Great expectations

Date: 18/06/1998

The classic response from any organisation faced with a new and difficult problem is to set up a committee or working group to look into it. In that respect, EU leaders are no different from anyone else.

But they should be more wary than most of doing so. By deciding to hold an extra summit in mid-October to discuss the future of Europe and how to bring the EU “closer to the people”, they have raised expectations which are almost certain to be dashed.

For as European Commission President Jacques Santer bluntly pointed out both at his eve-of-summit press conference and at the Cardiff meeting itself, it is national governments themselves who are all too often to blame for new legislation emanating from Brussels. In an unusually outspoken attack, Santer said he was “fed up” with his institution being criticised for decisions taken unanimously by ministers from the EU's 15 member states.

While critics would argue that the Commission itself cannot duck all of the blame, citing measures such as the recently agreed EU-wide ban on tobacco advertising as an example of a proposal for new legislation which should never have been made, few would reject Santer's complaints out of hand. The red faces around the table at the summit when he listed the proposals for directives and regulations produced by the Commission at the request of governments were testimony enough to the strength of his argument. Is all that likely to change overnight just because EU leaders have agreed to devote a special meeting to the subject? Past history - in the shape of the Birmingham summit in 1992 and more recently, last November's special jobs summit in Luxembourg - suggests it will not.

The aftermath of the latter event illustrates the dangers of raising expectations which cannot be met. Much of the scepticism with which the national action plans submitted by EU governments, showing how they intend to live up to the promises made in Luxembourg, have been greeted stems from the fanfare which surrounded the summit.

It is therefore questionable, to say the least, whether heads of state and government were wise to agree to hold yet another 'special' summit to tackle what is universally acknowledged to be the most difficult of issues - that of handing back powers to national governments which have already been ceded to Brussels.

The public are not as naïve as some politicians like to think. They will not be fooled if all the October meeting produces is another raft of well-meaning rhetoric. That would only serve to increase popular scepticism about the Union and thus do more harm than good. the EU will . If that is all it is intended to achieve, EU leaders may well rue the day they decided to hold it.