You are in:
- Contents » EU Constitution
A Euro-Headache For Sarkozy
Paris lit the Eiffel Tower blue during the party to celebrate France's presidency of the EU, but Nicolas Sarkozy woke this morning with a Presidential-size hangover. Not only has Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel given him a dressing-down for his "Sun King" aspirations for European leadership, but Poland's President Lech Kaczynski has refused to sign the EU's Lisbon Treaty following Ireland's rejection of the treaty.
Kaczynski said it would be "pointless" to sign the treaty, even though Poland's parliament ratified it last month. A conservative nationalist (often at odds with Poland's government), he is said to be keen to defend the EU's principle of unanimity on major issues. Treaties can only enter into force if approved by every member state; Ireland has said no, so Lisbon cannot be passed.
"If one breaks the rule of unanimity one time, it will never exist again," he told a Polish newspaper.
Birth Of An Empire, Part 2
"People only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and only recognise necessity when a crisis is upon them." - Jean Monnet (1888-1979), a "founding father" of the European Union.
The European Union's "federal phase" is complete; the EU elite now has its focus on Europe's geopolitical role. What challenges does Europe face as it strives for superpower status?
The next phase of the European project is twofold. To place “Europe” on the world stage as a superpower in its own right, and the creation of a European identity.
The two aren’t as different as they appear.
This much was evident to Henry Kissinger, who recently told a German interviewer,
“Nation-states have not just given up part of their sovereignty to the European Union but also part of their vision for their own future. Their future is now tied to the European Union, and the EU has not yet achieved a vision and loyalty comparable to the nation-state. So, there is a vacuum between Europe's past and Europe's future.”
Europe moves forward thanks to a vanguard effect. Brussels, with the connivance of some governments, comes up with policy; it is later legislated upon if necessary by parliaments national and European. The people, generally resistant to closer integration, catch up later. Former French President (and President of the committee which drafted the first European Constitution) Valéry Giscard d’Estaing captured the process nicely:
"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals we dare not present to them directly."
Birth Of An Empire
In the first of a new series, EURSOC considers the future of post-Lisbon Europe.
“We are a very special construction unique in the history of mankind... sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of empire. We have the dimension of empire.” - European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, July 2007.
Despite the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, Europe’s federal project is complete; the next stage is defining the EU’s role on the world stage.
The Lisbon Treaty should have died on Friday June 13th; the European Union’s own rules said as much. The clumsily-disguised rewrite of the European Constitutional Treaty (itself a revision of the European Constitution) needed to be ratified by all 27 member states to enter law. The Irish said no, but their vote was quickly over-ruled, not only by the leading figures of the European Union, but by heads of government of the most powerful member nations, Germany, France and Britain.
In any case, an Irish no - or indeed an Irish yes - was immaterial. The "no" meant Nicolas Sarkozy was unable to mark the treaty’s final hurdle of democratic obstacles with a fireworks display at Versailles, but as some observers have remarked, over 80 percent of Lisbon has already been put in place. Well before either the (rejected) Constitutional Treaty was ratified, the EU was enacting legislation proposed within. This didn’t stop, as it should have, when the French and Dutch voted against the Constitution. The legislation continued in the three years while the treaty was re-ordered: Why should it stop for the Irish?
This process, as EURSOC and now the Daily Telegraph have noticed, is not simply undemocratic. It is anti-democratic.
Good Europeans
Polly Toynbee, in one of her periodical diatribes against newspapers that sell more than The Guardian accuses the British people of being "the worst Europeans."
What, then, makes a good European?
Europe's Superhero
Meet Golden Gordon, the Saviour of Europe.
You'd think Gordon Brown would be pleased to discover that someone thinks he's doing a great job. And indeed yesterday, the air was thick was backslappings and praise for Britain's beleaguered Prime Minister. The trouble is, that praise was coming from Eurocrats and fellow European heads of government. Worse, their kind words followed Brown's pushing of the EU's Lisbon Treaty to ratification, despite widespread opposition to the treaty in Britain and the Irish NO vote only days before.
Rather than backing up the citizens of a nation who feel much the same about Lisbon as the British do, Brown chose to isolate Ireland, siding with Euro leaders who have ordered Ireland to vote again on the treaty.
From his peers, then, comes praise; from his people, however, Brown has won lasting contempt.
Quote Of The Day
"A mania for EU integration, and the super state project, usually creates a kind of blindness on the part of its advocates, an almost total inability to see how ridiculously contorted previously sensible individuals have to become to impose the EU’s will. Years spent in Brussels can drive decent souls quite bonkers.
"But this is different: Wolfgang Münchau's piece reminds me that there is exists a far scarier type of EU enthusiast, the cold-eyed, clear headed members of an elite which thinks it knows best for the continent and is ready to crush any opposition along the way."
- Iain Martin in the Telegraph Blogs
Lisbon Treaty Fallout Continues
"The EU is the citizens' friend"
The EU elite is claiming that the Lisbon Treaty, comprehensively rejected by Irish voters on Thursday, is shaken but not stirred. Governments have been instructed to continue ratifying the Treaty as if the Irish vote never happened, something Gordon Brown appears prepared to do.
First off comes the cry that 3 million registered voters in Ireland shouldn't be able to derail a treaty designed to bring the blessings of an integrated Europe to 490 million, a theme supported by the BBC but neatly snipped by Guido, who demonstrates that as the other 26 nations are ratifying by parliamentary vote, it's more like around 9,000 MPs deciding on the future of Europe for 490 million.
The Anti-Constitution
Has Europe crossed the Rubicon? The Lisbon Treaty signals the end of constitutionalism in the EU
The Lisbon Treaty (formerly the EU Constitutional Treaty) will be shortly by confirmed by Britain's Parliament, with barely a whisper of dissent. Indeed, most readers with an interest in the progress of the treaty through the "Mother of Parliaments" will have had to go looking for information on the debate: Few newspapers or broadcasters have bothered covering the debate with any vigour, possibly because the government's parliamentary fixers have ensured troublesome amendments have been sidelined and dropped from the debate.
What debate the treaty has attracted has missed the point. Supporters of the treaty who want to play down calls for a referendum argue that it is not a "Constitution", that much of the alleged constitutional elements of the treaty were dropped following the French and Dutch rejections of the Constitution. Opponents counter that the Lisbon Treaty does indeed create an EU Constitution, and as it alters the status and relationship between London and Brussels, it must be put to the people.
EURSOC goes further: The Lisbon Treaty is neither a constitution nor a mere "tidying up" exercise. Instead, it is an "anti-constitution".
Clucking Hell
Thanks to England Expects, here's the full UK Independence Party's "Chicken Run" video chronicling the party's adventures in the EU Parliament as the Lisbon Treaty was voted through.
