|
| |
Published in JAPAN TIMES April
11th
By David Howell
Will France Say ‘Non’?
LONDON – It is possible, even probable, that the French people will reject the
proposed new European Union Constitution in their referendum on May 31st.
The reasons, if this occurs, will be a marvellously French mixture of
contradictory sentiments and arguments , but all adding up to considerable
embarrassment for the French Government, and for all governments which have
signed the Treaty embodying the new Constitution, in the hopes that their
electorate will in due course approve their actions.
In the French case this is looking increasingly unlikely. France is anyway in a
querulous mood, with unemployment over ten percent, business confidence
slumping, with protest marches against labour law deregulation and salary
restraints and with a growingly unpopular President Chirac.
Frenchmen and women seem to be falling right out of love with the idea of
European integration which was once seen as the way to perpetuate French
influence and glory. Now , goes the argument, an enlarged Union brings the
threat of lower cost labour and cheaper competition from the new members to the
East – so-called ‘social dumping’ - together with all kinds of cut-rate services
from outside France which would undermine established interests.
And looming beyond all this is the prospect of further EU enlargement to include
Turkey – a destiny which many in France view with utter horror. For them the
admission, even if many years ahead, of a predominantly Muslim nation, which
would be the second largest in the EU after Germany , would fatally dilute the
original dream of a tightly united Western Europe, led by France.
Criticism of the new Constitution is also coming from both ends of the political
spectrum . Many on the French Left see it as far too coloured by free market
principles and a dangerous kind of Anglo-Saxon liberalism which, it is feared,
will weaken the famous European social model - which rests on lavish welfare ,
high taxes and protection.
This is the mirror opposite of the attitude of Euro-sceptics just across the
Channel in the UK. There it is the Right, not the Left, who are the most
critical, seeing the Constitution as much too rigid and corporatist, and far too
influenced by Gallic centralism and German regulatory instincts. So while the
French see the Constitution as some kind of British plot, the British see it as
a French, or Franco-German, plot.
Over-arching all these varied worries is a more dominant feeling still, namely
that the Constitution takes Europe too far along the road to the superstate
pattern and constrains French identity, sovereignty and individualism too much.
Here, at this higher level, we arrive at attitudes which combine the
Constitution’s opponents everywhere, not just in the UK and France but probably
throughout Europe. For what they show is that the architects of the Constitution
have built into their structure a fatal flaw. They have upset the delicate
balance between efficiency and identity on which the whole European project has
always rested.
People want economic efficiency, of course, delivered by free markets, zero
tariffs, and the obvious gains from operating together as a bigger market and a
bigger bloc. But they also need identity – that is, to know who they are , who
their rulers are, how their history has shaped them and how their treasured
customs can be protected .
In an age of globalisation they want all this more than ever. It is the nations
which can reconcile these two forces – efficient global performance and strong
identity at home - which will be best equipped to meet the ugly stresses of the
twenty first century and to reduce its bewildering complexities to human scale.
Japan seems to be doing this, but can Europe?
Hitherto, the European Union has been skilfully shaped to cope with this rising
conflict – promising competitive strength and efficiency through European unity
combined with full respect for ancient cultures and distinct national
identities.
The new Constitution clearly tips the balance much too heavily towards the
pan-European side. The erosion of national identities, acceptable and inevitable
up to a point, is now being threatened too strongly. The remoteness and
complexities of the EU suddenly seem to have grown too great. That is what the
French seem to feel, that is what a large British majority evidently feel and
that is what millions of Czechs, Poles, Balts and other Europeans also feel.
A French rejection of the Constitution would be a welcome relief for Tony Blair,
since if he is still British Prime Minister in twelve months or so, an almost
certain referendum defeat in the UK might have sunk him completely. A ‘No’ first
from France would avoid that embarrassment .
Others are claiming that a rejection by France would be more than a momentary
setback, it would be a catastrophe for the whole European Union.
Is this right? It would certainly be a nasty shock for most of the European
Government élites who have signed up to the lengthy and unreadable Constitution
document, but for the peoples of Europe it would make remarkably little
difference. Existing rules could easily be modified to govern an enlarged Union
of twenty five members.
Rejection of the Constitution by France, or any other larger European power,
will only be a crisis if Governments declare it to be so and if there is no
sensible fall-back arrangement, a Plan B so to speak, in its place.
In their folly the enthusiasts for the new Constitution have up to now refused
to contemplate alternatives, claiming that such things were unnecessary and
unthinkable. Now it looks as though an alternative plan for Europe is indeed
necessary and in need of urgent and detailed thought.
Ends
|
