Serious consequences to follow. The French have regretted the European constitutional treaty while knowing what they were doing and it is useless spending too much time on justifications or explanations. It is true that at the beginning of the referendum campaign, the partisans of the no-vote had put forward many arguments that in my opinion were untrue: but it is true that the proponents of the yes-vote responded to these arguments and in the final phase, these arguments were presented with clarity and often with intelligence and persuasion (see this section in our bulletin 8955). I do not therefore share the idea that the French voted in the way they did because they unable to have a fair picture of the arguments being presented. They have made their choice and that's that.
The consequences in my opinion will be serious for Europe as a whole and for France in particular. The three presidents (Parliament, European Council and the Commission: see the following pages) were obviously right to say that “Europe continues and the institutions are fully functioning” and that a moment for reflection is necessary before taking any initiative. But is will not be useful in the slightest if the negative repercussions are hidden on some of the main issues of the day.
New European budgetary structure will be too restrictive. In my opinion the financial perspectives for 2007-13 will be hit head on. The Attitude of most French people, turning in on themselves, will encourage other countries to take similar attitudes, particularly on the budget. “Net contributor” countries will become even more restrictive and the case that the European budget be limited to 1% of Union income will get stronger. The mood in the Netherlands is going in this direction and Germany's election campaigning will prevent it from appearing generous on this front. Either there will be an agreement in June or there will be a compromise that does not go above 1.03% of European income for European spending (roughly corresponding to what the European Parliament can approve on an annual basis). In a range of different cases Community ambitions will be less, to the detriment of the most disadvantaged countries and regions.
Weapons for undoing the CAP. The second repercussion will involve Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Reforms that have already been implemented or announced aimed to save this policy and I believe that French farmers would have been wise to support them. They preferred to follow the pernicious demagogy of José Bové by providing arguments and arms for all those in Europe who for years have been striving to undermine the CAP (there are many of them too). It is true that theoretically the money necessary for managing the markets and for direct subsidies is guaranteed until 2013; but it is not just a question of money. The spirit of the CAP is in or ought to be in Community preference: Europeans should firstly be able to feed themselves by consuming the products from their land, their farming that has existed for a millennium and which has shaped their landscapes and civilisations. But French farmers have rejected this concept. Why should other Member States continue to give a preference to French meat over that from Argentina? Or French wheat to wheat from elsewhere? European solidarity is a global concept. Whoever rejects it (using abstract arguments like that of the “Polish plumber” or lies like the death of public services) does not have the right to evoke it in arguments that they use when it suits them.
Any renegotiation is impossible. We could continue with the list of negative repercussions, by beginning with the elimination of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as a constitutional element of the new Europe, the uncertainties about negotiations with Turkey's accession. I will limit myself to pointing to the absurd hypothesis of renegotiating the Constitution so that it conforms more to the wishes of France. Which ones? In his personal declaration (see the following pages), the president of the European Council Jean-Claude Juncker stated, “Among the French people who said no, there are those who want to stop everything and those who want to go further. It is difficult to get an agreement on these two concepts of Europe and impossible to re-negotiate the treaty in these conditions”. This analysis is irrefutable. The weight of the 'sovereignists' is significant in the no-vote; in their absence, a majority that was against the Constitution would not have existed. We can love France passionately, its language, its culture, its history, its city and scenery but on the question of preferences, we can prefer the France of Jacques Delors, open to Europe while safeguarding its identity, to that of Jean-Marie Le Pen.
(FR)