What would the outcome of a “yes” vote be ?

Over the past few weeks, the debate on the draft European Constitution has often dwelled on what would happen if the ‘no’ voters carried the day in the French referendum. Perhaps we should now consider the results of a ‘yes’ vote. What could the European Union then do that it cannot do under the existing Treaties and in what way would it function differently from the way it does now?

Given that the last ratification is scheduled for next spring, the Member States, European institutions, parties, unions and civil society will have had several months to prepare for the entry into force of the Constitution, set for 1 November 2006 under Article 447.

The result of a ‘yes’ vote will be that the European Council of December 2006 elects its first full-time President (Article 22). It will have to choose between the prestigious candidate Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the popular Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, who enjoys the support of the small countries, and Lionel Jospin, the candidate put forward by the socialists because of his strong contribution to the final victory of the ‘yes’ camp. The elected candidate takes office on 1 January the following year, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. He can set to work immediately: The Union Minister for Foreign Affairs (Article 28), at his side, has been appointed since 2004; he is Javier Solana, the Spanish socialist, who will meanwhile have set up a Union External Action Service (Article 296).

Now that it has legal personality (Article 7), the European Union can negotiate, on a case by case basis, its participation in all international organisations and negotiations within its field of competence.

In the International Maritime Organisation, for instance, there will be a Union representative, speaking on behalf of EU members, with a greater right to vote than countries flying a flag of convenience, currently in the majority: the very strict rules on safety at sea that the Union adopted following the Erika and Prestige shipwrecks could soon become global rules.

Will life be easier or more difficult for the President of the European Central Bank? Whatever the case, it will be quite different. As things stand now, on Monday he could receive the Irish Finance Minister who has come to ask him whether he can raise interest rates to cool down the overheated economy of the Emerald Isle, on Tuesday it could be the French Minister wanting to lower those same rates to back up the upturn in growth, while the next day the Netherlands Minister advises him to keep to the status quo… As from the beginning of 2007, a ‘Mr Euro’, elected for two and a half years by the EU Finance Ministers, meets him once a week and the two men can work non-stop to find the magic combination of economic and monetary policies that can maximise growth without reintroducing inflation – just as their Washington counterparts have been doing successfully for the past 15 years.

Speaking of Washington, let us take a look over there. At the International Monetary Fund, the same ‘Mr Euro’ can speak on behalf of the Member States – of which there are now between 15 and 20, since it is highly likely that in the wake of ratification of the Constitution, Denmark and Sweden will have joined the club, as will the Baltic states and Slovenia, which are preparing for that date. In the IMF, ‘Mr Euro’ turns out to have a stronger voting right than the American Treasury Secretary. At last serious talks can begin with the Americans on stabilising relations between the euro and the dollar, and with the Japanese and Chinese on their respective currencies. And if the Europeans have the nerve to do so, they can even call for the headquarters of the Fund to be moved from west to east across the Atlantic, in accordance with Article XIII of the IMF Articles of Agreement, under which the principal office of the Fund is to be located in the territory of the member state having the largest quota! That prospect might encourage the UK to join the euro in time to put forward London as a candidate…

No less surprise in other capital cities. Accustomed to seeing a succession of leaders of European countries in his antechamber, all vying for his diplomatic favours and cheap fuel, the boss of the Kremlin finds himself faced with a European President who has the power to propose a global energy agreement and dares to bring up a taboo subject, one that indeed poses the greatest threat to Europe’s environment: the shameful nuclear dustbin of Murmansk, where 30 ex-Red Army submarines with irradiated reactor elements are corroding on the White Sea. In return, Russia is offered the status of ‘privileged partner’ provided for in Article 57, a partnership that could also be offered to Turkey and, one day, to the Maghreb countries.

Same surprise in Beijing. As things stand now, the Chinese President may well receive the German Chancellor, who goes on and on about his machine tools, the French Prime Minister, waxing eloquent about Airbus, the Finn, talking volubly about his mobiles, while each of them leaves it to an unseen senior official in Brussels to bring up, rather more quietly, the matter of Chinese iniquities as regards textiles. In 2007, a European President speaks to him on equal terms, bringing up other thorny issues, such as the occupation of Tibet, or the circumstances in which China was involved in the leaking of nuclear secrets.

