In France, left-wing, right-wing and far-right-wing political parties are beginning the European election campaign by fighting over the slogan ‘A Europe that protects’. In the midst of an economic crisis, this is precisely what the French expect of Europe. What is more astonishing, and more distressing, is that everybody always seems to jump on the bandwagon and make ‘Brussels’ the scapegoat for all our ills, whether real or imaginary. All those who are having a good laugh at the commotion surrounding the composition of rosé wine draw the same conclusion: ‘Why on earth is the EU concerned with such trivial matters, rather than focusing on what is important?’

The most famous case that comes to mind and is being talked about once more is the European Regulation on the manufacture of cheeses made from raw milk. Seventeen years later, Charles Pasqua’s impressive diatribe still strikes fear into the hearts of the weak-minded. What! The technocrats in Brussels think that they can teach our fine producers how to make Vacherin cheese? Bellow, you cattle, ring those bells! What bee was in those penpushers’ bonnet? Quite simply … the representatives of French producers. For a cheese made from raw milk that has been poorly manufactured could cause the dreadful infection known as listeriosis, a potentially deadly disease which still occasionally occurs in humans. Our European partners seized upon this pretext to ban imports of these French cheeses. The only way to appease them was to convert the French rules on the manufacture of cheeses made from raw milk into an EU regulation. This was done, allowing our farmers to expand their client base, much to the satisfaction of producers, consumers, our trade balance … and anti-European rabble-rousers.

The current situation reminds us that the health risk is neither imaginary nor, unfortunately, limited to cheese: recent reports tell us that dozens of people in Marseilles are suffering, and two people have died, from food poisoning after eating Figatelli, a type of spicy Corsican sausage. Will the technocrats in Brussels now need to teach Corsican pig farmers how to make sausage? No, but if the Corsicans want to continue exporting, they will need to provide some sort of guarantee, one that is valid outside the island…

Then we have this decision that has been taken on rosé wine. Here, I must pay tribute to the Sunday edition of the Sud-Ouest, the Bordeaux region’s official newspaper, for daring to give some serious thought to the issue, rather than simply adding its voice to the general clamour. Who asked Europe to interfere with oenological practices? Well, … it was France, in the first place, as all of its producers were calling for the rules to be harmonised. It is this harmonisation that allows us, among other things, to retain the right to chaptalise our wines – a process that involves adding sugar to the fermentation process in order to increase the alcohol content – much to the intense disapproval of our Italian and Spanish competitors. Is the coupage, or blending, of red and white wine synonymous with poor quality? Surely not, since it has always been permitted for AOC wines (Vins d’Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée, i.e. with a registered designation of origin), including, therefore, both champagne and Provence wines, whose producers have nevertheless been the first to shout out loud! This is because coupage has nothing to do with quality: it was prohibited at a time when European subsidies varied according to the colour of the wine, providing an opportunity for some clever tricksters to cheat by mixing different shades. Moreover, it has always been legally possible, for any type of wine, to blend red and white grapes at an early stage in the wine-making process! As the Secretary-General of the Spanish Wine Federation says: ‘What right does Brussels have to prohibit a practice in connection with table wines that is already permitted for wines with a registered designation of origin? Do these AOC wines, which are usually subject to stricter rules than are other types of wine, justify such special treatment?’

The solution is obvious: appropriate labelling and a marketing campaign to promote quality wine. This approach proved to be remarkably successful for chocolate: a decade ago, France had been up in arms, not because ‘Brussels’ intervened to regulate the amount of additional vegetable fats used in the make-up of the finished product – which is what the French were calling for – but because it authorised the use of other fats in the manufacture of chocolate. The marketing people had a field day over the matter: real dark chocolate and quality chocolates have never sold so well as they did back then.

Three conclusions can be drawn.

