Subject: French politics and the EU referendum

By: Hatto Fischer,

Athens

Also look at: http://www.euroagora.net/constitution-fr

---

The ratification of the EU Constitutional Treaty by its 25 member states does not foresee a uniform process but it is left to each member state on how best to give official agreement to the treaty. While Greece will vote on the EU Constitutional Treaty in the absence of any public discussion in an ordinary parliamentary session, France will make agreement subject to a referendum in May 2005. Right now France appears to be heading towards a resounding ‘no’ for various reasons to be discussed below. Of interest in either case is that the very absence of a substantial European debate leaves people uninformed as to what this EU Constitutional Treaty entails for the future of Europe. There has yet to be made a conscious link between what people want and what it takes before EU institutions have a ‘legal base’ for European actions. Currently what citizens know is still a far cry away from understanding and appreciating what can make European institutions work to further integration and social cohesion.

 

Chirac and French politics

 

Recent polls in France show that those who will reject the EU constitutional treaty in the referendum amount to about 56%. For this reason Chirac decided to enter the debate more forcefully. He discussed in a live debate on Friday April 15th 2005 as shown by French television with 85 youngsters the future of the European Union and what it would mean to reject the Constitutional Treaty for Europe and France.

Naturally there is another level of thought as to these predictions about the possible negative outcome of the French referendum for the ratification of the EU Constitutional Treaty. Some say people would want to punish Chirac for the high level of unemployment and endangering with his policy still further the social security system in the country. They are willing to defeat the referendum in order to show their opposition to Chirac’s policy.

It should be recalled that some of them may think the French people made some terrible mistakes during the last Presidential election. For then in the final end Chirac ended up getting 80% of the vote just to avoid having LePen from the Extreme Right being elected as president. No one had thought Jospin, the Socialist candidate, would be thrown out of the race on the first day of election but he was because many took it for granted that he would face Chirac during the final run-off election on the second Sunday. Consequently they did not vote but were on that weekend of on a holiday. Consequently the French dissatisfaction with their president Chirac is only an indication of really outstanding issues never addressed fully the land of ‘la culture exceptionelle’.

 

Interestingly enough Chirac stated during that debate with the youngsters that even if the referendum turns out to be a resounding ‘no’, he will not step down. Perhaps this shows a kind of political strategy: if people see that he will not step down, therefore they cannot really punish him for his policy with their vote. The hope is then they might focus more directly on the issue to be decided upon in the referendum, namely the Constitutional Treaty. It would mean giving themselves an opportunity to know more about the Constitutional Treaty in an open debate and thereby make the vote a truer measure of support for such a European test of the French ‘citoyen’ in terms of his or her dispositions towards Europe.

For the rest of Europe, and in particular for the new member states, it is, of course, a stark contrast to have one of the leading member states of the European Union being caught in such a negative state of opinion about Europe and its future development. This does not go well with those states making an all out effort to convince their people that it would be a good thing to join the European Union.

A French signal of ‘no’ would have, therefore, quite an impact upon European affairs and negotiations between all member states. The extent to which this will throw back the process of European integration and expansion – here many French voters seem to be against the entry of Turkey – remains to be seen. Certainly those who conduct European affairs will have to re-examine very carefully the premises by which they assume to have a ‘legal base’ for their actions.

 

Schizophrenic politics

 

News media like the BBC confirmed that Chirac stated during the debate with the youngsters that he will not step down if he looses out on the vote. By saying that he continues to insist that there is a clear separation between European and National politics.

The separation is a fiction, as everyone familiar with European affairs knows. Yet it exemplifies exactly the kind of schizophrenia politicians are practicing not only in France but throughout Europe.

As this includes as well all those Conservative politicians from the UK who introduce themselves whenever they take the floor in the European Parliament with “I don’t really know why I am sitting here” and then go ahead to launch an attack against the European Union, the question is why give money to those who want to destroy the very institutions set-up to take Europe out of periods of bloody conflicts and endless wars?

Simon Mundy talks about this ‘political schizophrenia’ when it comes to politicians explaining the European Union or what the existence thereof means in real terms. Simon Mundy points out that whenever the politicians are in Brussels or Strasbourg, they talk at international level; the moment they are at home, they explain to their voters only what is of interest to them without exposing them to the difficulties of reconciling different interests at European level. It means simple this: they fail to inform what Europe is all about.

