Here are three considerations which add to and clarify previous comments.
A. People forget. The invitation from the President of the European Council Jean-Claude Juncker to recover the tone and level of European debate (see this column of yesterday) did not come as a surprise. Some of his previous comments had anticipated this to a certain extent, and among the huge pile of papers I had cut out, I found his declaration in “Le Soir”, which I had annotated with the words “And breathe!”, such was the sharp contrast between Mr Juncker's tone and the half-truths, pettiness, revenge and personal ambitions which dominated the debate. He said: “The eternal drama of a Europe torn apart by war has disappeared from our memories. Ten years ago there was war in the Balkans, and there I saw children dying just an hour and a half from my country. I am shocked that this re-emergence of evil did not have make of an impression on us! Our technical decisions will remain incomprehensible to people if we leave them isolated from the logic of our project. We have created a continent which is the last hope for other continents. If the Constitutional Treaty is rejected; the Senegalese will be unhappier than the Parisians. We are no longer proud of Europe. We, the politicians, we like to give the impression that we have everything under control, that we're dealing with the situation. But we can't manage Europe as we would a shoe-shop! We need heart, conviction and to take risks”.
And where is the Constitution in all this? “The Treaty, like all constitutions, is a container rather than content. There is no pre-determined political content. This Constitution allows for privatisation or nationalisation, more or less flexible labour laws, etc. The content results from political action.” If this concept had been understood, half of the arguments in favour of the “left-wing no” vote in France would have been swept away. And what about the other argument used, that of an open door for Turkey? Mr Juncker's response should be weighed up word by word: “It will be a very long and open negotiation. At the end of the process either we will be in agreement on full and complete accession, or we will find a solution which amounts to more than association but less than accession”.
B. What did the Dutch vote on? There has been a lot said and written about the fact that the French did not really vote on the Constitution, but rather about other things. What about the Netherlands, then? Before they voted I attempted to summarise four of the reasons for Dutch discontent (see this column In Bulletin 8952). I would add an example which proves the extent to which Dutch scepticism has little to do with European affairs (even if Europe has paid the price). The “Figaro” special envoy, who interviewed people in the streets, indicated that a major element in the Dutch unease was the excessive number of immigrants (in Amsterdam, 40% of the population is of Turkish or Moroccan origin) and the failure of integration policy. Here are some comments from his interviewees: “This policy was ridiculous (…) We offer immigrants a place in society on their terms, not on ours”. “It was an angelic policy, primary schools are giving lessons in Arabic or Turkish to immigrants' children instead of teaching them Dutch and the history of the country they have come to live in”. The journalist noted that “the average Dutch person saw the murder of the polemist Theo van Gogh as a challenge to a pillar of their national society: tolerance”. It is clear that the EU has nothing to do with this unease: it is a national policy that they are questioning, and non-European immigration which is being contested.
C. No viable formula. Several formulae have been suggested to technically get round the blockage of the Constitution. None of them seem viable in my view. Renegotiate the text? Impossible, because the changes required are completely contradictory. Decide, using extraordinary feats of legal acrobatics, that the Constitution will enter into force in those Member States that have ratified it? Inconceivable, since it would mean excluding France and the Netherlands. Add some commitments to the text which would satisfy the demands of some French opponents in terms of social and public services harmonisation? Ridiculous, because the current sections on public services represent the maximum imaginable, whatever might be said by those deceivers who have managed to show the positive result obtained in a bad light. There is one way left: approve, as far as legally possible, certain isolated provisions from the Constitution, particularly on Council voting procedures, extended Presidency of the Council and the creation of a post of European Foreign Affairs Minister. This might possibly be viable (with some doubt in the case of voting procedures), but it would be minimalist.
(F.R.)