The first is that it is clear that the EU should deal only with important issues; their importance should be gauged not by the technical nature of the subject but by the potential economic, social, health and environmental consequences. When it comes to the operation of the Common Market, fair competition and, more importantly, consumer safety, seemingly minor points can prove decisive. An example might be the thickness of the doors of commercial aircraft in the field of aviation safety.

The second is that, the day when the audio-visual mass media have the courage of some of their regional colleagues to do their job against the prevailing wind, Europe’s image will change for the better. Public debate stands to gain a great deal from such a development.

The third concerns politics. When discussing Europe, there are some who speak only of trivial matters because they want the EU’s extraordinary achievements, especially with regard to major issues, to be forgotten. In this unprecedented financial crisis, what is it that has saved France from being affected by the turmoil in the currency markets? Its membership of the euro area. However, it is difficult to admit that when we voted against the Maastricht Treaty or when we used the President of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, as an institutional scapegoat. Who was it who devised the energy/climate plan which places Europe at the forefront of the world’s fight against global warming? It was the European Commission, led by France’s other favourite scapegoat, José Manuel Barroso, and not ‘Saint’ Nicolas Hulot. Careful. We are starting to become politically incorrect here.

Alain Lamassoure, 14 April 2009

On the eve of the 2009 European election campaign, let us take a moment to review the parliamentary term that is now drawing to a close. The events that have taken place during that parliamentary term are enough to make your head spin!

In 2004, the challenge facing the European elections was clear: the European Union had five years to try to catch up. It was behind in terms of its economy, mired in slow growth in comparison with the spectacular performance of emerging market economies and the continued strength of the US economy. It was behind in terms of its organisation, with the EU’s major enlargement to include the countries of Central and Eastern Europe ultimately taking place before the institutions had been reformed, something which should have been a prerequisite for enlargement: the political Europe of 25 was still operating according to the rules of the modest little Common Market of the Six from 50 years ago! It was also behind in terms of its diplomacy, too often marred by disagreements or simply absent when it came to major international issues. For the peoples of Europe, this series of failures to make any real progress became a source of growing concern at a time when the increasing pace of globalisation was heightening the contrast between a world that was undergoing a process of change and a continent that was struggling to ensure that its mechanisms were in full working order so that it could face the challenges of the 21st century.

Indeed, just after the 2004 elections, all the conditions seemed to have been met for the Union to be given the fresh impetus that it so desperately needed. The 12 new Member States joined the European family with impressive ease. In its role as guarantor of democratic legitimacy, the European Parliament, for the first time, imposed on the European Council its own candidate for President of the European Commission, the youthful José Manuel Barroso. The newly appointed Commission soon set about relaunching the ‘Lisbon Strategy’ in a major effort to catch up in terms of global competitiveness, whilst making the Stability and Growth Pact more flexible in order to render it more conducive to economic growth. In October, the Rome European Council signed the draft Constitutional Treaty, designed to provide greater Europe with the effective and democratic institutions which it clearly needed.

Unfortunately, in spring 2005, the Union was plunged into a very serious internal crisis. Ostensibly, the crisis was brought about by the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty in the referendums held in France and the Netherlands. However, under the surface, and just as crippling, was the budget crisis which arose as a result of the Member States’ refusal to address the fundamental problem of Community budget resources. The compromise reached in December 2005 under Tony Blair’s Presidency ‘guaranteed’ that the Union would not have available resources that were greater than 1.04% of GDP until 2013! Greater Europe was left with no institutions, no money and, consequently, no credible projects. Its economy was still crippled by the stagnation of the three major continental countries, Germany, France and Italy, which were unable to carry out the necessary reforms to enable them to catch up with the front runners of the economically stronger countries.