There is another curiosity. Despite millions of Euro being spend on never well defined PR and other dubious communication exercises to bring Europe closer to the people, all the information offices of the European Commission and European Parliament in the different capitals remain inaccessible. They do not provide any real access to EU institutions and their workings. Rather they behave like diplomatic outposts with their own set of priorities mostly aloof to the real concerns of citizens in their daily lives. Part of that is reflected in the low turn out of voters come European elections.

There are other, more serious reasons why deflections from European affairs has become a practiced standard of ‘negative’ politics complementing, as it were, the usual ‘anti-political’ school of thought. The latter is an outcome of Anti-Communism in the Cold War and can best be described by people abstaining from politics altogether. This works, of course, into the hands of those who want to deal with political affairs behind closed doors and only in the interest of selected few.

Curious is that the European Commission itself practices this schizophrenia in reverse. It does everything to stay out of national, even regional and local politics. There is no direct dialogue between citizens and EU levels of decision making despite the call for European active citizenship and an Information Society waiting to be used in a way to bring politics closer to the people.

Indeed, despite Margot Wallstroem having a budget of about 9 Million Euros to provide information on the Constitutional Treaty, the Commission does everything possible to stay out of trouble i.e. be charged by member states of intervening into their own internal affairs. National political debates are subsequently anti European by definition and even the worst kinds of things attributed to the European Union just to let off some steam of frustration about high unemployment and rising living costs, bad education, overcrowded cities etc. remain unanswered.

There is a game being conducted by European politicians called blaming the European Union, or those sitting in Brussels, for everything going bad while claiming by themselves all the credits for what good things they would be doing. As one person from the Commission explained there is a matter of protocol. If the Commissioner responsible for certain programs is himself not present, no one from the Commission can speak while all other politicians can show their profile despite the Commission providing usually 75% of the funding. It means the public must get a distorted view as to what the Commission is about even though everyone attributes to it the one key bond: the only valid source of money to be obtained either directly or indirectly, provided you know how things work! It should be clear that such shallow money getting attitudes do not help Europe in constitutional matters any further.

 

Does the EU Constitutional Treaty improve the workings of EU institutions?

 

People might want to reject aspects of the European Union but not the Constitutional Treaty, provided they could vote in such a differentiated manner to ensure a continuity of reform of all EU institutions while safeguarding positive results. In the absence of such an alternative a simple referendum may provoke the wrong decision and the sending of a negative message without realizing how damaging it would be if Europeans altogether loose sight of the European vision.

Combined with that is another aspect of confusing all political issues with the vote on the Constitutional Treaty. It may well be that many will vote ‘no’ in the French referendum just by following their fears that politics, and especially European politics, has nothing to do with them. They would just reaffirm their anti political stance.

Naturally it would be ironic if the French referendum turns into a ‘No’ since the very person who presided over the European Convention to draft the EU Constitutional Treaty was a former President of France, namely Giscard D’Estaing. At the time he was named to preside over the European Convention much was made of his old age and even vanity to have a significant place in history, but then Europe has been often misused to promote people upstairs while in reality it meant just getting them out of the way i.e. from mettling too much in real and national political affairs. Still, it is an important matter of judgment whether or not the EU Constitutional Treaty shall further the functioning of EU institutions or if the Constitutional Treaty is biased insofar it will favor special segments of society e.g. big landowners in Europe.

For there is one real problem: to whom go all the EU subsidies. That matter of reforming the EU budget has not been resolved mainly because of France blocking any reform of the agricultural subsidies. Although by far the highest (nearly 48%) the inability of the EU to alter here subsidy measures is an indication of lobby interests being stronger than anything else.

However, some information about the lopsided nature of these subsidies is being made public nowadays.

