“Europe cannot be made all at once, nor will it be built all together; it will arise from concrete achievements which above all create a de facto solidarity”. With these words pronounced exactly 64 years ago (on 9 May, the day on which Europe Day is celebrated every year) in a hall on the Quai d'Orsay, the seat of the French Foreign Ministry, Robert Schuman, holder of that ministry , opened a new revolutionary chapter in the history of Europe. Revolutionary without a doubt. Since - just three years after the conclusion of a conflict that had bloodied and devastated the entire continent - he proposed to the perennial enemy, Germany (and to the other countries that wanted to join), to bring together under a single supranational "hat" the production of the two main raw materials, coal and steel, used up to that moment to produce the weapons that had bloodied Europe.
And he added that “the fusion (yes, Schuman used the term fusion – ed) of the production of coal and steel will immediately ensure the establishment of common bases for economic development, the first stage of the European federation. And it will change the fate of regions that for a long time have dedicated themselves to the manufacture of war instruments of which they have been the victims more constantly". That is, the border regions between France and Germany, which Schuman, a French border native born in Luxembourg, knew well having been deported to Germany by the Nazis in 1940. And having managed to escape from captivity two years later to return to France where would join the Resistance against the German occupation.
That revolutionary proposal was, as we know, immediately accepted by the Federal Republic of Germany (the part of Germany that had not ended up under Stalin's heel) then led by another convinced pro-European, Chancellor Konrad Adenauer. The latter, in all probability forewarned of the French initiative through highly confidential diplomatic channels, had to ensure the preventive assent of his country. Italy, Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg immediately joined the RFT to give birth not even a year later to the Czech (European Community of Coal and Steel). In other words, the first concrete shoot that would give life to what is now called the European Union in the span of half a century. An organization that since less than a year ago includes 28 sovereign states, which is neither a federation, as Schuman hoped, nor a confederation; but whose members have transferred a large part of their competences to the Union.
An organization that has no comparison in the world, born from a visionary project which then materialized through the contribution of men outside the municipality: in addition to Schuman, with his "mentor" Jean Monnet, and Adenauer, they deserve the definition of "fathers founders” of Europe at least Alcide De Gasperi, the Belgian Paul-Henri Spaak and, later in time, Altiero Spinelli. Men who, in a Europe still full of rubble, interpreted and nurtured that aspiration for peace at the origin of a Europeanism in constant growth for some decades. Men who, throwing their hearts over the obstacle, reached the hearts of citizens, fueling their trust in Europe.
In Italians, in particular, this sentiment was more marked than in the inhabitants of other European countries, as evidenced by the data relating to the turnout at the polls when voting for the European Parliament. Voting preceded by electoral campaigns during which there was more talk of internal issues than of programs for Europe. Certainly a paradox. But not too much if we consider that, according to opinion polls, our compatriots' knowledge of European issues remained at particularly low levels.
The pro-European sentiment on the part not only of the Italians but also of the citizens of other Member States (excluding the British, whose governors have always had one foot in and one out) has also been fueled by some relevant European successes which have objectively changed, mostly for the better, the lives of citizens. First of all, the birth, which is still not entirely complete, of the single market. Furthermore - among the innovations that have struck the collective imagination but which have had not indifferent practical advantages for citizens - the elimination of borders between member states, the exponential growth of air traffic and the parallel reduction in fares. And then, above all, Erasmus, the exchange program for university students which, albeit with some setbacks, has fueled the open-mindedness and cultural growth of an entire generation of young people.
Finally, the euro, initially seen by many as a virus that has fueled inflation: accusations with a minimum of foundation, it is true. Even if the statement, very widespread at the time, according to which consumer prices had doubled with the introduction of the single currency can be considered an urban legend that no serious economist has ever subscribed to. While the opinion is widely shared among experts that, without the euro, the poor lira would have sunk miserably, AND, with the national currency, the whole of Italy.
Retracing the path of European integration over the course of more than half a century, emphasizing some undoubted successes, cannot, however, lead to the conclusion that "everything is going well, Madame la Marchesa". Today's economic and social malaise is authentic; and it is documented by data, as well as by the testimonies of daily life. There is the increase in unemployment, which in Italy does not reach the rates of Spain or Greece but is nonetheless worrying here and in most of Europe. Then there is, on the same front, the youth sector which is now at levels that are no longer acceptable. And there is also, to reinforce the generalized concern, the difficulty of businesses, and also of citizens, in obtaining credit.
All the EU's fault, as some parties and movements wholeheartedly claim in view of the elections for the renewal of the European Parliament? No, because in an increasingly globalized world, there is no place for little ones. However, Europe is by no means exempt from responsibility. Because the obsessive insistence on the policies of rigor (of others…) smells a little burnt. But above all because the planned austerity has achieved, where it has been applied, positive results in terms of public finances. But, as the International Monetary Fund itself has acknowledged, it has not produced jobs.
So? So these forthcoming elections impose on everyone – rulers and ordinary citizens, political parties and representative bodies – the need for in-depth reflection to understand whether it is better to pursue the objective of no to Europe or to help bring about a Better Europe. Each voter is then free, in the secrecy of the voting booth, to express the choice he deems most convenient. Without however renouncing the fundamental right to cast one's vote.
