On several occasions, and in this column on 20 June, I have stressed that one must trust in the democratic method and in the ability of the European people, if they are kept well informed, to understand the stakes and the scope of European construction. The first condition for making citizens feel involved is of course to consult them, so that they immediately feel they are the ones making the decisions. It is true that this makes the debate more difficult as pro-Europeans cannot manage with rhetoric alone and statements of principle on the current and mainly past European civilisation: solid arguments are needed. But the same is true of the Eurosceptics: impassioned nationalism and falsehoods about European construction will no longer suffice. One should therefore not be afraid of referendums or public discussion on the Constitution.
Placing one's trust in the people, if they are correctly informed. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing spoke along these lines. In his last interview before adoption of the Constitution ("La Croix" of 16 June), he had said: "There are times when one must look at the democratic people as responsible. If they do not want Europe, then there will be no Europe! This would be a great pity but I consider European awareness will emerge. The arguments put forward by those who are hostile because they are ignorant or biased will fade away". On the specific case of the United Kingdom, he had spoken of a "spiteful and untruthful branch of the British press" who harassed Tony Blair. He added, however, that, if the House of Commons approves the Constitution, then "the climate of the referendum will not be that of today". He had tackled the hypothesis of failed ratification with the same serenity: "It was said that, if this situation were too happen again, it would be a problem for the countries that refuse, not for the others! Naturally, if refusal of the Constitution were powerful and significant in a large number of countries, it would disappear". However, if there were only rejection by one country, or by a small number of countries, then these countries "would be invited to adopt other forms of association. For example, taking a place in the European economic area, as is the case for Norway". In his press conference after approval of the Constitution (see our bulletin of 22 June, page 5), he observed that "criticism is often inspired by a lack of knowledge of the text".
Reality as opposed to myth. Tony Blair himself has said that his "battle" for the "yes" vote will be a "battle between reality and myth" (see our bulletin of 22 June, p.7), that is, between the reality in Europe in construction and the legends that are going around about it. A foretaste of the general kind of arguments in favour of the Constitution was provided by Tommaso Padoa Schioppa, Director of the European Central Bank, who believes the evolution under way proves that Europe is a "political battle". "For centuries, and up to our fathers and grandfathers who died by the million, the combat was always a military one. Let us not forget the caricature of a technocratic, bureaucratic and Soviet Europe. European soil today is not destroyed by armies at war or built by technocrats, but nurtured by politicians, parliamentarians, and the voters". (Corriere dell Sera of 22 June).
Is this the break? Romano Prodi, for his part, stressed in an interview with Andrea Bonanni ("La Repubblica" of 21 June) the significance of the Constitution "mainly by taking into account the terrible political situation of these years during which the least pro-European governments of the history of the Union are in power. I feel that the new Constitution may form a brake to this fall in Europe impetus". He spoke explicitly of a "break between those who want more integration and those who want less, a break that has existed for a whole generation. There are truly two different ideas of Europe. There is something miraculous about having signed a Constitution under these conditions". Given the possibility that some Member States will not ratify it, his remarks took on a more serious tone: "This text is not a treaty decided overnight, but a Constitution discussed during 18 months by the Convention and during 12 months by governments. The debate on Europe has meant deep involvement by the political systems of all the Member States. Given a document that has been matured at such length, the decision to say yes or no will have enormous political significance and may entail unforeseeable consequences". However, he too considers at the end of the day that all Member States will ratify it: "Europe is a strange animal. Many people find it amusing to put it to ridicule. But if it is really in danger, then people will be concerned as they know full well that no-one can hope to survive alone".
The tone is set: everyone hopes the Constitution will be ratified by all Member States, and they will endeavour to believe in it - but there could still be a break, and we must brace ourselves for it.
(F.R.)