The public turnouts of the European elections once again enforced the voice of eurosceptics. Their conclusion is simple: the absenteeism doubled by the negative vote against some governments from the member states show that European citizens don’t want to continue a closer integration of their countries. Moreover, the same eurosceptics sustain that the rise of nationalism and far right parties in Europe indicates that the idea of a European identity remained just a theoretical construction.

Are these conclusions valid or are they hiding some false premises? In fact, the question has special importance since the lack of interest for the European parliament shows just one thing which is its flagrant uselessness! The eurosceptics affirm that this “futility” of the European Parliament is paid by the European citizens and their money is spent only for the salaries and various grants of MEP’s! So, their question is simple: why should we maintain such an expensive political system, called the European Union?

This analyse will try to prove that all these conclusions of eurosceptics are false.  

It is true that the polls show certain absenteeism: less than half of the EU citizens voted, precisely 45.5% out of the total population. On the other hand, the negative trend of absenteeism was always constant, if you look at the past turnovers: at the first elections in 1979, 63% voted, in 1984, 61%, in 1889 again only 54% of the citizens voted and these electoral features continued until the present election when the percentage reached the level of 45.5%. At the same time, the general interest for European affairs grew regularly as well due to the economic and political successes which produced a great expansion of the EU.

How can this paradox be explained? There is just one explanation: the absenteeism does not come from the lack of interest from Europeans but from the incapacity to identify what is at stake. The reason is very simple: the European citizens are asked to vote at the European level parties which exist only on the national scale. Thus, in fact, it is not possible at this stage to have a real vote in Europe. What we have now in the European Parliament is only political groups, made up from different parties with quite diverse doctrines. For instance, EPP-ED group is made up from parties with different orientations: in the same group stay together the British Conservatives which are, more or less against a closer Union and Christian-Democrats from Germany and from Belgium who support the united Europe. Even Forza Italia of the Italian premier Berlusconi is part of the same EPP-ED group in spite of its vague doctrine. Another example, the Liberal group (ELDR) comprises parties with different political features such as Venstre and Radikale Venstre, both from Denmark, a country where these parties stay in opposite coalitions! Another important differentiation exists between the British Liberal Democrats and the National Liberal Party from Romania, the last one being a party situated more to the right comparing to the British L.D. These ideological confusions are doubled by the lack of a competition between the political personalities of each party. As everybody knows, the political groups from the Parliament do not elect a candidate for the most important position of the European Commission, namely its president. Unfortunately, the president is elected by the European Council, more precisely by the member states. The Parliament has just an honorific role that is to approve the decision of the European Council. In fact, this procedure is not transparent, it is not democratic and it

 

 

bans the participation of the European citizens to the EU decision process. Moreover, everybody could see that at the last Inter Governmental Conference (IGC) it was impossible to have an agreement regarding the person who will exercise the position of the Commission President. In addition, the same procedure raises conflicts between member states who sustain different candidates and it may end with an agreement upon a weak person who did not disturb nor provoke any discussion about difficult issues of the EU agenda. 

In the end the absenteeism of the EU voters and their implications in the EU affairs can be solved by taking two major decisions: on the one hand, to form real political parties at the European level made up from politicians from all member states with the same political orientation and on the other hand, each party will elect a person for the position of the Commission President. The president of the Commission should be elected directly by the EU citizens according with an electoral system in two rounds based on majority vote.

In this way, the voters will not hesitate between absenteeism and a vote against their governments. Anyway, concerning this negative vote one should notice that in Greece, Finland, Luxembourg or Spain the electorate voted for the government in power at this moment. Moreover, in Great Britain it is very difficult to assert that the voters voted against the Government of Tony Blair because he had a more pro-European approach. It was because of his support of the Iraq war against the electorate will.

Finally, the last argument of eurosceptics refers to the problematic European identity. In general, the criticism of such an identity shows a kind of nationalism, disguised in anti-globalisation and anti-Europe. In fact, European identity is based on the national identity of the member states and not on its exclusion. Nobody wants to replace the national identity with a European one. Constantin Noica, a Romanian philosopher described very well the necessity of having a national identity by saying that “it is important to describe the sky of that part of world where you were born”, in other words, from the unique perspective of that spiritus locis where you happen to live. On the other hand, European identity completed the national one by opening towards a common geographic and spiritual space with a common history. Comprising rich cultural   tradition, the European identity is based on tolerance, respect for the others and a specific curiosity for the neighbouring cultures.

Nevertheless, nationalism in Europe should not be underestimated. Pretending that they fight for various social claims (we want better schools, higher salaries, more social protection, stop emigration or, in the European Constitution our needs are not protected!) a party like UKIP asks explicitly: Great Britain must leave the European Union! This kind of rhetoric brought gave UKIP 12% of the British voters. Another party with the same ethos, namely Vlams Blok claims the independence of Flanders from Belgium and fighting the immigrants of this country. After the last local election in Belgium, Vlams Blok became the second party in the Flemish region! 

Most of the nationalists think that their countries can resist economically outside the EU. In fact, they forget that the European Union was created to provide a peaceful environment where European countries can work together and face the global competition of bigger economic powers. The same EU brought and continues to bring to its member countries prosperity, peace and tolerance.