A wise and timely initiative. Contrary to the opinion of a number of commentators, I believe that the decision of Tony Blair to organise a referendum in his country (or another form of mass consultation) on the European constitution is wise and opportune. Many political forces in Britain have requested it and the refusal to consult the people would have constituted a permanent shadow on the approval of the constitution in the United Kingdom and could have been used by Euro-sceptics as an argument for reducing the participation of the country in Europe and for opposing an increasing number of common decisions.
Certainly, given the state of public opinion and the attitude of the British press, Tony Blair's approach is both a challenge and a wager. But it is necessary, indeed, useful. The debate that will logically precede the popular consultation will in effect allow Tony Blair himself and other pro-Europeans (they are in no short supply in the United Kingdom) to explain what the European Union actually is, what it represents and what its objectives are, in a context in which the citizens will certainly listen to him, whereas they are currently being force-fed charicatures, half-truths and downright lies about Europe served up to them by the so-called popular press. The "serious" press will also have to analyse and present its readers with more balance and objectivity than usual about what European construction means.
I've always believed in the sincerity of Tony Blair's European commitment and I've written about it on several occasions. Supporting the unity of Europe does not mean approving a priori everything that is elaborated and decided on in Brussels. It means believing in the usefulness, indeed, the need of a united Europe being in the interest of all, including one's own country, and having the ambition of being at the heart of what the European Union prepares and decides, including the setting up of certain common competencies. Two or three speeches on this subject by Tony Blair have been the best that Heads of government have made on Europe of recent years. The British people will be called on attempt to understand what is at stake and to say what they think about it (and not about the fatuous and meaningless bunkum served up for them every day by the press).
There is a risk but…Certainly there's a risk that the European constitution is not approved. But those who are already predicting disaster are attributing too much importance to recent opinion polls. The bet consists in quite rightly believing that an accurate presentation of the case will change the situation. The father of the constitution Valéry Giscard d'Estaing was right to declare a few days ago on British television that by voting against the constitution, the Untied Kingdom would be putting itself "on the margins" of Europe (others think that they would be quite clearly putting themselves "outside" of the Union). It's up to British citizens to decide. Those who share the opinion of Tony Blair have to use everything they have. It is in this context that I locate Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's position in support of Chris Patten as a future president of the European Commission (our bulletin of 4 May p 4). The latter, apparently, didn't know anything about it and had, into the bargain, already announced that his future activity would be based mainly at Oxford University. How can this unexpected initiative of the president of the Convention be explained? In my opinion, there is only one explanation: that of getting out the "yes" vote from the British people. The person has been chosen perfectly. Chris Patten has been an excellent European Commissioner not only because of his positive role in managing the Union's external affairs but also because of the frankness with which he has also spoken on the shortcomings of the EU and the attitude of his country to European integration. On 30 January he spoke at Cambridge University in a special speech on "Will the United Kingdom actually join Europe one day?" (see this section 6 February). Up until now it has not done so and Mr Patten is critical of this, considering that the positions of the Conservative Party, of which he was Chairman, are sometimes "ridiculous". As President of the Commission, Chris Patten, would demonstrate to his fellow citizens in an even more transparent way that supporting a united Europe is part and parcel of the two main political groupings in the country (for the third grouping, the action of Andrew Duff, speaks for itself) and would prove that someone from Britain could be the person mainly responsible for European policy (the memory of someone who preceded him in this task in the 1970s, Roy Jenkins, is still very much alive in Brussels),with the support of a Labour Party Prime Minister (Patten is a Conservative).
Difficult but positive, all the same. Let's be quite clear: the chances of the operation succeeding are very slight. The profile of the future president of the Commission outlined up until now appears to be that of someone from the small countries and older Member States will have to ask themselves whether to choose someone from a country that does not take part in the single currency or the Schengen agreement. But the fact that we are able to talk about it is in itself positive and could get British public opinion thinking.
(F.R.)