freedom of movement inside a united Europe and developing a shared and coherent foreign policy – are closely linked within the larger framework of a project envisaging 21th century goals for European sovereignty. This thesis does not lack coherence nor intellectual rigour, although it also generates fears and reticence. The main reason was explained past May 29 by Herman Van Rompuy in the acceptance speech of the Charlemagne Award in Aix la Chapelle. In his opinion, the focus of the “Thèse” parties has always been the organization of a European space, thereby neglecting the creation of a space understood in terms of a “strong space”. But citizens also need to feel protected inside the EU and from the EU itself. It should also be admitted that many representatives of the “Thèse” parties have lost credibility in the eyes of the voters. Michael Ignatieff, political analyst, ex leader of the liberal party in Canada, devoted an entire chapter of his latest book “Fire and Ashes” to this quality, critical to success in political battles. He describes it as the authority of being listened to and as a recognition stemming from credible political discourse. Politicians who enjoy credibility are worthy of trust in the eyes of their voters. Now, whether wrongly or rightly, the majority of “Thèse” political leaders appear to have no credibility. They suffer from a serious credibility loss. Perhaps it’s because they were never asked to make the sacrifices of their predecessors for their beliefs, and they conceive politics as one in many jobs. For all of these reasons opposition to the “These” has increased, especially over the past ten years. Eurosceptic parties now have 140 of their representatives with a seat in the European Parliament. However, it would be wrong to describe them as an antithesis to the “Thèse”. The more their members are disparate and in the minority, the more their ideology is formless and obscure. Their only vanishing point is the determination to set aside the “Thèse” and turn it into a historical mistake, with no further traces. That’s why we should call these parties “parenthesis parties”, or rather the “Paras” parties, from the Greek proposition “parà” that means “near to”. They are to be found in every corner of the “Thèse” parties. “Paras” combat the “Thèse” with a nostalgia for protected space and will continue to advance until traditionally pro-European parties respond to the legitimate will to live with a sense of security, and will thereby be morally renewed.