Giving up being a guide. I naively believed after the thrashing response of Michel Rocard to the sections of the French Socialist Party that want the European Constitution to be rejected (see this column of 15 April), that the question had been settled - opponents of ratification only represent a minority fringe and while they are free to express their views, they have no real influence on the Socialist Party's attitude. Well, it appears that it has not been settled, and even former French prime minister Laurent Fabius has his doubts. Being an internal matter of a Member State's political party, one could think that that it is not a European matter. But in reality it is a European matter too because within the new European Parliament, French Socialists will form the biggest national section of the Socialist group, with 31 MEPs, as opposed to 24 Spanish MEPs, 23 Germans and 19 British MEPs. They may therefore act as a leader in the Socialist group. But they are not getting off on a good footing with their reservations about the Constitution. The proof is that Martin Schulz, President of this political group (the second biggest in the new EP), expressed in his first press conference the group's desire and duty to fight for the objectives of the Socialist electoral campaign. He mentioned four of them, including "defending ratification of the Constitution". Minorities can exist within a parliamentary group, of course, respectable as are all minorities in a democracy, but the outcome is that the French delegation, rather than playing a guiding role, will be isolating itself on a crucial issue (along with a few other members of the group). These are not my ideas, but the idea of members in the majority who have naturally come out in favour of the Constitution. I reproduce a flourishing of statements (gathered by Jean Quatremer of "Libération"): Richard Corbett: "the French would take on board an incredible responsibility - sinking the European ship to win a few points in the polls". Enrique Baron Crespo: "There is no soul searching among European Socialists" (they therefore all staunchly support the Constitution). Thijs Berman: "the arguments against the Constitution are exactly the same as those used by Lefties in our country". And Richard Corbett again in conclusion: "If they oppose the Constitution, they will be the only Socialists in Europe to do so."
This reaction reminds me of Michel Rocard's heart felt plea in April that rejecting the draft Constitution makes no sense because adopting the Constitution proposed by the Convention means giving oneself neutral rules of play. The text affirms the need for social protection for all and high quality public services. It is a lie, he said, to want to convince people otherwise. Some Socialists display a treacherous, unintelligent and dangerous folly that is quite mind-boggling, he suggested. It is hardly surprising that in the above-mentioned research by Jean Quatremer, it is the French Socialists who put paid to the option of Michel Rocard being elected President of the European Parliament …
A handful of parliamentarians do not make a party. I should point out, however, that it is not the French Socialist Party as such which opposes the Constitution. The Secretary of the Party, François Hollande, has made a clear call in favour of it, as have other leading members, and the majority of the party support them. In an interview, Dominique Strauss-Kahn (seen by some observers as a contender for the French Presidency in the future) urged Laurent Fabius to overcome his hesitations because his legitimate concerns cannot stand up in the face of the historic consequences of No from the Socialists. He explained that activists defending a strong Europe believe the text does not go far enough, which he understands, adding that he fights against people who do not believe in Europe. A step forward cannot be condemned on the grounds that one didn't get all one wanted, he added.
There are reasons to hope that the French delegation in the EP Socialist group will change in the right way. The incomprehensible expulsion of Olivier Duhamel (one of the true protagonists on the Convention which prepared the Constitution, author of one of the most useful and brilliant books on the issue) has no doubt not strengthened the delegation, but fortunately Pervenche Berès is still there and it is with confidence and pleasure that I salute the return of Pierre Moscovici, who knows and understands the challenges and the issues.
Have I spent too much time on one aspect of the EP's machine? If so, I apologise, with two comments: a) We have to talk about the EP in order to help public opinion understand that the EP is now co-legislator on a par with the Council and will therefore have an ever greater influence on decisions about society and the life of every citizen of the EU; b) If the Constitution were to be rejected by France, it would be destined to disappear, with incalculable consequences. We should all meditate on this, including the French members of the EP's Socialist group.
(F.R.)