The opponents' calculation (illogical). It won't be the readers of Agence EUROPE to whom I'll be explaining the contents and meaning of the constitutional treaty signed on Friday by the 25 governments of the Union. And the location for the speeches, praise and mutual congratulations will not be in this column but rather, in Rome today. I would prefer to look towards the future, the ratifications, the final step to take for the Constitution to enter into force, and the most difficult stage, according to a number of observers.
Why so difficult? Because the Constitution has its enemies, who in a completely illogical way are ganging up to form a single block, when in fact their goals radically diverge. Some of them consider that the Constitution goes too far in the direction of integration and transfer of power from countries to the Union, others believe that it is not assertive enough and does not represent the boost Europe needs. The attitude of the latter is absurd and I'd even say it was irresponsible. Serious analysts recognise that the Constitution, while incomplete, imperfect and in parts, disappointing, represents considerable progress in relation to the current situation; and some of those who say they are pro-Europeans are actually planning to line up with the Eurosceptics to reject it! It's insane. Most of them say that it is because a vote in favour would mean (and I quote them), “economic, social, budgetary and fiscal policies will be closed in and not subject to revision. Liberalism is institutionalised in these policies”. This is not true. The Constitution affirms principles, strengthens European democracy and improves the functioning of the institutions. Policy content will then be determined by the choice made by the people at national and European levels. From now on, many elements of policies already in place are currently undergoing a thorough evolutionary change: it's all very much a building site, from the Stability Pact to the status of the Services of General Interest (SGI), from agricultural policy to rural development. If the European Parliament considers that a Commission proposal goes too far in a given direction, it won't approve it, it has the right to amend it, indeed reject it (it has already done so, with takeover bid policy and liberalisation of port services. Nothing is set in stone. Orientation is and will be set out by the electorate. Who would dare challenge this principle?
From Etienne Davignon to Mario Monti. At a European level, the success of the “yes” vote has been obtained because the three main political groups of the EP support the Constitution and a few votes against won't change anything in this respect. But ratifications will be done nationally: each country for itself. And therefore, between now and then, things could get complicated; all the different observers recognize that surprises could occur and that there could be votes against. Faced with this prospect, those who are unable to accept a situation where one or two countries block Europe, are beginning to speak up. Logically, Heads of governments are keeping quiet because their duty is to stick with the hypothesis of the EU continuing to move forward with 25 members. But Etienne Davignon has taken a position (see this section 13 October), and when Mario Monti thought his work as Commissioner had come to an end, came out with an audacious proposal, “Whoever rejects the 2004 Treaty of Rome II, should also leave the 1958 Treaty of Rome I”. Each Head of government should in his opinion be committed in this sense and let his country know accordingly (see our bulletin 26 October p 5). It is an abrupt formula, which could not be applied to, France, for example: how could the country which launched the first Community (ECSC) half a century ago and with five other countries produced the Rome Treaties, leave the Union? I think Jean-Claude Juncker was right to say that “a no vote in France would lead Europe to an absolute crisis where it would leave little left of the European ideal to muster. It would be absolute deadlock”. I believe that Mario Monti was thinking rather of the countries that, according to the description provided by Etienne Davignon, “have not really chosen Europe”, or just a tiny and isolated country.
Let's take the example of Malta: its Socialist party, alone among the 32 parties making up the Party of European Socialists, has come out for a “no” vote. If this is followed at home, is it imaginable that the years of effort, the miracle of the Convention and the “yes” vote of the 25 governments, e thrown into the abyss because of a few thousand Maltese? The “no” vote emanating from the Socialists (they don't go any further than the Maltese PS and a tendency in the French PS ) is claimed to reflect the attitude of the workers. The workers, however, are represented by the European Confederation of Trade Unions (ETUC), which has come out with a hearty “yes” (a single national union voted against: Force Ouvrière, France). The Socialists calling for a no vote remind me of the story of the boy scouts, who one evening when they were reviewing their good deeds of the day, explained that they had helped an old lady cross the road. In reply to the disappointed scout leader, who though that it was no big deal the scouts explained to him that “the problem was due to the fact that she had not intended to cross the road in the first place”. Who wants to get the workers to choose a path that they have not chosen themselves?
(F.R.)