Yet, at that time, Europe showed an amazing ability to bounce back in the face of adversity. The European Parliament, acting in the stead of the Commission, which had been left stunned by the referendum rejections, took legislative power by completely rewriting the Directive on free movement of services, for which the Member States’ governments were quick to show their support. Its Committee on Budgets found a solution for the funding of the EU’s iconic project, Galileo, the future European GPS. The European Commission, generally uneasy about dealing with institutional and financial matters, continued working towards the completion of the single market and showed far greater courage in tackling environmental issues, particularly with regard to the proposed REACH Regulation for the chemicals industry and the establishment of a quota system for greenhouse gas emissions. The reforms undertaken by the outgoing Schröder Government enabled Germany to restore its strong competitive edge, while, in France, the birth of a new political generation in keeping with the times reflected a desire for real change.

During the first half of 2007, the astral conjunction which saw the German Presidency of Angela Merkel aligned with the election of Nicolas Sarkozy provided an opportunity, in just a few weeks, for an alternative solution to be found to the Constitutional Treaty: this was to be the Treaty of Lisbon. In another stroke of good timing, the German Presidency was followed soon after by a French Presidency. The French President, driven by the desire to restore people’s faith in Europe and plagued by the Old Continent’s continuing failure to make any real progress, set himself an ambitious agenda to breathe new life into the Union. He successfully encouraged his partners to reach agreement on a common immigration policy, as well as on a highly ambitious plan to fight climate change.

However, it was said that, during this five-year parliamentary term, the gods on Mount Olympus would certainly spare Zeus’s princess-elect nothing. The French Presidency began amid a new internal crisis: the ‘No’ vote in the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty; it then continued with the diplomatic crisis over the conflict between Russia and Georgia before ending with the global financial crisis triggered by the collapse of US investment bank Lehman Brothers.

The second half of 2008 was to mark a dramatic shift from one world to another. These massive events ruthlessly revealed the strengths and weaknesses of all international players. It came as a nice surprise that, under Nicolas Sarkozy’s energetic leadership, the European Union established itself, for the first time, as a key player on major international issues. Europe’s strong diplomatic intervention led Moscow to halt its troops 40 km from Tbilisi and then bring them back to their bases. In response to the threat of global financial meltdown, it was the European Plan for Economic Recovery that succeeded in restoring market confidence where the Americans’ Paulson Plan had failed. It was also Nicolas Sarkozy, supported by the 27, who secured a meeting of the group of the world’s 20 largest economic powers, the G-20, first in Washington in November 2008 and then in London in April 2009, in order to find global solutions to a global crisis. In the light of the urgency and severity of events, a unique and successful working relationship was established between Paris, Berlin and London. Meanwhile, in this maelstrom of uncertainty, the euro area emerged as a haven of strength and confidence.

At the same time, however, the crisis grew more widespread and more devastating with each passing day. As the parliamentary term draws to a close in spring 2009, Europe is facing its worst economic recession since the end of World War II. While America has found strong and inspired leadership in Barack Obama, the European Union’s newly acquired visibility is drowning in the murky waters of Czech politics. Meanwhile, the worsening state of the Irish economy is making it increasingly difficult to secure the lifting of Ireland’s veto on the Lisbon Treaty, which it is still hoped will come about by the end of the year.

Five years later, here we are, living in a different world. All the major Western banks have been given a financial lifeline from the State, as has the automobile industry. The response to the crisis has sent most governments spiralling even deeper into debt, whilst prompting the central banks to focus on ‘quantitative easing’, which consists of nothing more than printing excessive amounts of money. The crisis will have unpredictable social and political consequences on every continent. The end of the crisis will bring about a tremendous redistribution of wealth among the various economic actors and between countries, and it will require an unprecedented revival of the political debate between Left and Right: bleeding-heart anti-capitalism now has no more meaning than militant liberalism. It will be up to the new Parliament, the new Commission and future Council Presidencies to lay the foundations of this new world.

That is the challenge facing the elections on 7 June 2009. It is quite simply mind-boggling! Will the people of Europe understand quite what is involved here? It is now for the political parties, universally formed and structured for the sole purpose of securing political power within a national government, to urge European electors to cast their vote. However, this is clearly one area where it is not going to be easy to make up for lost time…

Alain Lamassoure, 6 April 2009