EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY : WHAT THE PARTISANS OF THE « NO » FORGET. -

I share the disappointment of those who wanted a more ambitious Constitution, a more flexible ratification and revision procedure and a simpler and more readable text. Having participated in its preparation, however, I recall that we came out of the European Convention with the impression of having achieved more than what had been initially expected from us to the point of asking to the Intergovernmental Conference to change as little as possible in the proposed text. I am therefore surprised at the strength of today's public opposition to the Treaty and the often contradictory arguments used.

The opponents seem first to forget the essence of the whole exercise : it was intended to further European political integration so as to make the enlarged Union manageable. This was achieved by various measures of which the most fundamental ones are : the reduction of the number of Commissioners in the European executive body - the Commission, guardian of our collective interests- and the new voting system in the Council which is evolving toward a legislative body alongside the European Parliament, instead of competing with the Commission. The Council's long lasting opposition to these measures shows how for reaching they are.

In addition, the new Treaty meets three of the most pressing demands by European citizens : more democracy and transparency in European decisions, reinforcement of European decision making capacity in the fields of foreign affairs and defence, and giving the Union a Constitution. The proposed text may be far from a real Constitution, but the Member States having accepted the terms Constitutional Treaty they clearly accept the principle of working toward having one day a Constitution. Who would have believed that possible after the summit of December 2001 in Laeken ?

Some partisans of the no, seem to suddenly discover Europe : they criticise the text for dispositions that were already part of the existing Treaties. So, after all, the new text makes Europe more accessible. They should, however, not blame the proposed Constitutional Treaty for the poor communication policies of the past. And, if they still daydream of their country as being in a better position to negotiate alone with the other world powers rather than as part of a 450 million people strong Union, than they should vote in favour of the new Treaty which recognises explicitly their right to leave the Union. This is not the case in the current Treaties.

Some members of left wing parties see the Treaty as too liberal. The liberal tendencies of the preceding Treaties, however, have been compensated by a whole series of dispositions: explicit reference to the European values, including full employment; recognition that, while market forces need to continue to play their role, they must be dampened by social solidarity; insertion in the body of the Treaty of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, just to mention a few. They should recognise that, compared to all other world powers, Europe has one of the most egalitarian economies. National administrations today consume in the Union on average half of our income (in comparison, European Institutions use only 1% of GDP). According to a recent report, they retard the full implementation of the Single Market, the Economic and Monetary Union and the Lisbon Process that is supposed to make Europe more competitive. As a result, Europe continues to suffer from low economic growth and unacceptably high unemployment rates. Furthermore, they shoud recognise that Europe is where the necessary reforms that national politicians fear to propose to their voters are decided: stop over-fishing, reduce excessive public debts that deprive future generations from financing research or needed social services, etc....To reject the new Treaty because of dispositions simply taken up from previous treaties and designed to preserve the free circulation of persons, goods and capital, seems somewhat simplistic.

As a long time defender of the European currency, few regret as much as I do the failure of the Convention working group on economic governance. No progress was made in finding a common ground among the Anglo-Saxon ultra-liberal approach, the Scandinavian egalitarian culture of opportunities and the Franco-German culture of equal results - the latter having, however, still to demonstrate its financial sustainability. Until the time that each culture accepts to work toward a common socio-economic policy mix, a social Europe remains a dream and the unanimity voting for fiscal issues, logic. Progressive narrowing of the gap between these approaches would be possible under the Treaty disposition of closer cooperation. A no to the Treaty would further limit the chances to progress toward a more social Europe.  

Finally, the partisans of the « no », have, to my knowledge, so far been unable to propose an alternative method to arrive at a better result. They seem to be unaware of the difficulties encountered during the Convention to reach the proposed compromises. At the time, the Convention was hailed for its democratic composition and its novel approach.  The partisans of the no should indicate how they will avoid that a revised Treaty will come down to a lower common denominator,  assuming that extreme nationalist parties in a growing number of countries allow new negotiations. The partisans of the « no » should recall that it took Europe 40 years to overcome France's rejection of the European Defence Community (CED) in 1954 and 20 years to start talking again of a European Constitution after the Spinelli proposal was approved by the European Parliament at a majority of 237 votes against 31, but turned down by Member States.  

Voting no to the Constitutional Treaty means that Europe has indeed become unmanageable, and who would want to start again European integration with a country that clearly puts its national expectations above the collective interests of the European Union?
            Jean-jacques SCHUL