EU participation must remain voluntary. I do not share the reservation expressed regarding inclusion in the constitutional Treaty of a clause that would allow an EU Member State to withdraw from the Union if it wishes to do so. Some Convention members (apparently even within the Convention Praesidium) fear that such a possibility would be an instrument for bargaining available to those threatening to leave the ship if it does not go in the direction they want. This is absurd. Nothing, absolutely nothing should be done to hold back those that might wish to leave. No country or people should ever be given the impression that it is a prisoner within the Union. How many countries are begging and insisting that the door should be opened up to them! If any government, parliament or population were to want to pull out - something I very much doubt - then the way out is open. The EU is not the Soviet Union, it does not send its tanks to hold back those who are reticent. So we should welcome the outlet clause, which only confirms the voluntary nature of any participation.
Even sovereignists do not include withdrawal from the Union in their programmes. Jean-Marie Le Pen had tried to do so, during the last presidential elections in France, but as soon as the experts explained to him that giving up the euro would mean at least 30% devaluation in the national currency and an impressive rise in interest rates, he relegated these urges to the background. For others, it is not only monetary considerations that dictate the choice of staying. Sovereignists and Eurosceptics are seeking to guide EU policies "from the inside" in the direction that they prefer, but they do not recommend that their countries should leave. They know full well that they would not be followed by a majority of the population. The Convention, for its part, is seeking to make "differentiation" (enhanced cooperation, vanguard) practical so that everyone may choose his level of integration. And in the candidate countries where the people have still to express their views (two have already done so - Slovenia and Malta), we shall have to wait for the results of the referendums. If any were to decide not to join, it would certainly not be the Union that would raise concern.
European integration proves that war is an old-fashioned idea. I have the impression that those who fear the withdrawal clause could be a temptation forget (or have never known) what European integration means. I shall not repeat the arguments that long faithful readers of this column are already familiar with, but I shall cite what one journalist whom I admire and who, at the age of 80, has lived through fascism, nazism, wars and resistance (Giorgio Bocca) wrote recently. He said: "The European Union has proven that war is not, as Clausewitz used to say, the necessary and almost inevitable continuation of politics. It has shown that countries that have come through thousand-year old wars, steeped in war culture, cannot only live without wars but are even almost incredulous that wars ever existed and that the French, English, Germans, Italians and Spanish were able to cut each other's throats to the point of creating the decadence of Europe by their hands. For the first time in the history of Mankind, the idea is beginning to spread that war is an old-fashioned thing …" Events in the world prove that this new idea is still far from being affirmed everywhere but that it does work in the united Europe. Within the European Union, and even when killing continues at its borders as in the former Yugoslavia, the countries that have been the most war-torn in history have learnt to resolve their differences in other ways.
Beyond peace. Peace is not everything. The Union is also preparing an area of freedom, security and justice within its bosom and, whatever the failings may be, democracy and respect of human rights represent the compulsory basis for this edifice. Countries which do not respect such things would be suspended or even expelled. Just the aspiration of joining the Union has made a powerful contribution to speeding up the progress of candidate countries towards the adoption and application of these principles. The existence of a "European model of society" is increasingly obvious. Despite its faults and failings, emigrants from all over the world hurry to the borders of Europe and sometimes risk their lives to get there. Europe, of course, cannot take in all those who are persecuted and all those suffering from poverty in the world (it only represents 5-6% of the land mass), and it must defend its civilisation and its achievements. It has, however, proven that it is possible to put aside the old grudges between peoples and to settle the problems of minorities and the coexistence of different religions and races. It is an example and a model to follow. Why should it fear an outlet clause? The Convention must include this clause into its Constitution and the IGC must approve it. If any member does not wish to stay, then it must be free to choose to leave. I do not believe there would be a rush to do so. (F.R.)