Those issues include China’s refusal to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, under which 30 industrialised countries have undertaken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2012. At the mid-term review of that Protocol, the Union President takes the opportunity to invite China and the United States to share in this effort in their own fashion, for example by setting up an international agency on climate change.

During the same period, under Article 41 of the Constitution, France, Germany, Spain and several of their partners begin to set up the first units of common security and defence forces. Those same countries entrust the new European Defence Agency with drawing up a future armaments policy and launching common research programmes. The Union proposes a global cooperation and task-sharing agreement to NATO, to cope with any threats that may face Europe.

The entry into force of the Constitution causes a similar upheaval in the Union’s internal activities. Henceforth the Council of Ministers meets in public. On their return from Brussels, ministers can no longer blame their favourite scapegoat. They can no longer complain, because they have regained the ability to act. The alliance between the founding countries and Spain means that majorities can be formed, which gives Europe a new momentum (Article 23). Decisions on the common immigration policy and the fight against serious cross-border crime are adopted in the space of a few months, instead of being blocked by the paralysing unanimity rule. Europol launches its first investigations (Article 276) and can become the European FBI that Helmut Kohl promised 15 years ago. The European Agency for the Management of Operational Coordination in Warsaw gradually turns into a European Border Police (Article 265). The Union’s new competence in the area of space (Article 14) makes it easier to deploy the Galileo satellite system, a rival to the American GPS system, and secure the future of the French space industry, while the completion of 30 land transport network projects spells the definitive salvation of Alstom and is of enormous benefit to our civil engineering industry.

Parliament, for its part, immediately applies the new Constitution, integrating into all the texts on the common market, starting with the free movement of services so dear to Frits Bolkestein, the social objectives of full employment, eliminating inequality and respect for services of general economic interest, as provided in Articles 115 to 122.

The next landmark date is 2009: in June that year the European Parliament is re-elected, with citizens knowing it now exercises full legislative power, and will in its turn elect the President of the Commission. Each European party now has to present a genuine political programme that is identical in the 27 EU countries: be it on industrial policy, social progress, environment, agricultural policy, immigration or Turkey’s application for membership – providing citizens with the same opportunity to determine the direction of European policy as they have nationally. At the same time, each political party organises its own primaries to nominate its candidate for the Presidency of the Commission. On the left, the socialist primary sees Tony Blair, who has just handed over 10 Downing Street to Gordon Brown, stand against Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, the Danish Chairman of the PES, who represents the Scandinavian socialist model and is highly critical of the United States. The centre and right parties, united in the EPP, have to choose between the outgoing President, José-Manuel Durão Barroso, a symbol of continuity, and the French Dominique de Villepin, champion of a ‘European Europe’. Meanwhile the Greens agree to nominate Joschka Fischer, former revolutionary turned European federalist. Then comes an unprecedented event: TF1 finally decides to send a permanent correspondent to Brussels to report on the election and the activities of this President who, elected by Parliament, will enjoy the legitimacy conferred by the vote of representatives of 480 million Europeans (Article 20).

Without waiting for that election, in 2007 the former far-right MEP Philippe Herzog and his ‘Confrontations Europe’ association present the first collective petition, as provided for in Article 47: more than three million citizens, from 20 countries, invite the Commission to submit a draft law on European services of general interest. If José Bové fails to collect the necessary signatures, outside France, to call for the uprooting of all GM maize, another petition presented jointly by the UMP Youth League and the Young Socialists invites Union leaders immediately to set up the European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps provided for in Article 321, without waiting for another tragedy in Africa or another tsunami in Asia.

Those are a few examples, by way of illustration. They are not imaginary but based on plans that are widely known, that have been announced or are being prepared in various quarters. I lay claim only to suggesting the names of candidates who might be selected: readers can replace them with their own choices, or their own name. Of course, a Constitution is merely a tool: everything will depend on the willingness to use it. But surely no democrat, no Frenchman or woman, no citizen of the world could in all conscience refuse the chance to take part in this great adventure.

Alain Lamassoure, 19 May 2005