European voices. The debate in France about the Constitution has taken on the hoped-for dimensions. In my earlier comments, I voiced two reasons for regret at the tone this debate has taken: the way the “no” partisans are distorting the facts and (with a couple of exceptions) the lack of vigour and authority on the part of the “yes” partisans. The situation has since changed. The defenders of the Constitution have found the right arguments and tone to get their views across. The French are now able to compare the for and the against and can make their choice in full possession of the facts. The excuse of lack of information no longer holds water. Various misrepresentations have been exposed, such as the claim that the Constitution could be buried… for the good of European unity, in order to negotiate a new, better one. Jo Leinen had already told the French that everywhere else, their “no” would be seen as a “no” to Europe. Then there was the open letter written by several Polish figures (see our bulletin 8933), the active involvement of the President of the European Parliament, Josep Borrell, in the debate, the stance of Bino Olivi, former Commission spokesperson, which was published in “Le Monde” with the evocative title “Français, vous nous atterrez!” (“You, the French, have let us down!”: our translation), and other comments rolled in from other Member States.
An eloquent silence. What also struck me was the fact that Laurent Fabius kept quiet. It was he who started this rebellion in the ranks of the Socialists, but when he saw the path the “no” campaign was taking, with its lies and its blend of extreme right/anti-European left/intellectual snobbery, he decided to distance himself from it. This is how I interpret his reticence following a stance which was basically a eulogy to European integration, despite his incongruous conclusions expressing indignation at various methods, to the extent that the historical left-wing democratic weekly newspaper, Jean Daniel's “Le Nouvel Observateur” was staggered not so much by the posited “no” as by the lies and populist rhetoric which occasionally accompanied it, and reacted by citing three examples of shocking falsehoods: a) the Constitution would make abortion illegal. “I alert the women of this country…” began Henri Emanuelli in all seriousness; having explained the truth, the journalist said “Henri Emanuelli used lies and demagogy”; b) the Constitution would challenge secularity. As a demonstration that this is wrong and a similar conclusion, the newspaper said “Michel Charasse and Jean-Luc Mélanchon also used lies and demagogy”; c) the Constitution would force a “liberal straitjacket” onto Europe: a longer demonstration followed by the same conclusion: “Marie-Georges Buffet is distorting the draft and spreading an erroneous interpretation of it; to do this, she, too, used lies and demagogy”.
On the next page of the same newspaper, there was a report recounting the astonishment and almost the despair of those who set out to defend the “yes” in debates and described themselves as “surprised by the violence of the partisans of the “no” (…). They tore into our precepts by stating that the Treaty would ban abortion, dismantle public services and lead to war if one of the countries of the Union was attacked”. The pro-Europeans, however, noted the beginnings of a change in climate: more and more people wanted to find out what was happening, to understand the reality and what lay at stake. And this better understanding automatically increased the number of “ayes”, little by little dissipating the aura of snobbish non-conformism that “to vote yes is to kowtow, to vote no is to rebel”.
Hesitation? Last week, I watched a televised debate. On one side, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, unambiguous and in command (for good reason…) of the subject, and taking the view that the Constitution, as a text, is “easy to read, flowing and rather nicely written”, Robert Badinter, warm, emotional and moving in his final speech and Bertrand Delanoë (mayor of Paris), convincing and occasionally quite droll; on the other, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Charles Pasqua, Jean-Pierre Chévenement and Marie-Georges Buffet. How can anyone else who watched have the slightest hesitation, when the time comes to make their choice? At the same time, several texts have appeared alongside words. I would like to refer to the analysis of 250 lawyers with “differing political sensibilities”, published without commentary by the Paris bureau of the European Parliament; concise and persuasive, it should be published everywhere.
The French citizens now have everything they need to make their minds up in full knowledge of the facts. The reasons for Europe have made themselves heard, even to people too young to appreciate how or why the united Europe came into being, who were challenged thus by Nicolas Sarkozy: “Are you going to let the concept of Europe be stolen from you?”. The issues will be studied in greater and greater depth in the weeks to come. The reasons for trust are increasing in number.
(F.R.)