Isn't "Teacher's Pet" Richard Corbett MEP such a soppy wet weed for whining about the UKIP's antics?
"Film Crews Should Not Film Dissent"
"The film crew are employees of the (European) Parliament and they should not be used to film dissent" - Anne-Margrete Wachtmeister, Head of the Audio Visual Unit in the European Parliament, to a freelance journalist.
The hack was interviewing UKIP's Nigel Farage, who was leading a protest against the Lisbon Treaty.
EU To Ireland: Go F*** Yourselves
Ireland is the only EU nation which guarantees its citizens a vote on the Lisbon Treaty / EU Constitution. However, the EU Parliament has just voted to ignore the results of the Irish referendum.
According to England Expects, Nosemonkey and Devil's Kitchen, 499 Euro-MPs voted against the amendment which would "Undertake to respect the outcome of the referendum in Ireland."
Only 129 voted to respect the will of the Irish voters. 33 abstained, including most British Conservative MEPs. Most UK Independence Party Euro-MPs voted to respect the Irish vote, the British Labour and Liberal Democrats effectively told the Irish where to shove their referendum.
Adieu, France
Lisbon Treaty gets Versailles vote
French MPs have voted to amend their constitution to permit the adoption of the revised European Constitution.
Where Have All The Reds Gone?
A poll for French Communist newspaper l'Humanité dimanche suggests that 59 percent of French citizens would like another referendum on the revised European Constitution (or "Lisbon Treaty").
Only 33 percent would prefer the treaty to be ratified by parliament, the government's preferred means of pushing it into law.
Closing Down Debate On Europe
As the EU Referendum Blog reports, the British government has won a vote to curtail debate on the EU Constitution.
The debate will now run for 12 days, rather than the 18 opposition MPs had hoped for (the BBC opts for "MPs back Lisbon treaty timetable." William Hague pointed out that the government's timetable allows for just 45 seconds to debate each line in the constitution.
How Brussels Buys Support
Following on from yesterday's post on how the European Commission pays NGOs to tell it what it wants to hear, The Devil's Kitchen reports on how various British charities are singing for their supper in Brussels too.
That Treaty Again
EU Referendum Blog links to the pdf version of the EU's Constitution, sorry, Lisbon Treaty. All 330 pages of it, as it consolidates a number of previous treaties.
What's the EU for, you might ask yourself. Page 11 of the treaty provides some helpful pointers:
"The Union shall set itself the following objectives:
"to promote economic and social progress and a high level of employment and to achieve
balanced and sustainable development, in particular through the creation of an area without internal frontiers, through the strengthening of economic and social cohesion and through the establishment of economic and monetary union, ultimately including a single currency in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty".
Social progress... sustainable development... economic and social cohesion... Sounds more like the annual report of some crappy Hackney NGO than the governing treaty of a 27 nation union.
"There's more", as a certain Irish comedian would threaten.
The Shorter Version
Thanks to Daniel Hannan for picking up on this story about how advocates of the EU's Lisbon Treaty have been caught telling porkies on the length of the new Constitution Treaty.
A Nation Once Again
Remember how the European Constitution was stripped of its constitutional symbolism to take into account British objections? Trappings of nationhood such as the EU flag, national anthem, motto and so on were dropped and federalists admitted they would happily make do with a modest "Reform Treaty?"
Well, the blighters have managed to sneaked them in again. The EU Referendum Blog has spotted the "52nd Declaration" on the Final Act (pdf) which says that 16 EU nations "declare that the flag with a circle of twelve golden stars on a blue background, the anthem based on the "Ode to Joy" from the Ninth Symphony by Ludwig van Beethoven, the motto "United in diversity", the euro as the currency of the European Union and Europe Day on 9 May will for them continue as symbols to express the sense of community of the people in the European Union and their allegiance to it."
Quote Of The Day
"Recently the Conservative Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, argued that the (European Union) should “concentrate on the issues where the EU can really add value: global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty”. Exactly so, which is why, for example, the idea of a single high representative to speak for the EU to the outside world makes sense. This doesn't compromise the foreign policy of sovereign states, but does allow a co-ordination in precisely the areas mentioned by Mr Hague. Unless, of course, he has some kind of perverse interest in wishing the ends but always declining the means. There's a rude word for such tantalisers."
David Aaronovitch isn't convinced by the Tories' long-term plans for the EU's "reform treaty."
Sarkozy And The Constitution
"Inasmuch as the French people have rejected the whole treaty in a legally binding act, how can the President of the Republic alone decide to have the majority of its provisions ratified by the Parliament?" - some harsh criticism of Nicolas Sarkozy's support for the EU Treaty from French constitutional law expert Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet, translated by John Rosenthal in World Politics Review.
"Inasmuch as the text limits itself in fact to reproducing three-quarters of the provisions of the proposed Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, it would undoubtedly have been simpler just to take the original text and erase just those symbolic aspects that have been abandoned. It is not hard to understand, however, why this option was rejected, since it would have made the contempt shown for the will of the French and Dutch peoples -- who rejected the latter treaty in referendums in the summer of 2005 -- too flagrantly obvious."
The compromise, she writes, means "A more contorted legal procedure has never been seen."
The Word On The Treaty
Here's a round-up of quotes on the EU "reform treaty" agreed by government leaders in Lisbon late last week
"It was apt that Gordon Brown's agreement to the EU treaty should have coincided with the announcement that MPs are to get an additional two weeks' holiday a year because there is so little for them to do.
"The Lisbon Treaty, after all, is another giant step towards a new form of government, empowered to decide most of the laws that govern our lives, making our Westminster MPs even more redundant than they are now."
- Christopher Booker, The Daily Telegraph
Quote Of The Day
Gordon Brown" has set much store by the extent to which his style of government represents a break from the Blair era of dodgy dossiers and sofa government. He has promised that more prerogative powers will be transferred to Parliament, and to set up citizens’ juries. Yet--in spite of all the spin to the contrary--he will return from Lisbon with a document designed to hoodwink the British public. As most Continental commentators and politicians declare with relish, the new Treaty has all the substance of a constitution without the c-word. ‘All the earlier proposals will be in the new text,’ said Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, author of the original constitution. ‘But they will be hidden and disguised in some way.’"
- Fraser Nelson on "Gordon Brown's European Nightmare" in the Spectator
Gordon "Two Jobs" Brown
The "Governor General" hears the Empire's call
Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown is off to Lisbon to batter out a final text for the EU Reform Treaty. Before leaving, he answered calls from the opposition and members of his own Labour Party for a referendum on the treaty, which everyone except the PM, the Foreign Secretary and the leader writers of the Independent admit is identical to the Constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005.
