There's nothing surprising about the progress made by the “yes” camp in the referendum campaign in France. It's the logical outcome of efforts to make the citizens aware of the reality of the Constitution and to prove just how weak and dishonest the arguments of the “no” side really are, such as: the Constitution will ban abortion and even divorce, it will destroy public services (when in fact it protects them), and so on. In the campaign, after the period dominated by reasons that were quite divorced from the questions put forward and by the dishonest types, a few simple truths came to the fore: the French can now see for themselves what's in the text. They can accept it or reject it as they choose, but for those who have kept abreast of the debates, they will do this in full possession of the facts. It's certainly no coincidence that every Socialist party and almost every unionist movement in Europe has come down in favour of the Constitution, having studied the texts rather than listened to the lies or the urban legends.
The anti-Europeans of old. But nothing has yet been decided, and it would be extremely dangerous to “drop one's guard”. Opinion polls show that the “ayes” have only just crept ahead and the percentage of “undecided” is still very high. The “noes” aren't giving up and they will be banking on the ultimate deception: they will pretend that they are all for Europe and that if they win, they will make a better Europe. Having noted that the vast majority of the French are in favour of European integration, they want to pretend that they support it too. This is not true. These are extreme right-wing and extreme left-wing movements who have tried to conquer a lost electorate by voting against every European treaty since 1952: half a century of rejection, one after the other, that of the first European Community (ECSC), that of the EEC and all subsequent treaties, whatever their objective, from the single market to the euro… And they claim that they are now, all of a sudden, “all for Europe”?
An urban legend. The urban legend that the Constitution would be renegotiated if France rejects it has been torn to shreds by the European institutions (led by President Jean-Claude Juncker), the governments and all the Member States who have expressed a preference, by all the European multi-national political parties and also by all the French who have held major European posts, starting with Jacques Delors. It is apparent that if France votes no, the European Council will meet to discuss what happens next; but France would be isolated and weakened, and the hypothetical renegotiation of the Constitution wouldn't even be considered. When will they stop trying to kid people?
Europe backwards, not forward. It is true that the French extreme right is playing a slightly different game, in that it is not trying to hide its dismissal of the very notion of European integration, where it involves the pooling of various aspects of national sovereignty. I listened attentively to Jean-Marie Le Pen (if you're going to write, you've got to do your research), and I heard him say that France had functioned for centuries without giving up one iota of its sovereignty and that it must continue to do so, by working together with other countries by without supranational institutions. I was flabbergasted. The system of alliances has existed for a long time in Europe, it is true; this was when we had more or less constant war and the dominance of one country over another. France was often on the winning side, but it also saw its territory occupied from time to time. There was a time when conflicts didn't affect the population as much as now; wars were fought by armies, the civil populations were mostly spared and a defeated country wasn't necessarily a destroyed country. We know how things would be today. But it's not to the readers of Europe that I need to explain the reasons behind and the significance of the supranational institutions and the Community method. The French extreme right has made its beliefs quite clear, and anyone voting for it knows exactly what they're voting for.
A simple message. But pedagogical efforts must not let up when it comes to the other kind of “no”-proponent, not in order to create propaganda but simply to describe reality. Beyond the specific aspects, some of which have already been clarified (see, for example, this column in our bulletin 8940 on public services), the basic message can, I believe, be summed up in two points:
- the Constitution does not determine the content of policies. It lays down principles (all of which are positive and in step with progress made to date) and it democratises and clarifies the functioning of the institutions and decision-making procedures. It will then be national and European elections which decide who governs, and therefore the European economic guidelines, without prejudice of national choices;
- throughout the Union, rejecting the Constitution will be seen as rejecting Europe, and the Constitution will not be renegotiated. The EU will be weakened and the country which rejects it will be out on a limb and denuded of all influence. (F.R.)