Mes actualités

On behalf of the UMP list, let me thank all the voters of the South-West who trusted us to stand up for our region, our country and our ideas in the European Parliament. Through this site, its forum, the local media and as many direct contacts as possible, we will work together, as a team, to get to know one another better and make our voice heard in European decision-making centres.

I want to express my more personal thanks to the Basque Country. The list I led obtained nine points more there than in the constituency as a whole. The right is ahead of the left there and the UMP gets 50% more votes than the UDF. In comparison with the regional elections, the reversal of the trend is beyond dispute. The UMP is making progress in every ward; the right is regaining a majority in the BAB (Bayonne-Anglet-Biarritz) conurbation and, in particular, regaining the advantage in Anglet – 5312 votes (UMP + UDF + de Villiers list + Pasqua list) against 5234 (Socialist Party + Greens + Communist Party + far left) – including the northern ward (2480 votes against 2377) where the outgoing socialist had just been re-elected. Lire la suite…

Au nom de la liste UMP, je remercie toutes les électrices et électeurs du Sud-Ouest qui nous ont fait confiance pour défendre notre région, notre pays et nos idées au Parlement européen. A travers ce site, son forum, les médias locaux et par un maximum de contacts directs, nous allons travailler ensemble, en équipe, pour mieux nous connaître et faire entendre notre voix dans les centres de décision européens.

Je tiens à exprimer un remerciement plus personnel au Pays basque. La liste que je conduisais y a obtenu 9 points de plus que dans l’ensemble de la circonscription. La droite y devance la gauche, et l’UMP y obtient 50% de voix de plus que l’UDF. Par rapport aux élections régionales, le renversement de tendance est incontestable : l’UMP progresse dans tous les cantons ; la droite redevevient majoritaire dans l’agglomération du BAB, et, en particulier, elle reprend l’avantage à Anglet – 5312 voix (UMP+UDF+liste de Villiers+liste Pasqua) contre 5234(PS+Verts+PC+extrême gauche) – , y compris dans le canton nord (2480 voix contre 2377) où le sortant socialiste venait d’être réélu.

La comparaison est également très favorable avec les résultats de 1999. Sur Bayonne et Anglet, la liste UMP double les scores obtenus à l’époque par la liste que conduisait un certain Nicolas Sarkozy, tandis que les listes souverainistes se sont complètement effondrées depuis. Lire la suite…

All of the candidates in the European elections have experienced the same strange sensation of conducting a discreet and almost covert campaign, even though that campaign focused on a subject about which all those I met were passionately interested. This is why the poor turnout of 43% came as no surprise. What lies at the root of this exasperating paradox? How can it be remedied?

The main reason is common to all the countries of the European Union. The European elections are perceived as a vote with no immediate impact on power, so people question why they should take the trouble to go out and vote. Too many of the electorate, especially young people, have long ceased to regard voting as a fundamental civic act, as both the foremost right and the foremost duty of citizens of a democratic country, and now see it as an optional chore. A quarter-century after the first election of the European Parliament by universal suffrage, neither the public authorities nor the education system nor the political parties nor the media have made much of an effort to inform our fellow citizens about the workings of the European institutions. The assembly in Strasbourg is felt to be remote, its powers are unclear, and people feel that their vote will do nothing to alter an unknown script that has been written in advance. So why bother? Lire la suite…

L’Europe s’est construite depuis un demi-siècle de manière paradoxale. Toutes les initiatives importantes ont été prises par les gouvernements, et notamment par le couple franco-allemand, c’est-à-dire par ceux qui avaient le plus à perdre en terme de pouvoirs, ainsi transférés à Bruxelles. Tandis que les citoyens, qui y étaient spontanément favorables et qui avaient le plus à y gagner, n’ont été invités qu’exceptionnellement à se prononcer sur les grands choix.

Cette époque est désormais révolue. Nous assistons depuis deux ans à l’irruption irrésistible des citoyens et de leurs représentants dans le débat européen.

La première percée a été la réunion de la Convention européenne. C’est à cette assemblée, réunissant des élus de tous les Parlements nationaux d’Europe, que les dirigeants européens ont confié l’élaboration du premier traité de la grande Europe. Le résultat a dépassé les espérances les plus optimistes. Il est proposé de passer de l’Europe économique et monétaire à une Europe politique, de l’Union des gouvernements au mariage des peuples, et d’un système de décision obscur et peu efficace à un régime transparent et pleinement démocratique : bref, de remplacer un traité ordinaire par une Constitution, règle de vie commune des 450 millions de citoyens européens. Lire la suite…

If we want the European debate to get off the ground, which it failed to do throughout the recent round of public consultation, our starting point should be the real situation in France, Europe and the world in 2004, not some old prejudices dating from the 1960s.