It's beginning to sink in that the "red lines" Brown has pledged to defend are being revealed as "red herrings" by sharper Eurosceptics. In what seems like a desperate attempt to stem criticism in Britain, Brown has launched the European Council meeting in the time-honoured fashion by bashing the French.
UK Foreign Secretary Upset At "Chamberlain" Slur
David Miliband has demanded an apology after a fellow Labour MP compared his attitude to the EU with that of Neville Chamberlain, who came back after meeting Adolf Hitler in 10938 promising "peace in our time."
Michael Connarty, who chairs the European Scrutiny Committee, made the remarks while the Foreign Secretary faced questions over Britain's "red lines" on the revised EU Constitutional treaty.
Miliband said, "You are saying what we are doing today is equivalent of Neville Chamberlain coming back in the late 1930s from Munich claiming to have an agreement with Adolf Hitler - that is not worthy of you."
Brown's Red Lines...
Here's Gordon Brown on next week's meeting on the EU Reform Treaty, as quoted in The Times: “I am a cautious man and I will wait to see the discussion that takes place in the [European] Council next week before I make a final judgment.”
“But if we achieve our red lines and achieve them in the detail then we would not need to veto the treaty, we would not need to come back and say it was unacceptable.”
Is it just us, or did Brown not fly in to another EU meeting in June to protect Britain's red lines then? And didn't Tony Blair retire claiming to have secured them? And, speaking of Blair, didn't he secure a handful of British red lines on tax, foreign policy and security way back when the first Constitution was negotiated in 2003-2004?
There's something of Groundhog Day about the whole business. Every couple of months, a British leader buggers off to Brussels to defend the Red Lines against EU encroachment.
How Dare They?
French newspaper Courrier International picks up a quote from Estonian columnist Martin Kala on how "populism poses a threat to the EU reform treaty."
"Populist politicians convey the impression that Europe is an elite club. Nationalist slogans, protectionist measures and widespread distrust are gaining ground. In some member states, the message is increasingly that the focus should be more on the nation's own interests and the 'true concerns of the people'. What kind of message have the Polish leaders sent to Brussels in recent times? Only that its people are primarily concerned about the future of Poland rather than that of Europe."
Don't Be Vague, Hague
A welcome statement from Conservative Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague. In his speech to party conference yesterday, Hague promised to change the law so any new EU treaty would need to be put to a referendum of the British people.
He targeted the 1972 European Communities Act for change: "the next Conservative Government will amend the 1972 European Communities Act, so that if any future government agrees any treaty that transfers further competences from Britain to the EU a national referendum before it could be ratified would be required by law." Hague added that under the Conservatives, judges would be charged with deciding whether or not new treaties would require a referendum. Currently, this job is jealously guarded by ministers.
Village Backs Referendum
The tiny village of East Stoke, which held a parish vote yesterday on whether there should be a referendum on the EU Constitution, has backed a plebsicite on the treaty.
Over a third of the village's population of 300 came out to vote. East Stoke's "Mouse That Roared" story has inspired communities as far afield as West Yorkshire and Cornwall to plan their own parish votes on the treaty.
The Mouse That Roared
The Dorset village of East Stoke (pop 369) has put itself in the front line of the debate on the European Constitution. Thanks to a local byelaw, it looks set to hold a vote on whether or not its citizens should be allowed a referendum on the European Constitution.
Left Calls For Referendum
Prime Minister Gordon Brown is coming under pressure from the left to call a referendum on the EU Constitution. In the Sunday Times yesterday, Gisela Stuart - a Labour MP who was the British representative on the Constitution's drafting committee - argued the case for a referendum. Today's Guardian has columnist Jackie Ashley claims that not only does the new treaty merit a referendum, granting one would seal Gordon Brown's attempts to be seen as "straight dealing" with the British people.
Quote Of The Day
"Grappling with the questions of European integration had its frustration and one of these was the tendency that the integration-at-all-costs lobby had to try to browbeat opposition into silence by deploying language which allowed for no dissent. At its most absurd that meant portraying anyone with the mildest doubt about “the project” as a blood-and-soil-soaked reactionary anxious to plunge the Continent back to Thirties-style conflict. So, during the debate about the first European constitution, sceptics were told that they would turn the clock back to the Second World War. And yet, ironically, the European Commission had itself distributed a comic to children in which the drive to integration was led by a blond, blue-eyed figure called Captain Europa with a pet alsatian who was being thwarted at every turn by a swarthy, bearded figure called Dr D. Vider.
"No return to the Thirties there then."
- Michael Gove MP, writing in The Times
Red Lines For Brown
Write out one thousand times: " I will not surrender control over human and social rights, foreign policy and tax and benefits." Britain's new PM Gordon Brown has been in office only a couple of weeks and is making clear that his EU policy will follow the blueprint laid out by Tony Blair in his final meeting to agree on the shape of the new European Constitution.
Union Makes Referendum Call
More bad news for Prime Minister Gordon Brown. According to a report in The Telegraph, the Labour-affiliated GMB trade union says that the new constitutional agreement doesn't differ substantially from the EU Constitution - and so the government should "honour its committment" to a referendum.
Don't Tell The Brits
Gordon Brown rules out a referendum on the EU Constitution
So much for the era of change, of a government handing "more power to the British people." New PM Gordon Brown has taken his predecessor Tony Blair's line that the changes made to the Treaty Formerly Known As The EU Constitution mean that a referendum is not required.
This is despite the fact that nearly all Mr Brown's EU partners have been telling their press and people that the agreement is basically unchanged from the Constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005.
Boot Britain Out Of EU - Giscard
Former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing says that because Britain "no longer wishes to participate in the advances of European integration, we must draw the right conclusions (and) find a special status for Britain."
Quote Of The Day
"A low point in the history of European democracy
"He concedes a new framework for Europe's government and then races overnight to the Vatican to consult the Pope. He tosses his seals of office to an acolyte and goes on to the Holy Land to continue his bloodthirsty crusade against the infidel. Is Blair auditioning for Charlemagne?"
- Simon Jenkins on Tony Blair's departure in the Guardian. Jenkins writes on how Britain deserves a referendum on the EU Constitution. Read it all, but some selected quotes come after the break...
Who Do You Think You Are Kidding, Mr Blair?
Danish Socialist Eurosceptic Jens-Peter Bonde has been talking about the new agreement on the Treaty Formerly Known As The EU Constitution.
