Good texts are not enough. I said at the time that the hotting up of the debate on the Constitution in France was a good thing, and I haven't changed my mind; but for the time being, its effects are not matching up to expectations. As well as the results of the opinion polls, it's how the debate itself is progressing that's disappointing. There has been an explosion of texts in favour of the Constitution and many of these are excellent, including stances taken by newspapers (pedagogically speaking, the one by Nicolas Sarkozy was outstanding), books on the subject (“Correspondance avec 25 jeunes de l'Union” by Pierre Lequiller is as elegant as it is convincing) and speeches within the institutional framework (such as the address given to the Senate by Hubert Haenel in favour of ratification). I have already aired my views on the speech by Jacques Delors, and on the contributions of Pierre Moscovici and Olivier Duhamel to the debate. I could go on. But if it is true that the positive shores up and consolidates the beliefs of those who are already won over to the “yes” argument, it is also true that it has little effect on the opponents. At the moment, the “no” has the unwarranted perceived appeal of standing up to “received thought”, an attractive rebellion and irreverence, and is seen by some as an attack on the majority in power, even though the main opposition party (the Socialist Party) has democratically taken position in favour of voting yes too. And so everyone moves forward with their own side, listening almost exclusively to the voice of the argument they've already bought into, and I feel that the excellent arguments for the Constitution are not being listened to as they should be.
The Franco-French arguments of the President. The President of the Republic had the opportunity to make them heard in his televised meeting with young people. Seen all the way from Brussels, he didn't make the most of it. Jacques Chirac had two messages he wanted to get across: a)don't make the mistake of thinking that the Constitution is “Liberal” in its inspiration; b) call on the people of France (especially the young people) not to be pessimistic, not to give in to discouragement, to trust in Europe and, most of all, in their country. If this is what he believes, he was right to say so. But as soon as specific questions were put to him, his answers were not European. I'll give you two examples. First of all, the eternal “Bolkestein directive” on services, which was always going to crop up. The President stressed that he, personally, had strongly rejected this at the last European Summit and that as a result, it would never see the light of day as it stands at the moment. But in fact, it will be revised from the bottom-up not because one Member State doesn't like it, but because the European Parliament threw it out (it is in the process of rewriting it) and because the President of the European Council announced that there was no majority to approve it. It's the democratic workings of the EU which have determined the fate of this directive; the Commission itself will change it in the light of debates underway. And in any case, the Constitution had no influence whatsoever on its destiny, because it was put forward nearly a year before the Constitutional Treaty was even signed. The Constitution will reinforce European democracy and guarantee the existence of services of general interest (which the French call public services). Explaining it like this could have swept away a mass of untruths and unveiled some of the lies of the opponents of the Constitution.
My second example relates to agriculture. Jacques Chirac spoke as though it was a purely French struggle (or, at the uttermost, a Franco-German one) against the other Member States, stressing the financial advantages France draws from the current policy and the impossibility of keeping them if France rejects the Constitution. Not a word on the significance of agriculture for Europe, its traditions and its countryside, nor on the recognition at EU level of its multifunctional nature, the new rural areas policy (accounting for 80% of the territory of the Union!) which the Constitution consolidates and makes definitive; not a word, either, about the madness it would be for farmers to reject the Constitution, the disaster that would result from their doing so (even though various French agricultural organisations are going in this very direction, out of populism or to defend interests which aren't terribly clear).
Simple truths. When, during the meeting, the young people voiced their own personal concerns, it would have been useful to explain that it was not the job of the Constitution to answer these. It makes the Institutions and the decision-making processes more democratic, transparent and efficient, but the content of the policies will be determined by how the citizens vote. Society's choices (abortion, minimum wage, pensions etc) will remain in national hands. The Constitution lays down the principles (gender equality, non-discrimination, union rights, social dialogue, etc), and defines the powers and procedures. The rest will be up to the people, at national level, and at European level for a few elements (Lisbon Strategy, Stability Pact etc). If these truths are not understood, there is the danger that France will vote no. (F.R.)