The solutions are on the table. The Member States seem to have woken up to the need to approve the Constitution this week. Tactical reasons bring such-and-such a political leader to deduce that it is better to postpone a decision than to make do with a substandard text. However, thanks to the Irish Presidency, solutions are on the table for almost all points (I would advise anyone who wishes to apprise themselves of the situation to read pages 3 and 4 of our bulletin of 15 June). Some of these solutions are a bit disappointing, but never to the point of justifying rejecting the Constitution. If it fails, we will be able to see who wanted it to, and I don't think it will take long for people to react: those who are determined to go along the integration path will prepare to do so amongst themselves. A Foreign Minister did not hesitate to put into words what many were thinking: after all that has happened (including the elections), after the word-for-word analysis of the controversial points, after the Presidency's efforts to present reasonable wording, if the agreement does not happen at the end of this week, it never will. There will be attempts to mask the failure, to wrap it up in conciliatory soundbites hinting at possibilities of compromise, but in reality, the Convention's draft will be dead and buried. The EU will go on with the Treaty of Nice, with neither style nor enthusiasm; but at the same time, a group of Member States will be preparing the future, with initiatives open to any who want to take part.
Countries preferring a simple economic Union, guaranteeing free trade and business management, will have it. Those with greater ambitions will achieve them. Everyone will have the Europe they want.
But we're not there yet. I remain convinced that the Heads of Government, with greater or lesser degrees of conviction, will be able to avoid the split. Everyone will tell their public what they want to hear. Europe will have its Constitution, imperfect, lacking, whatever you want to call it, but even so, it will represent spectacular progress on the road to a united Europe.
Let the opposition speak. I am well aware that the Constitution has its detractors; they showed their colours at last week's elections, they will be represented in the European Parliament and will be able to campaign against ratification. If any nation goes along with them, then this must be duly noted. I don't believe in this, and I firmly believe that the "ayes" will have it at the referendum, even in the United Kingdom, with an election campaign based on the reality of the EU, not caricatures, lies and the myths peddled by a section of the British press. In any case, no country is obliged to stay in the Union; the exit door is always open.
Let democracy do its job. I don't share the concern caused by the Eurosceptics' entering Parliament. Parliament should reflect public opinion; the anti-Europeans have the right to free expression, if they are voted in. There's nothing to say that tomorrow, when they get to know the Union better, they won't come round to its real objectives. I much prefer those who openly oppose Europe to those who hide their hostility under a pseudo-scientific cloak, like the ATTAC/Wallonia-Brussels movement, who reject the Constitution (and call upon others to do the same), but claim to be in favour of European integration. Their attitude (see "Le Soir" of 3 June) is, in my view, deceitful and anti-democratic. They say that the draft Constitution is radically neo-Liberal, and take as their proof… the draft Bolkestein directive on services, and provisions on service of general interest (SGIs). However, the Constitution, quite logically, doesn't say a word about the Bolkestein directive; it's only a draft, it's hotly contested within the Institutions themselves, and will be decided by the Council and European Parliament jointly, in codecision. Let democracy do its job. On SGIs, the Constitution reflects the most spectacular progress Europe has seen, in their recognition as a pillar of the European social model, so much so that the Commission was able to write that their mission "takes precedence over the application of the rules of the Treaty", and that SGIs "are not subject to these rules in the measure needed to allow them to fulfil their general interest mission". This principle is added to the Court of Justice rule that State aid needed to pay for "universal services" are a priori legal. This is the result of twenty years of debate, which would be wiped out if the Constitution is not adopted. Encouraging people to reject it is an example of fanatical idealism. The Constitution dictates the principles, and this time they are in order. The detailed contents of Union policies will then be determined by the results of national elections (to define governments' positions, and therefore that of the Council), and the European elections (to define the position of the EP, the second legislator on an equal footing with the Council). To try to set this content in stone within the Constitution is denying democracy and how it works.
(F.R.)