29 May : All Fools’ Day

We now have proof that, contrary to what the mainstream media were constantly saying, the French are not bored with Europe. They piled into the polling stations in numbers as great as for a presidential election! It had been a long time since any political campaign had aroused as many discussions, as much passion, and had provided as many topics of conversation at the office, in the café, among friends, even at home in the family. All the media ran debates and assembled a full range of documentation. The text of the Constitution, despite being pronounced ‘unreadable’, and the ten or so books published for the occasion flew off booksellers’ shelves. Even the Braille edition was soon sold out! For the first time, large-scale use was made of new communication technology: e-mails, texts, blogs … Over the past two months, the forum of this personal site alone has hosted a considerable number of often very lively exchanges. This is good news for our democracy.

Unfortunately it is the only good news. Otherwise, 29 May left only defeated people in its wake.

The first among them, clearly, are the supporters of the European Constitution, starting with the writer of these words. From the time the idea of a Constitution was mooted in the European Parliament, back in July 1999, what obstacles have been overcome, what new ideas have sprung to life and what improbable successes have been achieved! The unprecedented convening of a Convention to draft the text, the consensus, which hardly anyone dared hope for, reached within it among the representatives of all political parties in all the parliaments of Europe (with the sole exception of the British Conservatives), the support of all the governments for a text which nevertheless created a political power competing with theirs, the support of the new Member States, despite the fact that they had just joined the Union on the very different basis of the Treaty of Nice… These six years of work are what the vote on 29 May destroyed.

Those who expected that the victory of the ‘no’ camp would produce a stronger France and/or lead to the development of a more social European project, the weakening of European bureaucracy, protection against globalisation, even the improvement of their personal lot, will nevertheless have a rude awakening. Where our arguments failed to convince, it is actual events which will confirm, day by day, how the champions of the ‘no’ vote were duped – and, in some cases, even deliberately duped the French.

The first immediate effect of this vote is that Europe’s momentum has been halted, and for a long time to come. As Jean-Marie Le Pen and Philippe de Villiers hoped, the French ‘no’ immediately triggered that of the Netherlands – but for diametrically opposed reasons: the Dutch find the common agricultural policy, from which the French are the first to benefit, too expensive and consider the Constitution more advantageous for the big countries than for the small ones. The contagion of national self-interest has begun to spread! On 16 June next, the European Council will be faced with an insoluble dilemma: either to proceed with ratifications in the fifteen countries which have not yet returned a verdict, albeit in the certain knowledge that the text no longer has any chance of coming into force; or to suspend the process immediately which would nevertheless mean depriving those countries of a debate and a vote that would allow public opinion there to give a verdict on the continued course of events. For, if work on the project is to resume, it is at least necessary to know on what basis it should proceed: we need to know what all the peoples really think, not just half of them.

In any event, it will not be before spring 2007, after the national elections in Germany, Poland, Italy and France, that the major European states will be in a position to take a strong new initiative. A new Treaty will have to be drafted on the basis of a new Convention, for how could anyone contemplate putting a text drawn up by a procedure less transparent and less democratic than that for the project which has just been rejected by the French to a new referendum straight away? And this time, twenty-seven countries, not fifteen, will want to have their say at every stage in the process. And that is before we embark afresh on the obstacle course of ratifications! In short, at least seven to ten years will have been lost in the construction of Europe.

In the meantime, the Union will function on the basis of the Treaty of Nice. Hence, Europe remains an economic and monetary area, without stable frontiers and without an identity. The market and monetary affairs continue to be its main priorities. The social dimension is secondary. The Central Bank has no political authority with which it can deliberate on its monetary policy. In commercial matters, the Union is only represented by a senior official and, in other fields of external relations, it is not represented at all – it does not even have a legal existence! In Brussels, decisions continue to be taken in secret in the Council of Ministers which, as often as not, may set aside the opinion of Parliament. And the most important decisions can no longer even be taken, since unanimity is required and, with twenty-five or twenty-seven, this will be practically impossible to achieve. For the citizens, ‘Brussels’ remains a shadow theatre, watched only by spectators who have no influence on the action. China was the first to exploit the weakening of the Union in the immediate aftermath of the French ‘no’, by resuming the full flow of textile exports which it had just agreed to limit some days previously. At the same time there is great jubilation in the British and American press over the self-humiliation of the French.

The greatest loser, alas, is France itself. Within this Union governed by the Treaty of Nice, France no longer punches its demographic weight: it is hampered by a system of voting rights which favours the small countries and under which, for example, a Dutchman is worth as much as two Frenchmen – which explains why our Dutch neighbours are so attached to the present system. The new powers which France made sure were introduced into the Constitution will also have to go: industrial policy, which we wanted finally to take precedence over competition policy; space policy, which would have enabled our first-class high-tech industry to be financed at European level; energy, which is becoming a vital issue in the face of threats of world shortages; public services, which the Constitution solemnly recognised as being a European policy area; the control of illegal immigration and major cross-border crime, in the face of which we remain ridiculously impotent as long as the smallest decision continues to require unanimity among the governments.

Here too, the political penalty will be immediate.

On the evening of 29 May, at one minute past ten, the first microphone put in front of me was that of the BBC, whose Paris correspondent asked: ‘So, Mr Lamassoure, France seems keen to relinquish the leadership of Europe?’ He was expressing the general feeling outside France.

Next week, when the budgetary framework for the period 2007-2013 is examined, and for the first time since 1979, a large majority in the European Parliament will propose that aid to agriculture henceforth be assigned, at least in part, to the national budgets instead of the European budget. What arguments can we then bring to bear, having set that bad example of giving precedence to national concerns over the common project? At a time when Flemish MEP Els de Groen openly demands that Parliament say ‘No to Strasbourg’ because the French people have said ‘No to Europe’!

Thus, in the aftermath of 29 May, we find ourselves with a weakened France in a paralysed Europe, without a forward plan, racked with doubt over its future, and now deprived of the Franco-German engine.

No patriotic Frenchman, and certainly no pro-European Frenchman, can find lasting satisfaction in such a situation. All our efforts must now be directed towards two objectives.

Firstly, to respond at last to the exasperation and despair expressed once more by a majority of our compatriots. This means nothing less than restoring content, sense and perspective to French policy. Twenty-five years of failure in the fight against unemployment are enough! The unprecedented configuration of the new Government and the quality of its leading members are a start in meeting this expectation.

In parallel, to keep Europe at the heart of French politics and France at the heart of Europe. This exceptional campaign must not be allowed to falter. The millions of Frenchmen and Frenchwomen who have understood that, from now on, Europe must be the main frame of reference for our key political choices and, in particular, all those who have learned to love it and want to commit themselves to it must keep up the momentum on the national and the European front. Let us not, through laziness and convenience, slip back into national political orthodoxy, which would have us believe that all political life is limited to the conquest of the Elysée Palace. The citizens have burst into the European debate with a vengeance: let us hope that they remain there, for the sake of France and for the sake of Europe!

Alain Lamassoure, 2 June 2005.