Ratification of the Constitution : towards a European flame
The organisation of referendums in ten or more countries to ratify a European treaty is an unprecedented and very high-risk undertaking. No European country is really familiar with this very delicate exercise, which, depending on the way it is handled, may pave the way for the most democratic of choices or the most simplistic populism. Some countries (especially the Benelux states) will be trying this experiment for the very first time. Previous consultations of this kind on European issues in countries such as Denmark, Ireland and even France (1992) warn us of the need for circumspection.
The great danger in every country is to confuse the European debate with the struggle for power at national level. The European Parliament elections already tend everywhere to be exploited by political parties, the media and the voters themselves to fuel the national debate between government and opposition. That is a particularly grave danger in France, where the tradition of the Fifth Republic is very likely to turn a referendum into a plebiscite: throughout his term of office Charles de Gaulle, like François Mitterrand in 1992, openly used referendums as a vote of confidence in his personal leadership. In France today, two people out of three spontaneously say they are in favour of further European integration, while last spring more than half our fellow citizens expressed their mistrust of the executive power: if well presented, a referendum on Europe would be won; a plebiscite would be lost.
The fundamental objective of the ‘yes’ supporters must, therefore, be to dissociate the European constitutional issue as much as possible from the issue of national power. That would protect Europe from the potential unpopularity of the executive and protect the latter from the uncertainties of the European referendum.
The most spectacular means of achieving that would be to hold a referendum in all the countries concerned and to organise all these popular consultations on the same day, asking precisely the same question in each case. It would then become clear that this was not a referendum about Chirac, Zapatero or Blair, but one that reflected European citizens’ direct power to choose their common future.
Failing that, it is vital at the very least for Member States to coordinate their ratification timetables, in order to create a positive momentum, as the Central European countries managed to do last year with their accession treaties, starting with the countries most in favour, in order to provide an impetus. That impetus must be maintained and public opinion must be encouraged to look beyond the confines of national interest.
The last Olympic Games once again showed the great strength and media impact of the symbol of the torch, relayed from hand to hand until it reaches the site of the next Olympics.
Inspired by that example, we should light a ‘European’ flame in a symbolic place (perhaps Rome, Strasbourg or Brussels?), and bear it, if possible on foot, from the capital of one ratifying country to the next. The flame would be followed by a banner with the flags of the countries that had already ratified the Constitution. That would create a growing momentum, as the list of countries – and the suspense – built up over the weeks. When the procession reached it, each country in turn would realise that it held in its hands not only its national destiny but the flame of European hope. Surely nobody would dare extinguish it. In the reports and discussions that would accompany this event throughout, the argument from the outset would be to say: ‘you cannot block the process for all the countries that follow you’ and, towards the end: ‘how can you disown the 20 countries that have pointed the way?’
Alain Lamassoure, 8 September 2004