The French press, unsurprisingly considering their hard-fought referendum is due at the end of the week, has been analysing the EU like never before, with major newspapers Le Monde and Le Figaro devoting reams of copy to dissecting that damned constitution from every possible angle. It’s a great shame more of the French discussion isn’t filtering to this side of the Channel, ‘cos there’s some interesting ideas and interpretations being kicked around.
Le Figaro currently reports the two sides split 53% to 47%, to the “Non” vote’s advantage, though also notes that 29% still haven’t made their final choice with just four days to go. These figures are based on an expected turnout of 67%.
Meanwhile, Valï¿½ry Giscard d’Estaing – old adversary of Roy Jenkins while he headed the Commission and the man responsible for drawing up the bloody thing in the first place – has been on the attack to win his fellow countrymen over to his baby. He actually makes some rather good points (as well as some overblown and unjustified ones, which I’ll neglect to quote), and ones which would apply just as well to Britain, with the appropriate name substitutions, as to France (my substandard translations):
“1. Il n’existe aucune possibilitï¿½ d’aboutir ï¿½ un consensus des vingt-cinq Etats europï¿½ens sur les thï¿½mes, d’ailleurs contradictoires, avancï¿½s au cours de la campagne du rï¿½fï¿½rendum en France par les partisans du non. Nos partenaires estiment que la Convention est dï¿½jï¿½ allï¿½e trï¿½s loin ï¿½ et pour certains trop loin ï¿½ en direction des demandes franï¿½aises. Nous n’obtiendrons pas mieux. Nous obtiendrions sans doute moins.”
“1. There is no possibility of a consensus among the twenty-five European States on the areas, which are often contradictory, advanced during the course of the French referendum’s No campaign. Our [EU] partners feel that the Convention has already conceded much – and for some too much – towards French requests. We will not obtain better. We would undoubtedly obtain worse.”
“2. Le projet de Constitution ne menace personne. Son seul objet est de corriger les dï¿½fauts actuels de l’Union europï¿½enne, jugï¿½e trop compliquï¿½e, peu efficace, et insuffisamment dï¿½mocratique. Le rejet du projet nous ramï¿½nerait purement et simplement ï¿½ la situation actuelle, qui fait l’objet de toutes les critiques, sans nouvel espoir d’en sortir.”
“2. The Constitutional project does not threaten anybody. Its only objective is to correct the current deficiencies of the European Union, which is considered too complicated, inefficient and insufficiently democratic. Rejection of the constitution would purely and simply take us back to the current situation, which is the source of all these criticisms, without any hope of relief.”
Meanwhile, in Le Monde, Pierre de Lauzun (a deputy manager of the French Banking Federation, apparently) has an interesting alternative take where we’d all be better off scrapping the current constitution and starting all over again:
“Au fond, on sait que l’Europe ne se construit que sur la base des Etats-nations. C’est pour cela que ce qu’on appelle Constitution est un traitï¿½ international. Mais on n’en tire pas la conclusion : le mythe de l’Europe substitution est une utopie, et l’Europe est d’abord la mise en commun d’outils, dont les vï¿½ritables autoritï¿½s politiques, nationales, ont jugï¿½ qu’il valait mieux les mettre en ï¿½uvre ensemble que sï¿½parï¿½s. Et, si on voulait aller plus loin, il faudrait dï¿½finir positivement ce que les peuples d’Europe ont en commun, objectivement, et cesser de procï¿½der par construction abstraite.
“Mais on a prï¿½fï¿½rï¿½ poursuivre le mythe politique. Faute de contenu, la solution retenue est donc procï¿½durale : prendre des principes abstraits et juger de toute dï¿½cision ï¿½ partir d’une dï¿½clinaison de ces principes. Le procï¿½dural et le juridique envahissent entiï¿½rement le champ du dï¿½bat. Il ne faut donc pas s’ï¿½tonner de l’indiffï¿½rence, et parfois de l’hostilitï¿½ des peuples, malgrï¿½ leur bienveillance a priori. L’Europe est ce paradoxe d’une construction non dï¿½mocratique mais ï¿½ fondement dï¿½mocratique. Elle reste plus le fruit d’une volontï¿½ des ï¿½lites que d’une construction populaire. Chaque ï¿½tape a ï¿½tï¿½ dï¿½cidï¿½e en haut et ratifiï¿½e au mieux a posteriori. Dï¿½mocratique, son fonctionnement ne l’est pas plus, malgrï¿½ le’Parlement europï¿½en’ : il n’y a pas de dï¿½bat public entre deux ï¿½quipes ou deux programmes, sanctionnï¿½ par les urnes, dans un espace politique commun.”
“At heart, they know that Europe is not built on the basis of nation states. It’s for that reason that what they call the Constitution is actually an international treaty. But they do not draw the right conclusion from this: the myth of substituting Europe is a Utopia; Europe is above all the pooling of tools, whose true political authorities – national – judged were better to implement together than separately. And, if they want to go further, it is necessary positively to define what the people of Europe have in common, objectively, and to cease trying to proceed with a constitution that’s so abstract.”
“But they prefer to continue with the political myth. Lacking content, the adopted solution has become procedural: taking abstract principles and judging any decisions based on their variation from them. The procedural and legal approach entirely invades the language of debate. We should not therefore be surprised by the indifference and sometimes hostility of the people, in spite of their previous benevolence. Europe is the paradox of a being an undemocratic construction based on a democratic foundation. It remains more the fruit of the will of the elites than of the people. Each stage was decided from above and was ratified, as well as it could be, after the fact. Being democratic is not its aim, in spite of the European Parliament’: there is no public discussion between two parties or two programmes, sanctioned by the ballot boxes, in a common political space.”
These are just two small examples from one day’s press coverage, and d’Estaing is probably a poor choice to give an indication of the level of debate. In terms of detail, genuine desire to understand the implications, and respect for its audience’s intelligence it far surpasses anything this country saw in the run-up to the general election (remember Polly sodding Toynbee and her “nose peg” bollocks?), and has doubtless already surpassed whatever passes for a debate over the constitution in the run up to our own referendum – should it ever happen.
Of course, round the edges there is political spin from both sides, and on the extremes have been name-calling, muck-slinging and stupidness, but the central debate itself has not felt the need to resort to simplifying what is not a simple matter. There has been little of the recent British tendency to focus in on single issues at the expence of the wider picture.
The French people are being genuinely well served by their press and are responding with genuine interest and engagement as a result in a debate which, in this country, has yet to catch the interest of the Prime Minister, let alone the man in the street. Vive la france, as they say.