Britain's Tony Blair claims the agreement differs so much from the original text that it does not merit a referendum. Seems he one of the few Europhiles who think so. Mr Bonde has kindly rounded up some alternative voices within the EU, from the Committee on Constitutional Affairs:
"We have savaged 99 %" - Alexander Stubb, Finnish conservative, co-coordinator of the biggest political group in the European Parliament (EPP-ED). Bonde asked what the 1 percent was. "The name," Stubb replied.
"We kept the substance of the Constitution." - Jo Leinen, Chairman of the Constitutional Committee (Party of European Socialists PSE)
"We have the same thing, but we regressed for transparency and clearness." - Enrique Barón Crespo (PSE)
"It's incredible to see all what they slipped under the carpet!" - Gérard Onesta (VERTS/ALE)
More after the break...
Blair: "Referendum Sucks"
Tony Blair, who steps down as British Prime Minister tomorrow, has described as "completely and utterly absurd" opposition demands for a referendum on The Treaty Formerly Known As The EU Constitution.
Unfortunately for him - or more likely, his successor Gordon Brown - other EU governments are crowing that the new treaty is more or less identical to the rejected document. Blair's Labour Party made a referendum on the Constitution a manifesto promise in the 2005 general election.
A Very European Coup
“The people have forfeited the confidence of the government”
Well, the conference to plan the Treaty Formerly Known As The Constitution ended on Saturday morning amid much smiles, a few recriminations, and some head-scratching as to the impact of the various concessions surrendered and gained.
Britain's Tony Blair claimed he had secured the "red lines" he pledged to defend. However, Gordon Brown, who takes over his job next week, has more than a few worries on his plate. A last minute manoeuvre by France's Nicolas Sarkozy stripped the EU of its stated committment to free and undistorted trade. For many Britons, this is one of the EU's few selling points. Indeed, one could argue that Europe's "Common Market" is the only aspect of European unity that the British had ever signed up for - and now it's gone.
Sarkozy Wins Blair Support
LATEST: France's President Nicolas Sarkozy has presented the removal of a reference to "free and undistorted competition" in the EU Constitution as a victory for France.
He claims that Britain's Tony Blair has given his full support for the change, which Sarkozy argues was required in order to defuse French voters' concerns that the Constitution was a liberal plot.
Constitution Round-Up
Poles mention The War, Britain talks tough, Sarkozy makes illiberal edit
Yesterday there was hope that because Poland had sent the more emollient of the Kaczynski twins to the intergovernmental conference, a deal on voting rights was more likely. Observers had underestimated the Polish President and PM's determination on this issue, however: Kaczynski was barely off the plane before he argued that because Poland lost so many people in the Second World War, its voting weight in the EU should be based on what its population would have been if the war never happened, rather than its current 38 million.
Charter Rights And Wrongs
Tony Blair hopes to secure a British opt-out from the European Charter of Fundamental Rights at today's EU Constitution negotiations. The government believes that the charter could overturn numerous labour market reforms. The Independent, in another of its drama queen front covers, wheels out a list of 'experts' who warn that the government is trying to "block these rights" for the British people.
It's odd to see an anti-West fanatic among those arguing that Britain should sign up to European human rights.
Constitution Capers
Britain's Tony Blair and Gordon Brown hold a frenzied bout of telephone diplomacy with France's Nicolas Sarkozy; the President of the European Commission insults the Brits; and Conservative leader David Cameron hopes everyone will ignore his links with Angie Merkel.
Things are heating before tomorrow's intergovernmental conference designed to come up with a blueprint for the European Constitution, Version 2.0.
Red Lines (Don't Do It)
Today's papers list Tony Blair's latest "non-negotiable points" for the revised EU Constitution. While Blair is happy to go along with a European President and Foreign Secretary, he has drawn red lines under the following points. EURSOC suggests readers print this list and keep it handy as the negotiations continue.
— Britain will not accept a treaty that allowed the charter of fundamental rights to change UK law in any way
— Britain would not agree to “something that displaces the role of British foreign policy and our foreign minister”
— Britain “will not agree to give up our ability to control our common law and judicial and police system”
— Britain “will not agree to anything that moves to qualified majority voting something that can have a big say in our own tax and benefits system”
Love Europe, Not The EU
Fine stuff from the always-good-value Mick Hume in today's Times. Hume isn't easily pigeonholed - he's a self-described Libertarian Marxist, and there ain't many of those around - but he is spot on on the changing relationship between the people of Europe and their EU masters.
Sleight Of Hand
The German Chancellor warns of "extremely serious consequences" if there is no deal on the revised EU Constitution
Angela Merkel has published her first report on the state of play in negotiations for the new EU Constitution. She discusses areas where agreement is close, but also highlights those parts of the treaty where strong disagreements remain. Despite the fact that the EU hasn't ground to a standstill in the two years since the Constitution was rejected by voters in France and Holland, she warns of grave danger if negotiations do not progress.
Writing The Constitution
As we reported earlier this week, PM-in-waiting Gordon Brown has much to fear from the current EU Constitution negotiations.
How does Gordon propose to ensure he doesn't enter Number 10 in early July to find his political death warrant waiting in his inbox? According to The Sun, he's going to try his hand in writing the Constitution.
Euro-constitution revival looms as first test for Gordon Brown.
One of Gordon Brown’s greatest achievements as Chancellor has been to set the conditions for joining the euro-currency in such a way that made it impossible to join and thus saving Britain from the fate of the slow-growth euro-zone.
Merkel's Constitution Plot Revealed
The European Constitution will get a cosmetic makeover that doesn't change its legal substance, according to a letter sent to heads of government by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Euro-MP and Telegraph columnist Daniel Hannan got his mitts on a copy of the letter and discusses its contents in today's newspaper.
Blair: No Referendum
Here's the downside to Tony Blair's declaration that a new Europe doesn't need a Constitution on the scale of the document rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005: There will be a slimmed-down treaty, but Britons will not be offered a vote on it.
Speaking in the FT, the Prime Minister said that any new treaty would merely update existing agreements, and would not have the characteristics of a constitution.
"We Don't Need No Constitution"
What with him having only weeks left in his job, one would wonder why Tony Blair continues to care about such things, but this week saw some rare good news from Europe for the British PM when he found an important ally in the EU Constitutional debate.
Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende declared with Blair that the EU doesn't need a constitution, and instead should concentrate on fixing existing treaties. "An amending treaty within the existing European treaties that makes the rules work more effectively" is what's needed, says Blair.
Here We Go Again
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water, a new version of the European constitution has its jaws threatening European citizens.
Alternative History
What would Britain be like if its people had come out against entering the "Common Market" in 1973? Back the, Europe (though it was never really called "Europe") was presented as the only alternative to inevitable decline. Outside the shining uplands of the European Economic Community, Britain was doomed to remain a damp, miserable, poor and irrelevant island.