Graham Bowley reports for the International Herald Tribune on 12.4.05 that groups like Oxfam, Friends of the Earth and a couple of newspapers have used Britain’s new freedom of information law to find out who gets what subsidies from the European Union’s common agricultural policy. The information now released is a scandal to say the least for a European Union priding itself in overcoming structural and regional differences for the sake of equality of all European citizens. As a matter of fact the list of those receiving subsidies reveals that while small farms are dying out, the rich in possession of big farms are getting only richer. Those who benefit from the Agricultural subsidies include big agricultural businesses, but as was always the case in England equally the ‘landed aristocracy’ and royals, including Queen Elisabeth and Prince Charles. Graham Bowley emphasizes that this has raised a new debate in England: “what should modern Europe’s countryside be used for, and who says so?” If that is merely a reflection of land owner interests having nothing to do only with agriculture, then it explains also the position of France since it tops the list in billions of Euros received from the EU, namely 10.42 with Spain being second with only 6.46, Germany 5.84, Italy 5.37 and Britain 3.97.

If this subsidy is compared with what the structural fund receives (about 37%) and culture (less than 1 %), one wonders if Europe shall be able to adapt to future needs rather than perpetuate the same old privileges which have made at times European societies into hideous class linked spoilages while rare resources are not used in a way to secure a just society. Something is odd then in Europe’s claim to be somehow a better place off than the United States if opportunities are not linked to qualifications and abilities but to class distinction and long standing social connections.

 

Opposition to further expansion

 

Some say the French voter will say ‘no’ during the referendum in order to stop the endless process of expansion. After 10 new members joined May 1st, 2004, the European Parliament has voted recently in Strasbourg to admit Rumania and Bulgaria, as if ‘expansion’ is the only thing driving still EU institutions forward. More and more this has given rise to fear among many voters about the influx of new and cheap labor from the new states. In Germany there is in particular a growing demand to do something about ‘cheap labor’ being dumped on them by Polish workers taking over not merely in the construction industry but also in the food processing sector. Competitive advantages are usually discussed in terms who can easily outsource to cheaper labor, but no one seem to see the contradiction when again France blocked fore mostly the Bockenstein doctrine foreseeing greater mobility of workers within the service sector. Social privileges linked to closing the market against other competitors marginalizes Europe’s ability to create one market with equal opportunities for everyone. This kind of Europe in transition is becoming more and more an apology for different speeds when it comes to adjusting own markets to European standards.

However, when all this is linked to a possible rejection of the EU Constitutional Treaty, it is still surprising of what was said at the European Convention, in particular during the dialogue with Civil Society, has hardly influenced the French way of thinking about the future of Europe. Naturally that dialogue did not include the newcomers or yet the prospects of Turkey joining the EU. It is said that many in France object to further expansion of Europe especially if this means Turkey’s entry.

By all ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ when discussing the Turkey’s entry, one can quote here Hegel who said the bourgeoisie society lives by expansion; it has to trespass borders to strive economically. In philosophy Bloch went so far as to say ‘Grenzen ueberschreiten heisst Denken’. It depends on how you translate the word ‘ueberschreiten’, and if with ‘trespassing’ of borders means something else then Hitler’s invasion of Poland, but such violations of the borders of others comes immediately to mind. Europe has done well since 1945 to learn out of all previous conflicts in order to avoid provoking the wrong kinds of expansion. At the very least, it is sufficient to say that expanding the European Union does touch something deeper and therefore does not stir only good memories as far as European history is concerned.

In the modern context of globalization and given all the emphasis being put on ‘intercultural dialogue’, interestingly enough Jean Tardif, organizer of the international forum www.planetagora.net uses the concept ‘hyperculture’ stemming from the need to respond to imbalances. Indeed, expansion is a way to regain some balance lost as the years wear thin the cultural substance of any economy. The question is whether the European Union faces its own cultural imbalances by neglecting for so long culture despite being now more and more an open situation of diverse cultures and languages and in need of innovation as driving force for economic development.

 

Reform proposal by Joschka Fischer

 

There are many in France who highly intelligent yet at the same time extremely hurt by a kind of rejection of their aspirations to become Europeans. This may have been disappointed by European developments after the departure of Delors who was a European visionary and strong idealist. Since then the very structures that served so well in giving Europe a very progressive administration with many people in the Commission highly motivated and innovative, have been grinding to a halt until working conditions have become nearly unbearable inside the Commission. After years of frustration with flow of payments often delayed while not getting any real recognition for their efforts, a part of France’s intellectual elite has become a volatile bed of emotions. This disposes them to make rapid decisions from a quick ‘yes’ in one moment to a sharp ‘no’ in the next. They seek economic gain within a political framework that is acceptable to them. Many of them believe that they cannot find that anymore within Europe. In their disappointments they have nurtured by now over several years an anti European stance.

