A new method for a new European project

Silence. After months of impassioned debate in France, silence has reigned where Europe is concerned since 29 May. Silence among the partisans of a ‘yes’ vote, laid low by their setback. A more unexpected silence among the victors in the ‘no’ camp, unwilling to face the fact that there was never any ‘plan B’. Silence among observers and in the media, happy at last to return to the delights of national politics.

Last weekend, the UMP broke this silence. The party which took the lead in the defence of the Constitution could have been, should have been the party most weakened by the setback. Not a bit of it. Having come to terms with its internal divisions, it has emerged united, whereas the socialists continue to tear themselves apart. Sunday after Sunday, by-elections bear witness to its remarkable vitality. And under the firm direction of Nicolas Sarkozy, it is the first political party in Europe daring enough to relaunch the European debate after the major crisis of last spring. That was the purpose of the Convention at the Mutualité in Paris, which was attended by many figures from all over Europe. What was the outcome?

In essence, the political and budgetary crises of last spring show that the Europe of the 21st century has yet to be invented. It was not Europe that was rejected by a majority of Frenchmen and Frenchwomen on 29 May. On the contrary, the French expressed a strong need for Europe. But many do not like the Europe of the present, or they have doubts about it.

But we must not acquiesce in this setback. The world will not wait for us. And there is something more serious: in this Europe stalled because of France, our country is weakened. It has drifted off the course that it set, leaving the whole of Europe without a compass. We need to put France back on its feet, to get the European Union moving again and to resume work on the construction of our 21st century Europe.

What we need is a new method. Because what failed was the top-down approach by which a ready-made draft Constitution was referred directly to the citizens for their approval, without any real effort to inform them about it and without any real preliminary debate on the purpose, the nature, the content and the limits of the European project.

Since the institutional approach has not worked, we must start again from the logical beginning: the starting point should be the identity of Europe and what we expect of it. What Europe, and to do what? It is only then that we shall be able to bring a new institutional process to a successful conclusion.

Identity begins with the fixing of frontiers. The novel idea, the simple idea, the popular idea, which we must bring to this debate, is that the right question is not ‘where should the frontiers of the European Union be?’, but: ‘who should define the frontiers of the European Union?’ And that solves the problem. If we want to create a people’s Europe, if we seek to give power within it to the citizens, the European family should be planned, not in secret in government offices, but out in the public arena. By modifying its own national Constitution in order to give the last word to its citizens on the subject, France has already covered half the distance as far as it is concerned. The other half remains to be covered: popular support must be secured, not after ten years of negotiations with an applicant country, but straight away before the betrothal is announced. And that must be the role of Parliament. We should establish the principle that France will not agree to open accession negotiations with a third country until a debate has been held and a formal vote has been taken in its national Parliament.

Then, what do we want to do together? We must set some simple political priorities for the years to come. If we want to reconcile our fellow citizens with Europe, we must show them that the Union can be effective on subjects which are important and readily intelligible to public opinion – and instil in them the desire for a Europe which will be even more effective thanks to the Constitution. Here are a few examples.

– Energy. The long drawn-out oil crisis through which we have lived for three years is more pernicious and more serious than the shocks of the 1970s. Everyone suffers its effects in their everyday life out and about and at home. And everyone understands that, if each European country reacts separately, some lowering taxes while others increase them, some relaunching nuclear energy projects while others rule them out, some saving energy while others waste it, we shall penalise our economies and reduce our purchasing power unnecessarily.


What we need is a common response to the energy challenge in all its dimensions.

– Immigration. Here too, everyone understands that in an area where systematic police checks at internal borders have been removed it is no longer possible for each country to decide freely on its own migration policy. Our Spanish friends unilaterally decided to regularise the situation of 700 000 illegal immigrants without the slightest consultation with their partners. At this very moment, little Luxembourg is in talks on this issue with powerful Nigeria. ‘Immigration freely chosen and not suffered’ is a slogan which the Union as a whole can share and which we should propose for application within the European framework.

– Security. One of the great disadvantages of the rejection of the Constitution is that the fundamentals of security policy and policy on combating terrorism continue to be decided unanimously! Some of our partners, and not the smallest ones, have not even introduced the crime of terrorism into their criminal law! There is great urgency here. We should propose that the solidarity clause on unlimited joint action in the fight against terrorism, provided by Article 43 of the draft Constitution, should be the subject of a special Treaty requiring parliamentary ratification. In order to provide a more effective legal basis.

At the same time, is it asking too much of our governments not to keep on fuelling anti-European flames? That is, claiming the credit for popular initiatives which can only be taken effectively at European level and, conversely, passing the buck to Brussels on whatever causes trouble. A series of aviation accidents? France draws up its own blacklist of air transport companies although, as common sense demands, the legal power rests with the Union, which has in fact set up an Aviation Safety Agency. A threatened takeover bid for a large food group? France announces new national legislation before realising that there is a European law hot from the press which only needs to be transposed into national law, which our partners have already done. Hewlett-Packard is laying off workers? This time France turns to the European Commission even though it has no powers in the matter, as its President curtly remarked.

Once these preliminaries have been settled, but only then, shall we be able to move forward with the institutional process. To work!

Alain Lamassoure, 26 September 2005.