Why Briatain needs a big French 'Yes'

Written by Andrew Duff and published in in French Newspapers on Mon 21st Mar 2005

Europe's new constitution is now subject to a lottery. The next spectacular show is in France where, on 29 May, the referendum will decide the fate of the European Union. It seems that the French people are being typically bloody-minded. The negative camp is gaining ground not so much because people are reading and disliking the constitutional text but because the government of President Chirac is unpopular. A referendum is a perfect opportunity for the public to demonstrate discontent with a government of the day without being obliged to change it for something worse.

What happens in France today is perfectly normal, and will be repeated in the British referendum next year. In both countries a truculent public is sorely tempted to confound the political class. Europe's elite is almost universally in favour of the constitution. Of the large mainstream political parties in Europe only the British and Czech conservatives are officially campaigning for No. Michael Howard and Vaclav Klaus sup with a long spoon. They are joined, first, by several parties of the far right which are, variously, racist, xenophobic or ultra-nationalist; second, by a smaller number of parties on the far left such as the French communists and British greens; and, third, by a smattering of separatist forces such as Sinn Fein, Scottish and Welsh nationalists and Lega Nord.

The irony is that of all the twenty-five member states of the EU, only Ireland and, arguably, Denmark are mandated by their own constitutions to have referendums on European integration. In other countries ratification could have proceeded smoothly by votes in national parliaments, as is the case, for example, in Germany, Italy and Sweden. Of course, it is possible to argue, as has been done in Spain and Luxembourg, that a referendum brings a fresh popular legitimacy to the European cause. But such high motives are possible only where the popular mood is overwhelmingly positive and the outcome certain. Elsewhere, grandiose claims about democratic legitimation should be treated sceptically: the flight to plebiscite is a sign of national weakness rather than European strength.

In Britain, for example, the decision to ditch parliamentary ratification in favour of a referendum has been taken for fairly low motives. The UK parliament and its parties seem to be intimidated by their constitutional duty to revise the EU treaties and have shuffled it off on to the shoulders of the hapless citizen. In countries like Britain and Poland, parliamentary democracy at the national level is failing to cope with the challenge of European integration.

France is, as always, rather different. The government has good reasons to support the EU constitution, of which Valery Giscard d'Estaing remains the principal author. Other French representatives in the Convention - Robert Badinter, Michel Barnier, Pervanche Beres, Olivier Duhamel, Hubert Haenel, Alain Lamassoure, Pierre Lequiller, Pierre Moscovici, Dominique de Villepin played a large and influential part. Long-standing French objectives have been achieved under the constitution. Europe will be better placed to stand up to the Americans. The establishment of a European core group in defence is foreseen, autonomous from NATO. The European Council, in which the French President plays a pre-eminent role, is consolidated. The threshold for the admission of new member states goes up, and structured cooperation with near neighbours is introduced. (The truth is that it will be more difficult for Turkey to join the EU with the constitution than without it.) The Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes mandatory. The CAP survives. Space policy is introduced. The cultural exception from commercial policy is retained. Social cohesion is prescribed. God keeps himself out of it.

French European policy is fairly consensual. Unlike Britain, there has been a bipartisan approach in France to the strategy of building the European Union. The need to assure a continued close partnership with Germany has habitually united the French left and right - a partnership which will explode spectacularly if France says No. Because of De Gaulle, the French left has even been more solid in its support of European integration than the right. One expects, for example, to hear more from the left than the right about the way the constitution enhances the budgetary and legislative powers of the European Parliament. Absolutely nothing in the manifesto of the French socialist party is precluded under the EU constitution. Indeed, as an Anglo-Saxon liberal, I welcome the contribution the French left has made to enriching our common European understanding of solidarity, public services and fundamental rights.

It is true that the IGC did not go as far as many conventionnels would have wished. Too many concessions were made at the closing stages of the IGC to the neo-Gaullism of Tony Blair. But the constitution is not immutable. It has sufficient flexibility to allow it to evolve gradually to changing circumstances. And it can, of course, be revised in the future - on the initiative of the European Parliament.

All in all, the constitution is vital if Europe is to shape a political response to the challenge of globalisation. It would be incredible for France to reject the chance to build a stronger European Union. As Britain struggles to become a modern European country, it needs France to remain true to its European vocation.

Andrew Duff MEP is spokesman on constitutional affairs for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE).