The most worrying aspect of the debate in France on the Constitution is one of confusion, sown very carefully by the supporters of the “no” vote and which has entered into areas that have nothing to do with the debate at all. It is obvious that just about anyone has the right to be dissatisfied with the way Europe is being built today; but it is also obvious that the Constitution is in no way responsible for what exists, for the simple reason that it does not yet exist and that it will enable rather than correct a certain number of shortfalls for which the Union is currently being criticised. All that has been decided in the past or which is being currently decided is based on treaties that are already in force. This is stating the obvious and yet a lot of the lies tarnishing the French referendum campaign are based on this mistake. In an effort to correct it, I am going to quote, for the main part, some of the observations made from the outside.
The trade union view. At the beginning of the week I referred to the Bolkestein directive as the most shattering example of confusion. Proposed at the beginning of 2004 when the Constitution was still on the drawing board, this directive is going to be radically amended before the Constitution can enter into force because this is sought by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers who have the legislative power. The Constitution will a posteriori add the legal backup to affirm the priority of the services of general interest mission in competition and to strengthen the powers of the European Parliament (which is currently redrafting it). In the recent European demonstration in Brussels in defence of a social Europe and workers' rights, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) chose the slogan, “No to the Bolkestein Directive, yes to the Constitution”, in an attempt to clearly define where workers' real interest lie, and prevent the issues getting blurred. ETUC Secretary General John Monks added that the Constitutional treaty was the “most social” of all the European treaties and he represents the voice of almost all the workers' unions in all 25 Member States.
Choosing without understanding? The malicious mixing up (or even ignoble) of the directive and the treaty left Yvon Toussaint speechless. Why am I quoting him? Because he is one of the most respected and talented writers in Belgium and because during his journalistic career at “Le Soir” in Brussels, before becoming the Head of the paper, he was also European correspondent in Paris. He knows Europe and France well. He addresses his readers on the issue of the directive and the Constitution, “What? You haven't read either of them? Fortunately this fact does not prevent anyone having an opinion on the two issues…At the same time, it is recommended that one criticises out loud the fact that one has not been correctly informed…How are you going to read this obsessive Bolkestein directive and notice de visu that it has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the draft Constitution, contrary to when the partisans of the no vote claim, as soon as they have used and abused the Turkish dossier, apparently a non-related subject? Would this also constitute democracy? Choosing without understanding? Resigning oneself to not being informed? Making decisions based on reasons that are irrelevant? Taking action according to one's mood alone?
Loss of influence. Much of the French press published different positions on the Constitution, based on the opinion that this was the' best way to prove its objectivity. This is certainly partly true even if this method systematically disconcerts readers. Is it really unworthy of a great newspaper, and editor to take a position? To choose? In any case, most of the alternative texts were pretty unsavoury. Today they're for and tomorrow they're against, these arguments are often the most difficult to understand. Sometimes one has to get to the end of the article to know whether the writer is for or against. Writers like Jean-Claude Casanova who writes for Le Monde are rare and who reach a clear conclusion, “It is preferable to vote yes given that the compromise obtained by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing is the best we can get at the moment and that the victory of a no vote will hurt France”.
The idea that by voting no, France would then be able to open another negotiation with its partners, rapidly and from a position of strength, does not find an echo anywhere else in Europe. Political leaders in other Member States are keeping quiet to avoid giving the impression of interfering in the choice of another country. But observers are talking about it and I believe that Paul Magnette, director of European Studies at the Free University of Brussels has cleverly synthesised the overall opinion by declaring, “if the no vote wins, the French will be to blame for stagnation in European construction and they will have work hard to earn their credibility if they are to find their influence again”. This won't be an easy task.
(F.R.)