No real breakthrough. The proliferation of texts on the relaunch of constitutional (or simply institutional) work is positive and, very often, enriching. Up to now, however, we have seen very little rapprochement between the basic positions taken by the various member states, which may lead to an agreement, by mid-June, on the “roadmap” for the relaunch of this work being prepared by the German presidency. The three fundamentally different positions are still, for the most part, the same: a) the “friends of the Constitutional Treaty”, whose fervent wish is to keep the vast majority of the current draft in place and add to it, rather than take from it; b) those member states which feel that the draft is dead and buried and would like to see something else, going in different directions; c) those member states which would like to see a Treaty lite, which would set all generally accepted institutional changes in stone and thus put the EU back on track. The defence of these respective positions is developing within a reasonably positive climate, with no aggression, each one showing understanding and encouragement towards the others, but without any real breakthrough.
Purely to provide a bit of background, I would like to point out that two of the leaders of the “friends of the Constitutional Treaty” group, the prime ministers of Spain and Italy, José Luis Zapatero and Romano Prodi respectively, signed a joint message, prior to their meeting, which indicated their willingness to help any member states which have not yet ratified the draft treaty to overcome their problems. And the president of the Italian Republic, Giorgio Napolitano, told the European Parliament: “is it possible, today, that people can say so lightly that the Treaty is dead and buried? That the signatures of 27 heads of state or government mean nothing?” But at about the same time, the prime ministers of Poland, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, and of the Czech Republic, Mirek Topolanek, were urging for less haste: the text created by the Convention is not ideal and it might be better to seek new, clearer and less regulated bases for cooperation within the EU; hence the very opposite of “common policies”. France cannot make any official statements in the run-up to the presidential elections, but the former Foreign Affairs Minister, Hubert Védrine, was, to a certain extent, expressing the general trends within the country when he reacted to the “attempts to bring pressure to bear” being made by the 18 member states which have ratified the Treaty, stating that “their hopes are in vain: there will be no second vote in France or the Netherlands on the same text and, in any case, British, Polish and Czech misgivings remain. And these 18 countries cannot move forward without France and the Netherlands”.
Nicolas Sarkozy distances himself from “Brussels”. In this atmosphere, where everybody seems above all to be trying to give the impression of confirming their position and consolidating it ahead of forthcoming negotiations, there has been an element of a split: the speech Nicolas Sarkozy, a candidate for the presidential elections in France, made in Strasbourg last Wednesday, 21 February.
The internal row in France between those in favour of, and those against, the Constitutional Treaty has been completely overlooked in this text, or boiled down into a few well-chosen words (our translation): “the French said no because they felt that Europe was trying to make them into victims, not players, of globalisation”. France is not responsible for the current crisis. Quite the contrary: this is a result of the “abandonment of the fundamental principles of European construction: this meant, in the spirit of the founding fathers, to produce together, to invent together, to work together, to live together. What remains of this in a Europe which has nothing to talk about other than competition, free-trade and the strength of the currency?”
We can see how strong the reverberations of the “no” positions are. It is quite clear that Mr Sarkozy intends to avoid the Franco-French split of the referendum, distancing himself in spectacular style from this amorphous mass which can generally be labelled, in any anti-Community or Eurosceptic discussion, with the term “Brussels”. We must certainly take account of the circumstances of the elections, which can lead one to overlook the differences of emphasis. We know that there is a great deal more light and shade in the reality of “Brussels” than this image, which is almost a caricature, and which is the result of a discourse within an electoral campaign. In reality, the achievements of the Community constitutional machine have been far more positive than citizens have been led to believe in France and elsewhere, because in reality, Europe has: a) made enormous progress towards defining new common policies which are vital for its future, starting with an energy policy; b) taken the lead in global battles which are essential if we are to face up to the new challenges which will determine the future of humanity and of the earth itself. In this column last week (bulletin 9369), I tried to make this point. But what are my comments against the appeals and remarks which people want to hear?
I could stop here, were there not two significant items which have a bearing on our assessment of Mr Sarkozy's actions and our assessment of the electoral campaign in France in general, to the point that the possible actions of the German presidency towards getting us out of the crisis may actually end up being changed by them.
The radical increase of the “European ambitions” of the French presidential candidates. The first item which is worthy of note is that Nicolas Sarkozy's attitude must be taken in the context of a radical increase in the European ambitions of the main candidates for the presidency of the French Republic. Of course, the Eurosceptics are still there, ranging from the “sovereignists” of the extreme right to the “grumpies” of the extreme left: and this is all to the good, as the election results will allow them to be counted, and to count themselves. It does not appear that those who oppose European construction have shown much solidarity in their respective little groupings, preferring to be split into far from brilliant factions, rather than to get together to defend coordinated positions. At the same time, the three candidates considered to have most chance of getting through to the second round are busy accentuating their stances in favour of European construction. They are, in alphabetical order: François Bayrou, Ségolène Royal and Nicolas Sarkozy.
Mr Bayrou, whom we already know to be a paid-up pro-European, and who has never hidden the fact that Jacques Delors has always been a major inspiration to him, spoke in no uncertain terms in Strasbourg on 12 February. His position is clear: the problems which are of concern to the French will find solutions only within the European context. He, therefore, recommends European common policies in economic management, energy, research and immigration.
Ségolène Royal has not yet nailed her European colours to the mast, possibly because she feels that her position on Europe is not a major factor in the choice of the electorate. The few references she has made have focused on the content of European policies, i.e. on something which is not defined in constitutional institutional texts. Something will have to give, however, now that she has surrounded herself with people whose European beliefs are very strong: Mr Strauss-Kahn in the economic and monetary fields; Laurent Fabius for general political direction (I remember, when he was campaigning for the no-vote in the referendum, that he made a very convincing case for the incontrovertible reasons why European choices are a must for his country); Pierre Moscovici, Vice-President of the European Parliament, whose visits to the countries of central and eastern Europe I remember particularly well, when he was working actively to prepare for their accession and when he was responsible for European affairs within a national government.
A strong plea in favour of the Europe of the “founding fathers”. As for the speech made by Nicolas Sarkozy on 21 February, this has to be one of the most vibrant and passionate pleas I have heard in France for a long time in favour of the European construction as the only way out of the problems faced by the member states. He did not speak in favour of “soft” construction on the basis of “cooperation”, but explicitly in favour of something solid, with effective institutions, common policies and a real sense of its own identity in the world.
The first part of his speech was a hymn to the objectives and ambitions of the founding fathers: Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer, Alcide de Gasperi, Paul Henri Spaak, who all wanted Europe to be European and therefore independent: every time we have strayed from this ideal, we have weakened Europe. And Mr Sarkozy openly told the citizens of a member state, in which denigrating Europe has become a national pastime, of the value and significance of what has been built (our translation, once again): “What has been achieved is immense. If it is only because the people have got out of the habit of being at war, for more than half a century, they have got into the habit of associating Europe with their values and common interests. Europe as an ideal of peace and brotherhood has become inscribed on the public conscience (…). In 50 years, Europe has achieved more than any European could have hoped for”.
The other essential reason why Nicolas Sarkozy's text particularly grabbed my attention is the second part of it, the bit quoted above which “distances itself from Brussels” does not just stick to generic criticisms, but indicates the direction and content of policies to be developed. And it is to this second part that I intend to return tomorrow.
(F.R. )