1 – The construction of Europe began more than half a century ago. It was pursued during the Cold War, and has been pursued ever since, by means of new treaties at average intervals of three years, as the success of the Community in particular fields has opened up new areas of activity and its success in general has attracted more and more new applicant countries.

Almost twenty years have now passed since the Single European Act, signed in 1986, gave the European Parliament legislative powers. The French Council of State estimates that more than half of the new statutory provisions that enter into force each year stem from decisions made at the European level rather than purely national decisions. The Union has a budget of €100 billion, equivalent to almost 30% of the French budget. It has its own currency. It is the Union that represents us – which it has done for no less than 40 years – in the international negotiations with the greatest impact on our economy, namely those on trade in goods and services and those on the environment. It is even in the process of equipping itself with military capabilities, and its headquarters will shortly take over command of the peacekeeping forces in both Bosnia and Afghanistan from the Americans. Lire la suite…

Si l’on veut que le débat européen dépasse le degré zéro au niveau duquel il est resté lors des consultations populaires précédentes, il faut partir des réalités de la France, de l’Europe et du monde de 2004, et non des vieux préjugés des années 60.

1 – La construction européenne est engagée depuis plus d’un demi-siècle. Elle s’est poursuivie pendant et après la guerre froide, à raison, en moyenne, d’un traité tous les trois ans, la réussite dans un domaine particulier conduisant à ouvrir de nouveaux chantiers, et la réussite globale lui attirant sans cesse de nouveaux candidats.

Voilà maintenant près de vingt ans (traité de 1985) que l’Union européenne exerce une compétence législative : le Conseil d’Etat estime que plus de la moitié des nouvelles règles de droit applicables chaque année en France sont décidées désormais dans le cadre européen et non plus au seul niveau national. L’Union a un budget de 100 milliards d’euros, équivalent à près de 30% du budget français. Elle dispose d’une monnaie. C’est elle qui nous représente (depuis quarante ans !) dans les négociations internationales les plus importantes pour notre économie : le commerce des marchandises et des services, l’environnement. Elle est même en train de se doter de moyens militaires, et ce sont ses états-majors qui prendront prochainement le relais des Américains pour diriger les forces de maintien de la paix en Bosnie aussi bien qu’en Afghanistan. Lire la suite…

One of the developments for which we find it most difficult to account in our analyses of contemporary society, strangely enough, is the revolutionary transition from a state of chronic warring to one of perpetual peace. This ‘peace revolution’ is at least as important as the transformations wrought by the democratic revolution in the political world or by the Industrial Revolution. However, whereas the storming of the Bastille, the invention of the motor car or the spread of the contraceptive pill were spectacular occurrences and/or were immediately apparent to anyone, it has taken a very long time indeed for everyone to realise that, at least in Europe, the historical curse that was as old as humanity itself, namely the recurrent disease of tribal warfare, has been cast out ‘once and for all’. To be more precise, while every one of us has been convinced of this for a long time, we have not understood the dramatic upheavals that have accompanied it, radically changing the whole concept of life in society. Colonial wars, the Cold War and, to a lesser extent, the wars in the Balkans and the terrorist threat have delayed the dawning of this realisation.

Let us examine the full implications of this development. The most apt comparison is that of a contagious disease. This evil that has plagued humanity in epidemic or endemic form has now been eradicated on the European continent, as in North America and in the southern hemisphere, between Australia and New Zealand. This does not mean that the countries in these parts of the world are safe from any kind of domestic organised violence or, of course, that they have nothing to fear from the outside world: nationalist violence still rears its head in Ireland and the Basque Country, extremist groups plant bombs here and there, and Islamic terrorists can strike more or less anywhere, while an increasing number of unstable states are capable of acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Who can claim, moreover, that the disease has been completely eradicated? Be that as it may, this has been a historic transformation. Our societies were forged by the use of force and shaped by the balance of power, both within national borders and in the wider world. Each period of peace was merely an interlude between wars. Large countries prepared for victory in the next confrontation, while small countries tried to ensure that they would not be the next battleground. Every peace treaty led to the emergence or disappearance of governments, states or nations. Under the combined impact of democracy, the rule of law and European integration, of decolonisation and the demise of the Soviet Union, every country in this continent is now a pacified and fundamentally pacific society, living in certain peace with its immediate neighbours and with no enemy nations in other continents. Lire la suite…