Sending out the Union message ‘loud and clear’

Date: 12/09/1996

T HE quality, and not the quantity, of information is the key if Europe's citizenry is to be reconciled to the cause.

Instead of drowning the public in statistics and data, the Union should boost its image, raise the debate and create symbols.

In 1812, just before Napoleon ordered the Russian retreat, a short item appeared in the pages of one of the most widely read publications in France, La revue de la grande armée (Great Army's Review), implying that the Russian campaign was heading for disaster.

The news, scarcely known until then, came as a bombshell. Paris panicked. The stock exchange collapsed. General Mallet attempted a putsch, and in its wake followed the inglorious demise of the First Empire.

This anecdote - which has long been used as an example to aspiring journalists - reminds us that in history, the cut-off point hangs by a thread: a snippet of information released at exactly the right moment in an ocean of propaganda.

Whether such reports are true (as in Napoleon's case) or false (as with the burial pits of Timisoara which, in 1989, caused the fall of President Ceausescu) is, in the circumstances, irrelevant: the message is all the more devastating because it contradicts the official truth churned out over the years.

The more an authority makes promises, puts out systematically positive messages and demonstrates unremitting self-satisfaction, the greater the risk of a devastating boomerang effect should the public ever discover the lie...

Thus recent press revelations about the European Commission's actual or assumed efforts to mask the gravity of the 'mad cow' crisis are significant, as they cast doubts on all the other official statements on the subject claiming that everything is “under control” and “all is well”.

Similarly, what if monetary union - presented as a fait accompli - were to be deferred or even cancelled?

No fall-back plan exists for such an eventuality and the set-back would wipe out, at a stroke, whatever confidence remains that Europe's leaders have the ability to unite the member states in a common cause.

Information technology is surging forward as fast as the world is changing. But in his book Powershift, Alvin Toffler warns that “the more the information society blasts us with images and facts, the harder it is to grasp what is happening”.

Even more difficult is the fact that today there is only one received way of thinking: free trade, productivity, maximum return, the lowering of interest rates, monetary union, enlargement towards the East. These are Europe's objectives, objectives which are published, recognised and bear the stamp of officialdom.

Better still, they are accepted by the member states as conforming to guidelines laid down by the GATT world trade accord, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.

This has all been settled, so no one dares disagree.

This condition, known as being of a single mind (la pensée unique), prevails not only in Brussels, but also throughout the member states.

It would be too easy to point the finger of blame at Europe's technocrats. But the Commission is a mere cog in the vast and complex Community process. The true masters are the member states. The Commission may well propose, but it is still the Council which makes the decisions, even if at times it does try to ignore this fact.

Criticism should be addressed at the system as a whole because, to quote Luc Guyau (the French agriculture union's president) in the preface to a recent essay on Europe: “Behind a bad Commission decision lurks a political figure avoiding his responsibility.”

Paradoxically, the disenchantment of Europe's citizens stems from the Community's successes. An increase in the number of members, the multiplication of issues and the rising stakes: circumstances which converge to bestow upon Brussels the most dazzling prestige but, equally, unparalleled suspicion.

European civil servants, parliamentary assistants, lobbyists and accredited journalists - none would deny the yawning gulf which has grown up between Europe and its citizens.

This breach carries within it the potential to shatter the Union, and exists for various reasons.

From year to year, everything has become increasingly complicated. The fact that there is no longer one person in Europe capable of grasping all the facets of Common Agricultural Policy regulations is one example.

Similarly, how many Euro MPs have mastered the subtleties of parliamentary procedure? How many of us can explain the assent procedure or non-compulsory expenditure? Precious few. There are days when glimpses of the extent to which the EU's administrative machine escapes all control are visible.

To allow the Economic and Social Committee to lose all its influence should no longer be tolerated, nor should advisory committees go unheard. For some time now, the voice of the socio-professional environment has regrettably petered out. Meanwhile, lobbyists proliferate unharnessed and unregulated. How can trades and associations simplify, instead of complicating, the democratic process if they do not have a framework of duties, a code of conduct and a legal status?

The Commission devotes big budgets to information and communication. Alas, all these pamphlets and brochures distributed through its 'Euro Info Centre' reveal complacent and tiresome coverage, rather than objective, attractive information.

If the main concerns of Europe's institutions are economic or free trade, for the man-in-the-street things are different: he would like life to be made simpler, to find work, be sure of a pension in retirement, the chance to learn languages.

Currency, growth and GATT are not his priorities. He wants the Union's internal market to be accomplished.

During 1996, the EU has held an Intergovernmental Conference. This 'IGC 96', of which approximately 15&percent; of the population is aware, has ambitions to enlarge the Community to countries in Eastern Europe, to define a common foreign policy and to bring Europe closer to its citizens.

After eight months of discussion, it has become blatantly clear that the 15 are unable to agree on anything.

Faced with such a fiasco, the only solution is a return to roots.

First, our aims need to be clearly defined. What kind of Europe do we want? A free trade zone? A common market? A Europe of nations? A federal Europe? Before proceeding any further, the key objectives have to be set.

This done, Europeans need to be informed about Europe: what is it for? How does it work? What are its structures, powers and procedures? Apart from some determined researchers and zealous lobbyists, who knows? Not even one in a thousand!

Then, whilst we are about it, why not give Europe some substance: create the European limited company, log-jammed for the past 20 years over minutiae, bring about European patents, harmonise electric plugs, promote languages and the mutual recognition of diplomas. Is it conceivable that 15 different phone cards are necessary to communicate while travelling in the Union?

By achieving the internal market, the EU will gain an identity. The growth of European businesses will not come from either the GATT or the World Trade Organisation, but from the harmonisation of standards, patents and accounting practices.

Giving life to the internal market is the priority. No Union will ever be achieved so long as Belgian hairdressers cannot set up a shop in France!

Sorry to be so banal, basic, even elementary, but the Union has to return to its roots to stake out its destiny, to put its message across.

No one has ever fallen in love with a growth rate, monetary union or even the GATT.

All of us can, however, be proud of a son or daughter able to master a foreign language, of seeing one's company open up a branch in another country - just as, to encourage citizens and technocrats to meet in a welcoming environment, we would be proud to see the buildings of the European institutions epitomise the strengths of modern town planning and architectural excellence.

Sorry to be petty, but it has always seemed to me that ambition without modesty is nothing but vanity.

Through his Brussels-based company CLAN Public Affairs, Daniel Guéguen represents the interests of trade and industry. He was formerly head of COPA/COGECA, the umbrella bodies for EU farmers and agricultural cooperatives.