Joschka Fischer’s speech at the Humboldt University in Berlin attempted to give the vision of Delors a new breath of air but he relied too much on a concept of the elite to be acceptable as a real reform zeal. He spoke about needed reforms of the EU in terms of making EU institutions into a representation of national elites so as to safeguard that special identification principle not merely in social terms, but in political life. Clearly the Constitutional Treaty as proposed by the European Convention under the auspices of Giscard d’Estaing does not go as far as Fischer proposed. There is no such catering to a special elite in every member state but in de facto it would mean upholding elitism in every country by letting the parties in power select who from their parties would be a representative to go to Brussels.

Such a static notion of selection of European leadership runs counter to any French and other political aspiration based on the principle of ‘equality’ when wishing to work towards a just society. It may well be that the referendum will have to confront the notion of elitism in politics so as to remind again all Europeans of the values gained at the time of the French revolution and when ‘citoyon’ meant world citizen valuing ‘freedom, equality and brotherhood’.

 

A real reason to reject the EU Constitutional Treaty: all are equal except the member states

 

There may be one real reason for rejection of the Constitutional Treaty but which has not been discussed either by the opponents of the Treaty nor been perceived by the affirmers as a real problem. While the latter exhaust themselves in their ‘yes’-campaign in painting on the wall the vague threats what will happen to the European Union if France says ‘no’, the former have yet to articulate any real reason for rejection.

One thing is for certain: no one knows quite well how the European legal and administrative system works or how altogether EU institutions function. Few people can make a distinction between Council, European Parliament and European Commission or what is the difference between a directive or regulatory principle etc. while taking into consideration the opinions by the Social and Economic Coordination Unit or the Regional Committee.

Nevertheless it would be important to take a closer look at the proposed EU Constitutional Treaty for it contains one crucial sentence, namely that of ‘equality’. It has been transformed by the proposed treaty into: ‘all individuals are equal vis a vis European Institutions’. The text leaves unmentioned that member states are above individuals and their Rights and by having a special access, indeed influence upon the working of EU institutions, there is no guarantee that basic human rights are safeguarded by such statement of equality.

In the past the European Union was progressive since human rights where safeguarded by the Charta of Basic Rights. It was a separate text from the Maastricht Treaty and ensured that every individual could use the Basic Rights as leverage against abuse of power by the member states. In the new Constitutional Treaty the Charta of Basic Rights is merged with the Maastricht Treaty and the work of the European Convention was mainly to iron out incompatibilities between the two texts in order to have one Constitutional Treaty. That means according to this new EU Constitutional Treaty the individual has no longer any leverage against the own state within the European setting.

It should be reminded also that the European court is not the instrument to use the Charta of the Basic Rights as a way to safeguard progress is being made in the implementation of EU law. Furthermore when it comes to adopting EU laws by member states, this can vary from recommendations to directives with different (‘legal’) consequences if a member state does not abide. Given their vast influence they can make as a matter of fact the EU institutions powerless (for example, the 3% ceiling against deficit spending by member states has been undermined mainly by France and Germany while others benefit from such leniency as well e.g. Greece with 6,1 %). Since in such cases it is one kind of administration (national as compared to European) mediating with another, no European citizen will experience that it is nearly impossible to challenge the outcome. Always the blame can be given to the other level while the Right to challenge may only be possible within the national courts of the one acting on behalf of all other members as in the case of European projects bounded legally to the EU only by the project leader. The safety valves by which higher bodies in the decision making process are not reliable for what bodies at lower level due ensures furthermore that there is no way to challenge accountability at the top. The most worrying aspect is indeed the fact that there is no trans-sensitivity of law at European level to attain any plausible degree of consistency and coherence. The national politicians oppose any standardization while adaptation of EU legislation at national levels is highly selective and subject to various interpretations. There is no such vantage point as to work out legal differences to the advantage of the individual citizen.

