Unprecedented. Now that decision time's here, nobody can claim that the French citizen has not been made aware of what's at stake with the European Constitution. I am not referring to the fact that several hundred thousand copies of the full text have been distributed, which may have been the “worst good idea” of the whole campaign, but to the extent of the debate and the option to take the floor, which was open to everyone. The positive aspect of the referendum lies herein: no country has ever hosted so in-depth, fervent, I might even say heartfelt, a debate on Europe, its integration and how it works. It is true that in a debate of this kind, there's a lot of rubbish too: lies, creatively edited texts, confusion. But, in every case, the right to reply has been open to everyone, and nobody, on either side of the debate, can claim to have been gagged. If the French say “yes”, this is because they genuinely want the great European adventure to continue; if they say “no”, then it's because they no longer believe. The little game of combing the text for the odd sentence or concept they don't like or would have preferred different wording for won't have fooled anyone. This Constitution is little short of a miracle: it was written together by the representatives difference countries, each with their history, mindset and traditions; unanimously accepted by all the governments, be they left-wing, right-wing or centre; ratified, so far, by all parliaments which have taken position, and approved by all the populations which have voted: that is quite unprecedented.
What wasn't so nice. It is clear that in order to rally such a consensus, the text respects national identities and leaves each country free to make its “society choices”: social system, education, health, abortion, divorce… Why should Europe impose uniformity? Let each people choose depending on their own traditions and beliefs. And yet, the absence of common provisions on these subjects has occasionally been abused to “prove” that the Constitution bans divorce, say, even though it exists in 24 of the 25 countries! Would these countries really have handed over to someone (and if so, whom?) the ability to ban it? But it was on the basis of this kind of claim that the “no” campaign was waged, either on the draft Bolkestein directive (which was dressed up as some kind of daughter of the Constitution, despite the slight detail that it was proposed before the Constitution even existed) or the services of general interest (which the Constitution recognises and protects). But the “yes” supporters have had the opportunity to respond to the lies, in the same way as their adversaries took every opportunity to react to statements they thought were wrong. What I thought was objectionable in the “no” campaign was the impression it left me with that grievances, frustrations, vengeance or personal ambitions were being hidden or implied. What a difference, in my book, between those who want to call a halt to the European adventure for reasons of wounded pride or fanaticism, and the speech by Jacques Delors to the European Movement: “I am proud of this Europe which does not reflect my ideal…”, proud of the peace it has brought for half a century and the prospects and the hope it gives us for tomorrow. On the other hand, various university texts were quite shocking in their narrow-mindedness, the way they simply rejected the biggest plan in the history of our continent to defend a point of doctrine all their worries home in on obsessively… And what can I say about Max Gallo? I have been assured that he has written some good things as an historian; I'm very pleased to hear it, but when he writes on Europe, he's understood nothing and writes nothing but rubbish.
I'll stop here, because I don't want my last commentary before the vote to come across as argumentative. Everyone has had the chance to speak; never before have we seen some many newspaper pages and audiovisual space given over to Europe. Occasionally I have regretted the lack of punch among the “yes” camp, but I have also read or heard all I could have wished: the enlightening explanations of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the European emotion expressed by Olivier Duhamel, some impassioned words from Alain Lamassoure… And the “external” contributions from Jean-Claude Juncker (particularly his bulldozing of this renegotiation theory), Joschka Fischer, so persuasive on the need to safeguard the Franco-German partnership,and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, impassive against the new anti-establishment, the call by Bronislav Geremek to return to the “reasons for staying together, beyond figures and statistics”. All of the French have been just as able as I to read the texts I mention, and many others. If they reject the Constitution, it's because they want to, in full knowledge of the facts, and we will have to respect that. If this is the case, next week will see not pointless analysis of the reasons for their choice, but the beginnings of an assessment of their consequences. (F.R.)