What's really happening in France about the European Constitution? We can read the declarations and reports; listen to speeches and the different positions from Brussels but nothing can beat a little trip to the place itself - to Paris, at least. I went there last week, because I consider that the issue is not a national but a European one: if France says no, the Constitution is buried. The Netherlands has already indicated that a Dutch referendum would be cancelled and everyone knows that one in the United Kingdom would have no sense to it. It's because of the European factor that I have tried to refresh the considerations already made in this section, by adding some first-hand impressions.
A Badly Informed University Professor. The first shock I had was in leafing through the newspapers on the train. On page one of “Le Monde” a title in upper case asserted, “Why the Bolkestein Directive Won't be Amended”. This introduced an article, if you please, signed by a university professor. This was enough to make me jump, as a few days before I wrote that if anything is certain in Europe today, it's that the Bolkestein directive will never enter into force as it currently stands because the European Parliament is currently in the process of radically transforming it; a majority at the Council opposes it and the Commission itself has said that it is prepared to revise its draft. Are there other elements that I've left out? Nothing of the kind. The text of Professor Antoine Rémond is nothing but a web of falsehoods. In addition to the demagogic remarks like, “the perversity of the approach”, which in a serious discussion is worthless, his thesis is based on two affirmations: a) Jean-Claude Juncker himself declared that the European Council would not be able to amend the draft or call for its withdrawal; b) the Commission will therefore submit the proposal to another European Council. Ignorance or just bad faith? In principle, for a university lecturer, ignorance is hard to fathom, even more so, given that a number of days earlier, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing had clarified, in his singular tone, the points on which Mr Rémond clumsily pontificates. I'll pick up on what VGE explained in “Le Figaro” on 2 April:
a) with the Constitution, the Bolkestein directive will never exist for the simple reason that, “the Constitution will get rid of directives”. They will be replaced by “European laws”. This isn't a purely semantic question. Directive is a bureaucratic term, which creates the impression of a text being approved by an administrative body; on the other hand, “European law” immediately indicates to the citizen that the legislative text has been approved by a Parliament and by a government. This is to a large extent already the case in Europe and will be even more so with the Constitution, which extends co-decision between Parliament (directly elected by citizens) and the Council of Ministers, where all the Member State governments are represented. Parliament is obviously able to approve, reject or amend any Commission proposal; it has already rejected some of them, with the most spectacular case being that of the draft by Mr Bolkestein (on take-over bids). The draft law then goes to the Council which decides by a double majority: 55% of Member States (which protects small Member States) representing less than 65% of the population in the Union. VGE adds that the EP and Council have to produce a single text for it to be approved. He concludes, “when one describes these future institutions of Europe, one gets a shudder of impatience: let's hope we get them as soon as possible!”
b) the European Council cannot itself amend a Commission proposal, nor call on the Commission to withdraw it because the latter is independent and “each Member State is committed refraining from attempting to influence Commission members in the exercise of their work”. VGE recalls that independence is indispensable because the Commission has to assess “the common European good”, whereas other institutions “obviously reflect national demands”. After the totally independently produced proposal, the democratic procedures are applied. If a Commission proposal does not satisfy a significant number of Member States or the majority at Parliament, the legislative power can reject it or amend it. That is what European democracy is, without forgetting (and VGE refers to it) that the Constitution will also for the first time introduce national parliaments into European decision-making procedures.
Ignorance. By ignoring, at this juncture, the most elementary tenets of the “Community method”, is astounding by someone who claims to be writing about the subject. We could settle for a shrug of the shoulders but the role of the “university professor” and the prestigious tribune in which he wrote could be used for deceiving citizens of good faith. Mr Rémond adds, 'it is highly likely that had the referendum not been decided, the directive would have been adopted without any rise in temperature”, which proves that the professor is totally unaware of the demonstrations and spectacular rallies in Brussels against the Bolkestein directive, where the representative body of the workers' unions from throughout Europe launched the slogan, “No to the Bolkestein Directive, Yes to the Constitution”. The French press also quoted Pascal Chaki's declaration expressing his opposition to the “directive and the Constitution which gives it a legal basis” (which is a blatant lie) and that of the president of Attac, Jacques Nikonoff, affirming that, “the directive has just been put back in the cupboard during the referendum” (which is nothing but empty words).
The European Movement Rediscovers its Role. On Saturday morning the big European Movement demonstration took place. Jacques Delors was there (and he got the audience going), as well as the president of the European Parliament Josep Borrell; his vice president Pierre Moscovici, one of the most active and effective “Convention Members” in helping to elaborate the draft Constitution; Olivier Duhamel; the minister for European Affairs, Claudie Haigneré; the president of the Austrian Parliament Andreas Kohl and many other well-known figures, who were all warmly received by the public. The debate did not contain any contradictions because the supporters of a no vote were not in the room (they handed out leaflets at the entrance). But the atmosphere was heated and we finally saw the partisans of the yes vote who were aware of their responsibilities, ready to fight for the ideas they believed in and reply to the lies and diversions created by subjects that had nothing to do with the Constitution. The pro-Europeans appear to want to respond to the scepticism, the resignation and lack of enthusiasm that has too often been the case. They were also ready to respond to the citizens who were still hesitating and asking, “give us some good reasons for voting yes”.
Olivier Duhamel said that the reasons were there and he listed the things Europeans would lose if the Constitution were rejected: a) the first part of the draft, which sets out the principles such as freedom, democracy, the rule of law and other values, definitive, and which have so often been assaulted in our countries over the centuries; 2) the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is set in marble (in this case, these terms are justified) citizens' rights, from equal rights for men and women to beyond what already exists in most Member States; 3) improvements the much decried part III of the Constitution brings to the current treaties. These improvements are many and sometimes very significant, notably in the area of defence and in recognition of the services of general interest. All this would be lost. Andreas Kohl, president of the Austrian parliament, added that in the absence of a Constitution, Europeans would lose the massive progress made with the common freedom, security and justice area, which only the Constitution can guarantee. This progress figures as a priority in public opinion polls regarding the views of Europeans who are tired by the advance of organised crime, drug trafficking, illegal immigrants. Sandra Kalniete, former Latvian minister of foreign affairs and former European Commissioner, added that the rules on the environment had very much been strengthened in the Constitution, compared to the current situation. Pierre Moscovici also observed that not only was there no link between Turkey's accession and the Constitution but that the latter would reinforce the conditions for joining the Union. The French will decide, when the time comes, on this accession, with total freedom of choice.
Risks and illusions. Other comments made at the debate involved:
the risk of a serious deterioration in the Common Agricultural Policy and Cohesion Policy, two pillars of European construction. Their adversaries (there's a lot of them) want a weakening in French influence which would automatically result from a rejection of the Constitution by the French, so they can go on the offensive;
the demolition of the illusion that a possible no vote in France would be followed by another negotiation to define the Constitution more aligned on French orientations. All participants recognised, on the contrary, that a French no vote would mean further weakness and marginalisation.
The sovereignist thesis by which France should refuse any “common claim” on its sovereignty was not even discussed, given its level of ineptitude. It would simply mean the end of French influence in the world. The president of the European Parliament, Josep Borrell, proved, drawing on a number of examples, that, “less formal sovereignty means more real sovereignty” as it is in Europe and through Europe that our countries can now get their voices across on the international stage.
The high point of the demonstration was the intervention by Jacques Delors. He didn't hide the fact that the Constitution did not correspond entirely to his model of Europe but lucidly and fully explained that he supported it all the same. This will be the basis for my theme tomorrow.
(F.R.)