The role of a Constitution. More proof, were it needed, that Europe has everything to gain from frank and open debates on its reality and objectives. I refer to the recent vicissitudes of the discussion on the Constitution. The negative stance of a future candidate for the Presidency of the French Republic, Laurent Fabius, has caused an avalanche of reactions in France and elsewhere, revealing a reassuring political awareness of the significance, merits and also the limits of this text. A proportion of public opinion may have drawn a few lessons from it already.
I laid out the reasons why I completely repudiate Mr Fabius's attitude in this column on 14 September. It is not Mr Fabius's views on the economic and social policies which I question, but the fact that he is making out that they are enshrined in the Constitution. The Constitution establishes principles and opens the way for citizens' choices. Then, normal democratic rules (national and European elections, the institutions functioning of the EU with proposals from the Commission and codecision between the Parliament and Council) determine economic choices and the actions to be implemented. The debates of recent weeks have shown that this scheme is generally understood. Mr Fabius's position is hotly contested within his own Party (Socialist) and by the European Left in general. An overview of comments the Fabius doctrine has given rise to would be instructive.
From Daniel Cohn-Bendit to Jo Leinen. I will start with Mr Cohn-Bendit because as an MEP who has been elected once in France and now in Germany, he has earned a double legitimacy. In his view ("Journal du dimanche" of 19 September), the real question is "whether or not the Constitutional Treaty finally gives us the means, even if imperfect, to fight for a Europe of greater solidarity, and which is more social and more ambitious. The answer is yes!". It is true that this Treaty is a compromise, but "it is the first time that a Treaty has corrected the liberal aspects of the founding texts". It is illusory, and verging on the eccentric to imagine that voting "no" to the Constitution would lead to new negotiations to improve it. The only result would be "the blockage of Europe", with a return to the Treaty of Nice, which "allows neither institutional nor social breakthroughs", so much so that "the no-vote will never get the votes of reformist pro-Europeans".
The non-French MEPs of the Socialist Group of the European Parliament have generally described themselves as “alarmed” by Mr Fabius's position. Here are a few of his colleagues' reactions. For Jo Leinen, president of the constitutional committee of the EP, Mr Fabius's attitude is illogical. For example, he is calling for a European directive on public services, and the Constitution is the very thing that will make this possible! He has “lost sight of the European cause (…). For internal policy reasons, he is rejecting a project of historical dimensions”. The president of the Socialist group, Martin Schulz, notes that the Constitution “gives the European Parliament the powers it has been calling for for years”. According to the Spaniard Raimon Obiols, “Mr Fabius raises good questions, but they have nothing to do with the Constitution”. The Belgian Alain Hutchinson hopes that the referendum in France “will focus on the Constitution and not issues of the internal power of the French Socialist party”.
Laurent Fabius's tactical error. In Paris, former Prime Minister Lionel Jospin criticised the mistake of transferring the debate to national level: “it is not about voting for or against Jacques Chirac, but of taking position on a treaty adopted by 25 governments. The people of France must give their answer to our partners. If this answer is no, the fallout will be felt in Brussels, not Paris (…). The Constitutional Treaty is an acceptable compromise, even if it is not the embodiment of the socialist ideal (…). The yes vote will pave the way for the Union to be relaunched” (Le Nouvel Observateur of 23 September, our translation).
A commentator drew up a list of Laurent Fabius's fellow Constitution rejecters. Here we can find “sovereignist” movements, the vast majority of British Conservatives, members of the Polish “League of Families” (who all feel that the current draft goes too far towards Europe), plus a few small communist grouping or similar. Strange company for a Socialist to keep! The Secretary General of the ETUC (European Trade Union Confederation), John Monks, reaffirming his organisation's support for the Constitution, considered that the row in France is purely an internal one, and has nothing to do with Europe.
Actually, we should thank Mr Fabius. His initiative has given rise to a debate which needed to start. Romano Prodi and Jean-Claude Juncker have also had their say, with considerable force. We must continue. (F.R.)