Sarkozy Starts Immigration Row
France's interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy has called for a tough EU-level solution to the continent's illegal immigration crisis.
An Obscure Fate
Nice to see some Euro-stories have a happy ending. David Rennie posts in his Brussels Blog in the Telegraph on the grand opening of the EU's "Jacques Delors Building." Delors, as some of you might reminder, was the EU's most famous and visionary Commission President: His zeal for federalism, coupled with his Gallic Socialism, made him a bogeyman among Eurosceptics.
Sarkozy's Euro Vision
France's centre-right presidential frontrunner Nicolas Sarkozy is no stranger to controversy. However, his Friday speech outlining his ideas for breaking the European Union's constitutional logjam has something to irritate pretty much every other head of state in the EU.
Voters Oppose Stealth Tactics
Over at the Times and the uplifting sight of 77-year old William Rees-Mogg blogging.
Good stuff from the former Times editor, too: Reporting on German plans to reintroduce the EU constitution by stealth, Rees-Mogg picks up on some interesting figures.
"French and Dutch voters are still opposed to the Constitution, which they rejected in their national referendums. Indeed the “no” vote has increased its majority by 2 per cent in France and 7 per cent in the Netherlands. A large majority, 63 per cent of French voters and 68 per cent of Dutch, actually want to take back powers from the E.U. Only 18 per cent of French and 15 per cent of Dutch voters want to increase the powers of the E.U."
Flogging A Dead Horse
All successful businessmen know that when a trade-mark brand does not attract customers, the next step forward is to sell the same goods but under a different name.
L’État, C’est Moi
The president of the EU constitution's drafting committee has demanded that France be forced to vote again on the treaty.
"It is not France that has said no," claims Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the 80 year old former president of France, "It is 55 per cent of the French people - 45 per cent of the French people said yes." Eh? Even by the Jesuitical terms of Eurocrats and French politicians, we're talking serious semantics here.
It appears Giscard's objection is that France didn't give a symbolic no. Of course, no boom rejecting the EU constitution echoed from the orchards of Normandy to the hills of Provence. Sculptures of Marianne in town halls across the country didn't spring to life to yell "No!" in unison. Jacques Chirac, current incumbent of the post which is supposed to combine French identity in mysticism and politics, didn't say no on behalf of his people (he said yes, and look where it got him).
Jacques Back
France's President Jacques Chirac has broken his illness-enforced silence with loud dressings down for the people of Turkey and the European Commission. Despite his characteristically noisy comeback, scandals that have simmered under the surface of his presidency are threatening to boil over once more.
EU Boss Pulls Plug On Constitution
Well, someone had to do it, and it might as well be the president of the European Commission. Jose Manuel Barroso ended months of rather less-than-fevered speculation on Wednesday when he announced that the EU was going to have to make do without a constitution for the foreseeable future.
It Lives!
Business unusual in the European Union. With more comebacks than Boris Karloff's Frankenstein's Monster, the EU constitution's clammy corpse has once again staggered to life. This time, however, the document has exhausted all its powers to terrify: We're in the territory of Abbot and Costello Meet The European Constitution.
Who Are You Calling A Liberal?
Interesting column by Prof Margaret Blunden in today's Herald Tribune. The French loathe Britain's "Anglo-Saxon" model, which is said to incorporate all the evils of scorched earth capitalism including the destruction of public services and the welfare state. The Brits, in turn, snigger at France's strike-prone, bureaucracy heavy "social model" with its high unemployment and massive dependency culture.
But are the two nations, often depicted as pole opposites in Europe, really that far apart?
Who Needs A Referendum?
The final text of the document formerly known as the EU constitution was agreed at a series of inter-governmental conferences in late 2003-early 2004. Long-time readers of EURSOC will remember much nonsense about "red lines" and so on. Once it was agreed, the treaty went to the national parliaments (and in some cases, to the people) for ratification. Not until all 25 nations had approved the treaty could it come into force.
However, the EU wouldn't let a silly little thing like democracy get in the way of "ever-closer union" would it?
Don't Mention The War
The people of Holland and France may have scornfully rejected their leaders' outrageous claims that Europe faced a war if they did not vote for the EU constitution, but senior pundits see a war of sorts brewing in time for this month's heads of governments summit.
At the Times, foreign editor Brownen Maddox reckons that Tony Blair is taking us to war again - on three fronts. And, let's face it, a war wouldn't be a war without Germany and France being involved.
UPDATE: On Ice
As expected, British foreign minister Jack Straw has announced that the government has postponed plans to hold a poll on the EU constitution.
Put It Out Of Its Misery!
Britain prepares to defy Axis of Losers and end constitution fantasy
British foreign minister Jack Straw is expected to announce this afternoon that the UK will not be holding a referendum on the EU constitution.
Britain was not keen to hand ammunition to France's president Jacques Chirac by openly declaring the treaty dead. Instead the government will say that it is putting on hold planned legislation which would have paved the way for a referendum next spring. This, in effect, kills the treaty, as it has to be ratified by all 25 member countries before it can pass into law. France and Holland, by voting overwhelmingly against the constitution, killed it off. Most diplomats and Eurocrats privately accept this. However, no-one in the national parliaments or in Brussels has had the nerve to declare what everyone else knows.
Denial Is A River In Brussels
In today's Times, Anthony Browne goes through the looking glass to the topsy-turvy world of the European Union headquarters, where Eurocrats have decided that the overwhelming no votes from France and the Netherlands actually signified a desire for more Europe rather than less!
So It Was A Treaty After All!
As the dust settles after the massacre by the French and Dutch public’s ‘no’ vote, Europe’s desperate leaders and eurofanatics everywhere are scrambling to read the publics mind for a reason.
Anything will do as long as it doesn’t entertain the unthinkable that people actually don’t want Europe itself. It’s the treaty you see, not Europe.
Two Tribes
Much like Parisians
What do the loincloth-wearing tribesmen of French Guyana have in common with the Hèrmes-clad denizens of Paris?
This Is An Ex-Constitution
It's kicked the bucket, shuffled off the mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. That much is clear, following Holland's overwhelming rejection of the constitution in yesterday's vote. Now all we need is a politician with the cojones to issue the death certificate. For despite the treaty's obvious failure, Eurocrats from EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso down still insist that it is "stunned" or perhaps "only resting." It is only a matter of time before someone claims it is pining for the fjords.
Backwards Compatible
Kudos to the Guardian for giving a column to a voice rarely heard in the British EU debate: The fanatically anti-liberal scribblings of Serge Halimi, who believes that the problem with the EU constitution was that it was too liberal.