Of course on the way to European integration things have been challenged, sometimes quite successfully, as in the field of consumer protection. But clearly this process is not enough and it will take much time, time which the individual does not have nor the resources in order to sustain over a longer period of time any kind of ‘legal contention’ with what is happening. Ratification of the EU Constitutional Treaty bears therefore the high risk of not being able to stipulate that all EU institutions must support individual citizens in their bid to attain ‘equality’. It cannot be outweighed by state interests making interpretation of EU law into their own focal point. Unfortunately there is a lack of political conviction that could make the interpretation of European law into a drive for a common future. Political interest in this is lacking especially since short term interests dominate while unfamiliarity with EU institutions does not bring about an appreciation of the complex issue at hand. Hence most citizens fail to see what is in need of being resolved throughout the interpretative process once the EU Constitutional Treaty has been adopted.

Due to all absurdities of EU law stipulating even what apples can be grown, there has come into being a Europe with no time bearing. It has made the EU irrelevant in the eyes of many people while the installed mechanisms are now used in a perfect legal manner to redistribute money in a technocratic but equally extremely inefficient manner. There is simply no outlet for citizens to express their frustrations. What used to be innovative in European projects working towards ‘good practice’ is now condemned to a frustrating process of endless negotiations resulting in never ending postponements of payments. Here the Interreg program can be cited as having been decentralized to give the national levels of control a greater control, but then so many delays are incurred when it comes to making any payment, that two to three years are simply lost in work, efforts and good will. That program is just another example of absurdity beyond belief. The mess which has been created is due to an over-bureaucratization, itself following only the need for still stricter financial control when it means in reality control of that kind having gone completely out of hand. Control yes, but not to stifle the entire process of implementation.

 

So then what can be said before the French voters state their opinions at the upcoming Referendum is the following:

 

1. Europe has lost the ability to recognize its own weaknesses. It was said at the European Convention that for once all problems were put on the table. Why so little of that insight has remained in our minds and consciousness as to how best we could conduct our European affairs remains a mystery or else needs to be explained.

 

2. The French voter could contribute more to real criticism of the European Constitutional Treaty if the debate would be more of substance and in continuation of the insights made possible by the European Convention articulate more clearly why there are reasons to reject such a proposed Constitutional Treaty.

 

3. Proposals for amendments of the current Constitutional Treaty need to take the demand for equality of all citizens very serious.

 

4. Reform of the European Parliament should top the list of priorities. Alone the absurdity of having two parliaments just to keep some people happy means that Europe is more about squandering of resources without knowing where it is heading. There should not be this caravan going every month for one week to Strasbourg. By proposing one parliament to safe time, energy and resources, it is not said that Brussels is to be preferred. For anyone having lived there, knows that it rains too much there. It makes the centre of Europe look at times quite gloomy.

 

5. It is not merely of interest that foreign policy is unified so that Europe has one voice. It is also the responsibility of people like Blair, Chirac and Schroeder who started to act by themselves, out of national interests, especially after September 11th. . Europe has still to face the consequences of 9/11 and the subsequent war in Afghanistan and Iraq. If European political life is to retain its quality of culture and dialogue, then political interests should not be defined exclusively according to national interests. Unfortunately there will be no good solution as long as the schizophrenic state with here Europe, there national interests is upheld.

 

6. Civil society together with newspapers and other organizations interested in the transparency of EU institutions should create something similar to what exists already in Washington and what figures as Center of Public Integrity in order to watch over the activities of the various lobbies http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/

 

 

In that sense the French voter could contribute more to real criticism of the European Constitutional Treaty if prior to voting on the referendum their debate would pick up the insights made possible by the European Convention.

It would be a demand to the voters to articulate more clearly why they have stronger reasons to reject such a proposed Constitutional Treaty than be convinced they could make a difference in the interpretative process thereafter.

To further the interpretative process as to what the EU Constitutional Treaty means in France Chirac would have to defend the Constitution by giving recognition that the Nice Treaty is worse...if not impossible to fall back upon in case the referendum would turn out to be a resounding ‘no’.

more Comments...