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.
Lire la suite…
It will be no surprise to readers of this column that Jacques Chirac opted for a referendum on the ratification of the European Constitution. For the past two years, not only have I campaigned for the use of that most democratic procedure but I have always predicted that it will be politically impossible to avoid it.
Hitherto, the European Union has been founded on treaties negotiated by diplomats and decided by governments. In contrast, the Constitution was drawn up by elected people’s representatives in order to unite the citizens themselves and not just their leaders. That democratic change requires the explicit assent of citizens. Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac are to be congratulated on the courage they have shown in taking this political risk, which is as great as the issue at stake.
There is indeed quite a risk. A referendum is an extremely delicate matter and depending on how it is used it can be a highly democratic or a highly ambiguous procedure. To tell the truth, only the Swiss and some American states, such as California, have been holding referendums long enough to know how to handle them. That does not mean that ‘yes’ votes always carry the day (in 40% of Swiss referendums, the ‘no’ camp has won), but at least citizens go to the ballot boxes to have their say on the question put to them. None of the 25 EU states has that kind of experience. Referendums are rare if not exceptional events and the electorate seizes the opportunity to express its discontent of the moment, which sometimes bears no direct relation to the question at issue. In France, Gaullist tradition means that referendums openly take on the form of plebiscites: presidents, for instance, use them to ask for a vote of confidence from the people who elected them. In 1969, General de Gaulle found he no longer enjoyed that confidence and took the only step that he could: immediate resignation. In 1992, in view of the first opinion polls, which were highly favourable, François Mitterrand was clearly seeking an opportunity to regain the political authority he had lost at home by putting the popular proposal for a European currency to the vote: of the 49% of Frenchmen and women who voted ‘no’ to the Maastricht Treaty, a good third at least were right-wingers who tended to be in favour of monetary union yet wanted to seize this unexpected chance to get rid of a president they disliked.
Lire la suite…
Le recours au référendum dans au moins une dizaine de pays pour ratifier un traité européen est un exercice sans précédent et à très haut risque. Aucun pays européen n’est vraiment familiarisé avec cette procédure très délicate qui, selon les modalités retenues, peut se prêter au choix le plus démocratique ou au populisme le plus simpliste. Certains (notamment au Bénélux) l’expérimenteront même pour la première fois. Les précédentes consultations de ce type sur des enjeux européens dans des pays comme le Danemark, l’Irlande et même la France (1992) incitent à la circonspection.
Dans tous les pays, le danger n°1 est la confusion entre le débat européen et la lutte pour le pouvoir au niveau national. Déjà, partout, les élections au Parlement européen ont tendance à être confisquées par les partis politiques, les médias, et les électeurs eux-mêmes au profit du débat national entre gouvernement et opposition. Ce danger est particulièrement grave en France, où la tradition de la Ve République donne au référendum un fort caractère plébiscitaire : le général de Gaulle, pendant tout son mandat, et François Mitterrand en 1992 s’en sont ouvertement servis pour poser aux Français la question de confiance sur leur acton personnelle. Or, aujourd’hui, deux Français sur trois sont spontanément favorables au progrès de la construction européenne, alors que plus de la moitié de nos concitoyens ont exprimé au printemps dernier leur défiance envers le pouvoir exécutif : bien présenté, un référendum sur l’Europe doit être gagné ; un plébiscite sera perdu.
Lire la suite…
In France, the outcome of the European elections has certainly given little cause for satisfaction in our ranks. The turnout was very low. As the opposition had hoped, the ‘punishment’ vote we saw in the regional elections was repeated, even if the advance of the left has been halted.
Within the majority, the UDF has managed to rally the equivalent of half the UMP votes. Yet the UMP managed to increase the number of its MEPs in Strasbourg (17 against 12 RPR and DL in 1999), at a time when the quota allocated to France has fallen to make room for the new Member States (78 French MEPs instead of 87). There are finally signs of a fall in the eurosceptic vote, on both the right and the left.
We are not so blinkered as to rejoice at the way the socialists and the UDF immediately spoiled their electoral victory. Although they now form the largest national delegation within the PES Group, thanks to their sectarianism, French Socialist Party MEPs performed the amazing feat of turning their colleagues against them to the point that they actually handed over the presidency of Parliament to a Spaniard and the chair of the Group to a German. As for our UDF partners, they could not find anything better to do than leave the EPP Group at the very time that Group had won the day with regard to the draft Constitution and confirmed its position as the dominant group in the newly elected Parliament! The political result is that, if the UDF had stayed, French MEPs would have been in second place within the EPP Group, just behind the Germans, whereas they are now in sixth place, behind the English, Spaniards, Italians and even Poles. Meanwhile, the UDF sits in a small and diverse group, next to passionate supporters of Turkey’s application and total opponents of public services à la française. It beggars belief…
Lire la suite…