The Battle For Europe
The EU constitution may lie a-moulderin' in the grave but the constitutional debate goes marching on. Today, the Netherlands votes on the treaty: A no is expected from the Dutch, too, which should in theory finish the constitution off.
It's NON
PARIS: It isn't just the members of France's political, cultural and business elite who woke up this morning shell-shocked by the massive rejection of the European Constitution. Middle-of-the-road no voters, who used the vote to register their anger with Chirac's government and the nation's economic crisis (and who represent 52 percent of the no vote) could be forgiven for wondering what on earth they had wrought by rejecting the treaty by 55 against 45 percent.
Talking Heads
Interesting round-up of opinions on how to "fix" the European Union in the event of a French non in today's Guardian. (Part two here.)
There's some good stuff from Boris Johnson MP, though he can't help putting Tory politics ahead of what's good for the UK: He's one of those Eurosceptics who hopes for a French no so Tony Blair will be forced into a corner and have to face a referendum after all. At least he's honest. His proposals are interesting though: He would demand that the Common Agricultural Policy ("no longer compatible with decency, humanity and the developing world - never mind free trade") be scrapped, and in return Britain would surrender its rebate.
And If It's Yes?
As current opinion polls stand, both France and Holland will reject the EU constitution in the next week. Of course, one can never count on opinion polls, or on the abilities of certain governments to ensure a suitable answer is provided when voters are asked to deliberate on European issues. If by some miracle the constitution gets past angry crowds of French and Dutch voters, Britons will vote on the treaty next year.
A British yes seems a distant prospect. But if for some reason Brits vote for the EU constitution, parliament will still have a duty to uphold British law - and there are measures governments can and should take to protect it from the federalising instincts of our friends in Brussels.
Lord Owen has some excellent recommendations in today's Times. We strongly recommend that you read his proposals.
Nos Ancetres Les Gaulois
The most colourful story in what was a busy weekend for EU news was a report that France's floundering yes campaign is hoping that the votes of jungle tribesmen in south America will push support for the constitution over the crucial fifty percent mark.
A Pox On Both Your Houses
Yesterday EURSOC wished that it was possible for both sides to lose in next week's French referendum. It seems we are in good company. Here's Tory MP and Spectator editor Boris Johnson in today's Telegraph:
"...When you hear the kind of Frenchmen who are lining up to oppose the new European constitution, you can't help wondering whether it might be a good thing after all. The communists are against it. The trade unions are against it. Huge numbers of old Lefties are going to vote Non at the end of next week, and for the most peculiar reasons."
The Vote That Dare Not Speak Its Name
France's elite is desperate to keep the business vote out of the constitutional debate
The French referendum on the European constitution is quickly developing into one of those contests where you dearly wish both sides could lose.
On the yes side, France's elite, going through one of its regular, insufferable bouts of moralising: leaders of the mainstream parties turn Gallic pomposity levels up to eleven by appealling to France's sense of destiny. The constitution, they say, enshrines France's "advanced" vision as the standard for all Europe. A daughter of the French Revolution, it represents a triumph of Gallic vision over the deprecations of Anglo-Saxon liberalism.
Smug newspaper columnists and broadcasters warn of the horrors that will befall France and Europe if the constitution is rejected.
Business leaders, tied to government and media by complex links of education, class and social life, say... well, actually, business leaders don't say anything. While most business leaders support the constitution, careful media management by the yes campaign means that pro-Europe businessmen are kept as far from the debate as possible. In a nation where bosses rank somewhere below international terrorists as public hate figures, keeping businessmen away from the voters makes sense.
A Bang Or A Whimper?
Expect the British referendum campaign to kick off soon - it's all Blair has left.
Tony Blair has served Eurocrats with notice that he has "absolutely no intention" of abolishing Britain's opt-out from the working time directive (see stories below) - but EU issues are already clouding his third and final term as prime minister.
As you might expect, the referendum on the European constitution is looming large on Blair's list of woes. Most pundits are now betting on a yes vote in France's May 29 referendum on the treaty. A yes from France removes what could have been Blair's escape route from defeat in Britain: Had France rejected the treaty, the constitutional committee would be forced to return to the drawing board, probably postponing any further EU constitutional issues until Blair is enjoying his retirement.
Even the most dedicated Eurofanatic must have reservations about the future of a British prime minister depending on the result of a referendum in France - of all places.
Sadly for the prime minister, it looks increasingly likely that his final years - or months - in power will be dedicated to fighting a losing battle to persuade Britons to support the wretched treaty.
The Wrong Vote
All eyes are on France's close-run constitutional referendum. Big deal - the British vote, due in 2006, will be much more important to Europe's future. It will also mean some hard questions for Eurosceptic liberals.
As we predicted, France's yes vote is surging once more, following what one anti-constitution politician described as a state propaganda campaign worthy of Castro's Cuba. Latest polls predict around 52 percent of voters are likely to support the EU constitution in this month's referendum.
What's caused this rise? Some pundits put it down to the government's recent free-for-all, in which the (admittedly timid) liberalising measures introduced in the past three years have been ditched to head off left-wing discontent. Others believe that president Jacques Chirac has successfully convinced voters that he can make the European Union dance to France's tune, pointing to the blocking of the liberal "Bolkenstein" services directive and last week's decision to consider action against Chinese imports that threaten French textile jobs. Another theory claims that interventions by France's elder statesmen - including Chirac himself and, somewhat more successfully, former Prime Minister Lionel Jospin - have persuaded voters that a yes is in France's interests. Still more claim that the no campaign simply ran out of steam, peaking too early and allowing the better financed yes campaign to build support steadily. And, of course, the dire warnings that the European Union faced disaster if France voted no may have had some effect on the citizens of this theoretically Euro-friendly country.
Last night, Chirac attempted to consolidate the growing yes vote in a live interview on state television company France 2. Addressing fears that France might lose its identity in a Europe with a constitution, he claimed that the treaty is French inspired and better still, is a child of the French revolution. He added that unlike every other nation at the treaty conference in 2003, France alone made no significant concessions. As ever, he didn't miss the opportunity to attack "Anglo-Saxon" liberals as the enemy of the French system.
Chirac couldn't help adding a Churchillian touch: At one moment, France stood alone defending its social model against those who would see it struck from the treaty's text. Yet France prevailed, and the French version of a social Europe remains enshrined in the constitution, safe from markets, competition, reality.
Yeah, right. So all fourteen member states (not to mention the ten who have joined since then, but who were forbidden to have any input into the treaty text) wanted liberalisation and France didn't? If the French people buy that one, they're more gullible that they appear.
