Vive le débat! This is not the first time I've started with these words, but if I'm repeating myself, for which I apologise, it's because history is repeating itself too. Each time the population of any Member State is called upon to take position on Europe, a fervent debate ensues, which is, by its very nature, a positive thing: people get involved, most of them take the trouble to understand, awareness of European reality takes a leap forward, misconceptions several leaps backwards. This time, unsurprisingly, I refer to the referendum on the Constitution in France, which will be a decisive factor in the fate of the draft and thus for the future of Europe.
Pro-Europeans react. I look with a sympathetic eye on all the events surrounding the launch of the referendum campaign, including those which may, on first sight, appear negative. For the time being, it is undeniably the proponents of the “no” who have the upper hand and have been tipped by several opinion polls to win the day. This was all it took to rouse those in favour, who seemed to have been napping since the democratic decision of the Socialist party to support the Constitution. They thought that if the main forces of the majority and the opposition alike were in favour, then there could be only one outcome. That was dangerous, because the “yes” automatically looked like the choice of the “single thought”, conformism, the powers that be, and every French person who likes to think of himself or herself as anti-authority or nonconformist (and there's a lot of them) became alive to the attractions of voting no. Taking account also of various genuine concerns of Joe Public (which were artificially inflated) and the lies of the anti-Europeans, the effects were considerable. Happily, the pro-Europeans reacted. I read (in the press) and heard (on television and elsewhere) effective and convincing speeches in favour of the Constitution, even outside political broadcasting (the admirable Segolène Royal, so clear, sincere and compelling), not only from politicians, but also from intellectuals, historians and sociologists. A percentage of those who spoke did not bother to find out the facts and some based their reasoning on preconceived ideas and pre-established plans; but, equally, some made the effort to find out what was what, to read the texts and to reason. One such was Bernard-Henri Lévy, who was able to put right a few lies in full possession of the facts. He feels that the central point is that ideas can be respected even by people who do not share them, and it is recognised that every citizen has the right to his or her views and to defend them. What is unacceptable is that lies are used to distort the image of the unified Europe. In his words, “what is not respectable is populist scaremongering, lies- what is neither respectable nor acceptable is using people's fears and dissatisfaction to feed an ideology and a choice which remain anonymous”.
Bolkestein directive: the big lie. The way a gang of demagogues launched themselves into the breach opened by various respectable “no” supporters borders on the ignoble. The most obvious example of this is that of the “Bolkestein directive” and how they used it. They tried, and still are trying, to lead people to believe that this directive has been approved, that it exists, that the abstract monster known as Brussels has adopted it and that they must fight to keep it from being applied. However, this directive proves, on the contrary, just how much progress European democracy has made and how well the Community method is working. The directive was proposed by the European Commission, which has no legislative powers, and sent to the two legislative bodies of the Union, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. From the very first preparatory work, before its existence was known to the people, the legislative powers looked it over with a fine-tooth comb and voiced their reservations or outright opposition. The European Parliament, in particular, is carrying out in-depth analytical work to change it radically, to keep what they feel is justified and good for Europe (i.e. the completion of the greater single market) and remove what may harm services of general interest (as defined by the Commission itself as one of the pillars of the European model of society) or cause social dumping. The President of the Council has formally declared that there is no way the text will enter into force as it stands and the current Commission has undertaken to revise the draft on the basis of the amendments the Parliament is to vote on. If there is anything certain in Europe today, it is that the Bolkestein directive will never exist as a European law. Europe is a democracy: a legislative text has to be approved by the Parliament (directly elected by the people) and by the Council (where the Member States are all represented). The truth is that the Constitution will reinforce this democratic mechanism still further, by making EP/Council codecision automatic even in field which are currently excluded, such as agriculture. The Commission is also planning a European status for public services, making a priority of the accomplishment of its mission (guaranteeing all citizens access to water, electricity, education, sanitation etc) over freedom of competition. The Constitution thus clarifies and consolidates the fundamental principles of our model of society and boosts the democratic decision-making mechanisms. The contents of Europe's legislation will then be what the citizens choose with their subsequent votes.
Those who lie, those who react. There are so many lies in this mould! The latest pearl we owe to Philippe de Villiers, who spoke out against “Commissioners who gave our textiles to China without warning”. But it was ten years ago that the EU announced that the multifibre agreement (quantitative restrictions in the world textile trade) would end in 2005, and this decision was taken by the Council, after long and involved negotiations. This may have been a mistake (as I myself wrote at the time), but all the Member States agreed, some with genuine conviction, others due to the time-frame: ten years seems like such a long time… Today, in trade policy, the Commission negotiates by mandate of the Council, which means the Member States. The Constitution brings the European Parliament to the party, which makes it more transparent by adding public debate and removing for good the risk that decisions are made (as Mr de Villiers claims) “without warning”. But I have no wish to continue with the catalogue of lies. Some of the “yes” proponents, especially Socialists who agreed to the debate and the internal vote preceding it, were astounded by this: Jack Lang spoke of a “crime of democracy” and a “deluge of lies”, Martine Aubry was stupefied by some of the behaviour and talked of “populism”, “and we all know what that once drove Italy to”.
Ridiculous exercises. As well as the lies, some of the opponents have got into ridiculous exercises, such as the association Attac (whose disdainful and unpleasant tone about all things related to Europe is often quite painful) calculated how many times the word “bank” appears in the Constitution; quite a few times in all, but in most cases the words refers neither to private banks nor to bankers, but to the European Central Bank, which manages the euro!
Touching base with the farmers. Let's leave aside the pettiness and turn our attentions to something more serious: the attitude of the farmers. They always have reasons (some of which are entirely valid) for their discontent and this time, in France, they seem to have chosen Europe as their target. Various surveys show that close to 70% of them would vote against the Constitution! Jacques Chirac has told them that this would be to shoot themselves in the foot. This is imaginative, but explains nothing. It should be explained to the farmers that the CAP funding (which, overall, will remain stable) is not the largest advantage they draw from Europe. The main thing is that they can sell their products throughout the EU at prices which are considerably higher than world prices. And that is what would be endangered if France votes no to the Constitution, because the principles of the CAP have so many enemies (inside and outside the Union) that they could not survive in the wake of the (potential) failure of the Constitution. Why should the country which rejects it hang onto the advantages of common policies which work in their favour? If solidarity goes, then everyone must take up their liberty once more; Italy would source its meat from Argentine or the former Yugoslavian countries again, butter would come from New Zealand, and so on. And France would lose most of its European market.
An impossible legacy. As an observer on the outside, what I see leads me to admire, for the most part, the citizens who ask questions and search their souls, who listen, who want to understand, and to distrust political professionals who lie and know nothing but their own bitterness and personal ambitions for power. The French should be asking themselves why in Europe, those who took the opportunity to delve deeper into the Constitution, to debate it and to think about it, all came out in favour of it. This is true of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), of all the Socialist parties (including the French one), and left-wing European parties such as Daniel Cohn-Bendit's Greens. Even Laurent Fabius, who chose to say no, seems disgusted by the outpouring of slander about Europe, because three quarters of his latest stance in “Le Monde” is a sincere and convincing peroration in favour of European integration. Only in the last few lines does he offer the view that the “no” vote could pave the way for negotiations to begin again to improve upon the current draft (which is clearly an illusion). If the voice of the pro-Europeans is heard, I believe that the majority of the French will understand what turning their backs on Europe would mean. The opponents of the current majority must understand what an impossible legacy they would be leaving to a theoretical majority which is more in line with their wishes: a weakened France, marginalised in Europe.
(F.R.)