The Czech Republic is free to choose. The time may have come to point out that membership of the EU isn't obligatory. All the States which belong to it asked to join, some of them even having to stamp their feet when their request came up against reservations or delays. In May 1950, Robert Schuman's appeal was sent out to Germany alone at first. Konrad Adenauer replied that he felt that the achievement of the French proposal was his most important task and that if he managed to carry it through, his life would not have been in vain. Paul-Henri Spaak, having read the Schuman declaration, said “I wish I had written it”. Max Kohnstamm confessed that he felt like he had been struck by lightening. Alcide de Gasperi, whose country had little to do with coal and steel, saw the initiative as “the creation of a Community uniting two of the main components of the Europe of always”. Thereafter, the founding countries and those who joined them subsequently have never evangelised the others: the only countries to join the Union have been those which have asked to do so, often making huge efforts and sacrifices to fulfil the accession conditions. And we know how many countries are still knocking on the door. The Constitution will formally bring in the right for each Member State to withdraw from the Union (article 59). Accession is a free choice, and so is leaving; you only have to ask.
After reading the stance taken by the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus and the response by Jo Leinen and Alejo Vidal-Quadras, I decided to write these lines. The Czech President referred to the tenth anniversary of the birth of the Euro as a “black day for Europe” and insulted the draft Constitution and those who wrote it (see our bulletin 8932). This, of course, is his right. But if his people and the national Parliament vote for the Constitution and if he has a modicum of dignity, he will quite simply resign. If, on the other hand, the Czech people agree with him, the government just has to make good its right to back out. Nor is there anything wrong with not being a member of the Union. This was the choice of the Norwegian people, and (for the time being) is it the will of the Swiss. However, nobody thinks that Norway and Switzerland are less European than any other country on the continent. But the Union calls no-one: if a country decides not to come or prefers to leave, then it respects that decision.
The curious logic of the “no” in France. I feel that similar reasoning can also be applied to the Constitution. Any country not wishing to accept is provisions will remain bound by the text in force, but cannot stop the other Member States from going forward without it, if they so wish. In France, the “no” lobby mainly have it in for the rules and guidelines already in force, and which would, by their nature, remain just as they are if the “noes” have it. Freedom of competition, free movement of goods and services, fairly vague provisions on services of general interest, etc, all of this is enshrined in the existing treaty and would remain intact. But if the Constitution fails, not only would the constitutional nature of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the democratisation of the procedures disappear, but so would the social progress it implies, which has been hailed by the European workers' unions and by the Socialist parties of all the Member States (with the exception of Malta, if memory serves). It's a curious thing: those voting “no” will be keeping what they claim not to like and will be rendering null and void all that they pretend to be calling for, such as the preservation of public services. Ah well, if that's what they want…
Curious logic, for certain. Take competition, for example. The European rules have three goals: stop the abuses of monopolies; punish illegal cartels; control mergers. These three objectives protect consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises. And yet, one hardly dares mention free competition, it's practically a dirty word. For agriculture, this is even less comprehensible. Europe protects its agricultural activities. It reaffirms its multi-functional nature (meaning that its job is not solely to produce foodstuffs, but that it has many other functions which society should recognise and pay for, such as safeguarding the environment and biodiversity). France is the largest agricultural producer in the Union. It has the most rural space, and naturally it is the main beneficiary of the common agricultural policy (CAP); this is only right and fair. However, several French farming organisations are calling on their members to vote against the Constitution! If the “no” vote wins, the repercussions would be catastrophic for French farming (and also for that of several other Member States, such as Ireland and virtually all of the central and eastern European ones), because if the Constitution is rejected, those countries wishing to reduce agricultural expenditure (and there are a lot of them) will have won the day conclusively. But if this is the wish of the French farmers, then so be it. Just don't let them come crying afterwards. (F.R)