In reality, all fifteen EU members back then - and the ten new nations - wanted, and still want, some form of liberalisation. Why else did they sign up to the Lisbon Agenda, which was designed to make Europe the world's most competitive economy by 2010? Why else did France's two EU commissioners, both hand-picked by president Chirac, join their colleagues in unanimously backing the Bolkenstein directive when it was mooted?
The problem is that vulnerable politicians will hold back reform for as long as possible. Politicians who are vulnerable and unprincipled will dress their resistance to reform in nationalist rhetoric.
Newspaper columnists and far-left and right populists aside, there is not a single serious politician in Europe who believes that the European social model can survive long into this century in its current form. Germany's Social Democratic Party is chipping away at that nation's welfare state, which is edging towards disaster as unemployment rises, tax revenues fall and the population ages.
France's state pensions scheme faces a similar crisis. It functioned agreeably when workers retired at sixty and died five or six years later - the pensioner would be supported in theory by tax payments from four working Frenchmen.
Sixty years on and its a different demographic picture. Frenchmen still retire at sixty, even earlier if they are lucky enough to work for a state industry tied to a grumpy trade union. They don't kick the bucket at 65 anymore, though: France's citizens are the longest-lived in Europe, living well into their late seventies and early 80s on average. And they are no longer supported by four fellow citizens in their golden years. These days, around 1.5 workers pay for each retiree, and as the French workforce shrinks, that number will fall further.
Something has to give. That's why it's wrong to concentrate on the vote in France. The more important referendum is Britain's, which comes in the first months of 2006.
The leaders of the Eurozone's decrepit economies realise that they must make radical changes. Some, like Chirac, lack the courage to do so. (Indeed, France has historically blamed Brussels for initiating unpopular reform - which is part of the reason opposition to the constitution is running so high.)
Others, like Germany's chancellor Gerhard Schröder, made attempts to reform, but can't resist unleashing populist instincts within his party when an election approaches. The Anglo-Saxons make a convenient scapegoat for changes that threaten fortress Europe from without - the representatives of free trade who are said to lurk within the European Commission represent forces endangering the social model from within.
Britain is one of the few western European nations that has had the fortune to have governments who were willing to take on the vested interests propping up its outdated social model. Painful though the reforms of the 1980s may have been, Britain's economy is in much better shape than those of its neighbours. In recent years, reforms have also been introduced to improve the lot of Britain's poor, demonstrating that a strong economy and decent public services need not be irreconcilable.
It may be demonised in Germany and France as Europe's bastion of free-market liberalism, but to the more liberally-minded nations in central Europe, the UK is a major ally in the struggle against the imposition of the "dead-hand" European social model, which would stifle their economies just as they begin to take flight.
A commentator in France's free Metro newspaper this morning said that if Britain votes no to the constitution, it will be marginalised and may even have to leave the EU. Perhaps. Perhaps the EU might decide it needs Britain's financial input and come to another arrangement instead. The commentator added that a British no would remove one of the main obstacles to enshrining the French social model across the EU.
Without Britain, the process of reform in Europe can be put off indefinitely. Governments resistant to reform will be able to introduce more anti-competitive measures, more protectionism, more bureaucracy. The demise of the social model would be postponed, but Europe's economic decline would accelerate. Outvoted and outgunned, the liberal economies in the east would find their policies challenged by EU-wide corporate and personal taxes, designed to prop up the failing western model.
It would be a disaster for Europe.
It's fine for British Euro-dissidents - and EURSOC is a Eurosceptic weblog - to say, well, fine: If the EU chooses slow death via the continent-wide institution of France's economic system, then that's their lookout: We are better off outside it.
But does Britain not have a duty to its allies in central Europe, and also to reforming western nations like Ireland and the Netherlands? French pundits already gloat that a British no will deprive liberals of their greatest champion in the EU. Britain can't simply turn its back on Europe - it must be able to provide alternatives to an EU dominated by Franco-German policies: And, as recent years have amply demonstrated, Franco-German policies serve no-one but France and Germany themselves.
The months following a French yes vote will see much soul-searching among British Eurodissidents who also happen to be liberals. A British no will not mean the end of the European Constitution, as a French no would. However, a British no could hasten an economic dark age for Europe.
You Can Always Get What You Want
Despite Eurofanatic whimpers that a no vote would be disastrous for both France and Europe, the French don't seem to be doing too badly from the success of their no campaign.
Fear of a French rejection of the EU constitution has caused European Commission bureaucrats to shelve a number of measures that might be viewed as unhelpful by France's yes campaigners. Some Eurocrats have grumbled that the European Commission is "paralysed" and will be for the next five weeks, until France has voted and it can safely return to producing potentially unpopular legislation.
Readers will remember that the EU's services directive, which provoked particular hysteria on France's left, was postponed on Chirac's orders last month.
This week saw the announcement that the EU had postponed plans to slap an EU-wide minimum duty on wine. Chances are the duty will be introduced next year, but drinkers can thank France's prickly wine producers for providing them with an extra12 month's lower-duty boozing.
Commissioners have also put plans to tighten rules on state aid to industry on hold: France is one of Europe's worst offenders in this department, but a halt to aid in today's gloomy economic climate could anger French voters even more. Planned legislation taking on anti-competitive laws in France's public transport sector has also been shelved, as have legal proceedings against a French law obstructing the expansion of non-French supermarkets into France. France has also escaped Brussels criticism for running up yet another budget deficit, stamping the Eurozone's Stability Pact even further into the ground.
Cynics might deduce that France's government, and particularly its president Jacques Chirac, is using the leverage gained from France's potential no vote to shape the EU's industrial policy to one rather more favourable to France's protectionist instincts.
If so, it's a shrewd though increasingly transparent ruse, and France is getting a little too cocky in applying it. The Times reports that last week, President Chirac announced last week that the European Union would impose controls on Chinese textile imports to protect EU industries - the EU had planned nothing of the sort. Despite this, it is expected that Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson will announce controls on Chinese imports next week.
France can even produce evidence that the strategy of granting concessions is working: This morning a poll showed a drop in support for the no campaign, and an equivalent rise in the yes camp's vote: 52 percent of voters say they will vote no, against 48 in the yes camp. Coming after several weeks in which the no vote seemed to rise inexorably, French ministers will claim that the tide is turning towards a yes and that still more concessions will ensure it continues to do so.
The prospect of what would happen if France voted no has had the additional effect of worrying some states who would normally be hostile to French obstructionism. The standard line is that if France says no, the EU will plunge into directionless crisis for several years. In reality, EU business would continue much as ever, though philosophical Eurofanatics would ponder more openly what sort of Europe to offer the public in future (or, failing that, how best to make certain that the public never again gets a say in its future).
