Correct information for the British citizen? Vive le débat! How many times have I used this expression so far, with or without the exclamation mark? This time it refers to the opening of the debate on the Constitution in the United Kingdom. After Tony Blair's decision to hold a referendum on the ratification of the EU constitutional treaty, the British citizens will finally be getting information on the reality of Europe which is not based solely on journalists' untruths. I haven't forgotten the misgivings about the referendum method, especially Etienne Davignon's calculation that in a referendum, some 25% of the voters aren't answering the question asked of them, but are aiming to go against the government that worded it: when the time comes, a good number of the French will say “no” not to the Constitution, but to Jacques Chirac. On the whole, I think that it is a good thing for all Member States, except the UK, to be wary of referendums.
In the UK, where democracy has a long tradition, most information about Europe is distorted or biased. The man on the street has a warped view of European integration. Efforts made by those who want to change this (there are some excellent people in this category: a number of British MEPs, such as Andrew Duff and Richard Corbett, and others, are worthy Europeans) are not necessarily aimed at Joe Public. At the moment, prospects of the referendum implies a clear commitment from the members of the government and national majority MPs, who must all report back about the reality of the Constitution, understand it and be able to explain it; and the press will be obliged to take this on board. Whilst we wait for this to happen, which will take time, what makes me feel quietly optimistic is the first official speech by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw before the House of Commons in favour of approving the law setting up this referendum (see our bulletin of 11 February, p.4).
Jack Straw chose well. Without getting into an analysis of the Constitution (he's saving that for later, once the electoral campaign gets underway, after the general election), Mr Straw basically presented the arguments demonstrating that it would be a bad thing for the United Kingdom to reject the Constitution: “the long-term effect would be the EU sliding into a position of detachment from Europe, whilst the others will go on ahead without us. We would remain without influence, on the sidelines, with no say on Europe's future direction”. Couldn't the British ask the other Member States to re-start negotiations on a modified text? Even if they could, the new Constitution “would be worse, not better, as we would have negotiated it from a position of weakness, not a position of strength”. The UK would be in “uncharted territory, weak and isolated in Europe”.
I think that Mr Straw made a good choice of arguments which are likely to win his countrymen and women over, and that it is very much in the institutions' interests to intervene as little as possible in the referendum campaign. The national political authorities know better than anyone the mindset of their people and how to press their buttons, and it is the people who give them their legitimacy. This initial approach leaves me something like optimistic about the results of the British referendum and that Tony Blair's gamble, to put his country in the heart of Europe, directly involved in all its future developments, will pay off.
Unacceptable falsehoods. As you can see, I am still trying to inject a bit of confidence into proceedings, whilst the people who were at the basis of the enterprise seem tired, like they've run out of steam. In France, where the referendum is imminent, the “yes” supporters should be more positive, more convinced and more convincing, firmer in their answers to the opponents of the Constitution who go around with a level of scepticism that can sometimes make one lose heart. When I read Laurent Fabius's list of reasons he is campaigning for the “no” vote, I wonder what he's talking about. This is it, his list: “Bolkestein directive, delocalisations, Euro too dear, Turkey”. Not a single one of these points has anything at all to do with the Constitution! On the contrary; the Constitution would increase the chances of throwing the Bolkestein directive out, improve “European governance”, and so on and so forth. Opposing the Constitution is everyone's right; to do so with lies is unacceptable. Someone needs to have the courage to say so, especially given that the referendums in France and the United Kingdom will be decisive for us all.
(F.R.)