A French no, however, might open the way to more radical changes. Chirac - or his successor - could claim with some justice that France has rejected the current liberal direction of the European Union. If a majority of the EU's 25 nations refuse to change direction to accept France's vision of a social, protectionist Europe, France and several allies will go ahead with their dream of creating a hard core of fast-integrating nations, leaving the looser, more liberal nations on the fringes to their free trade zone.
It's only a threat, of course, but the threat alone is enough to make even moderate nations hold their nose and give the French what they want.
At least for now. Another thing that worries Brussels is the"monkey see, monkey do" aspect of France's strategy. If France can block EU legislation by allowing the no camp to flex its muscles, what will other nations demand in order to placate their Eurosceptics? Britain, Holland, Poland and the Czech Republic face referenda in the next year or so, and each has gripes about EU policy. Indeed, many of Holland and Britain's complaints, such as more open markets and an end to obstructionism, are directly incompatible with the concessions granted to France.
Brussels might consider that Eurosceptic feeling in Britain is so strong that it would be a waste of time to help Tony Blair by granting him favours: Besides, many in Brussels are probably secretly hoping for a no in the UK so the troublesome Brits can be sidelined altogether. Even so, Blair is likely to demand something from Brussels to convince voters that Britain has power in Europe.
That's if he gets that far. Conventional wisdom has it that Blair will retire next Spring, after Britain votes on the EU constitution. A no will mean he retires after honourable defeat: A yes will seal his place in history as the man who put Britain at "the heart of Europe." The reins of power - or the job of rebuilding UK relations with the EU - would then be passed to Blair's successor, Gordon Brown.
Of course, a French no would scupper plans for a British referendum, but EURSOC is still betting on a French yes.
Despite his likely win in next month's general election, however, voters and Europhiles increasingly see Blair as a liability. The Iraq war, among other things, has left the British public suspicious of the PM and this is unlikely to change before Spring 2006. Last year, Eurofanatics in the media muttered that Blair's support for the Iraq war had tainted the PM and thus spoiled his chances of acting as Great Persuader for the EU constitution vote. The implication was that he should have stepped aside to allow a fresh face to run the campaign. It has been suggested that Labour's potential governmental majority with Brown in charge rather than Blair would be hugely increased.
Britain holds the EU presidency from July to December this year. Expect a massive propaganda campaign aimed to convince Brits of the importance of the EU and Britain's role in it. And come December, having hosted what the media and government will proclaim the greatest EU presidency ever, Blair could slip quietly away, claiming health or family reasons for his early resignation. This would leave the path clear for Brown - still popular with voters - to use his "honeymoon period" as prime minister to campaign for a yes vote.
Brown certainly scores higher on trustworthiness than Blair. His considered Eurorealism also plays well with voters, and would have the additional effect of making him a serious negotiator if it came to wringing French-style concessions from Brussels to swing the referendum.
Anyone who has followed Brown's numerous mildly Eurorealist speeches to industry leaders in Europe might be convinced that he would relish a bruising contest of wills with Brussels.
Like Chirac, he could learn that the threat of a public rejection of the EU puts leaders in a strong negotiating position.
Two things might hold up this scenario. First, as we said, Brussels might consider that Britain - Blair or Brown-led - is not worth helping out. Second, Brown might not want to accept the poisoned chalice of campaigning for a Euro-yes vote. Who wants to spend their honeymoon period arguing with the Eurosceptic press in what could be an unwinnable battle? Brown is keen to take the premiership on his terms - but in a last slippery move, Blair could leave his rival with a tricky legacy that could cast a gloom over his entire period in office.
Euro-Poll Splits French Mainstream
As the EU constitution vote approaches and opinion polls suggest a win is likely for the no camp, France's two main parties are showing signs of strain.
Both the Socialist Party (PS) and Jacques Chirac's ruling UMP officially support the European constitution. The PS approved a policy supporting the treaty at a fractious party conference last year, despite a significant minority of party members' concerns that the treaty would spell an end to French exceptionalism. The UMP, in contrast, wholeheartedly supported the treaty.
But that was back in the early days of this year, when opinion polls showed a large majority (around sixty percent) of French citizens supported the constitution.
Since then, support has plummeted. The most recent polls reveal that around 55 percent will vote against the treaty when the referendum is held on May 29.
The campaign was always going to be difficult for the Socialists. Party leader and potential presidential candidate for 2007 Francois Hollande supports the treaty. His deputy, Laurent Fabius, has led a hefty proportion of the PS membership away from Hollande's policy. At times, it has appeared that the PS is threatened with a split: Party activists are watching anxiously as the no campaign - mostly organised by France's far-left parties - have outflanked the PS on the left. Usually, the PS keeps its left flank flexible, allowing activists to make all manner of extremist remarks in order to prevent support bleeding off to Trotskites and Revolutionary Communists (the right has few similar options - for all Chirac's faults, he has been a long-time opponent of the far right). This time, the far left has made clear it sees supporters of the treaty as collaborators in an Anglo-Saxon plot to destroy France's social system. It has been difficult for the PS to combat these claims, and quoting chunks of the constitution on publicity posters has not exactly inspired voters to change their minds.
Meanwhile, in an effort to consolidate support in the centre, party leaders have had the uncomfortable experience of sharing platforms with representatives from the government. France's socialists are still smarting from the shame of having to vote for Chirac in 2002's presidential election in order to prevent the fascist leader Jean-Marie Le Pen from winning: Many believe they still have not had the opportunity to "punish" Chirac for putting them in that humiliating position.
Voting against the constitution, they figure, will deal a blow against the president without doing any real harm to France's future - despite the dire warnings of the yes camp, many citizens believe that without the constitution, the EU will carry on much the same as before. And that state of affairs - with huge agricultural subsidies and the option of ignoring with impunity any EU legislation they dislike - has been very favourable to France. It's a case of it's broken, but let's not fix it.
For all the panic in the yes camp, it's probably fair to say that the campaign for the constitution has only just started. Many supporters of the constitution are hoping that the no campaign will run out of steam, that undecideds (around fifty percent of voters) will eventually swing to the government's aid, or that the no campaigners themselves - mainly strike-prone unions, anti-globalisation thugs and quarrelsome, barely-reformed communists - will drive mainstream voters into the yes camp's arms. A strike too far, another tedious poster and/or vandalism campaign, yet another city brought to a standstill by noisy demonstraters - at some point, the yes camp reckons, the law of diminishing returns is sure to affect the no campaign.
That said, the earliest interventions by the yes camp have not proved promising.
President Chirac entered the fray last week, pleading his case before a hand-picked audience of young people and tame chat-show hosts. His dull recycling of yes camp cliches actually had the effect of turning even more voters against the constitution. The normally submissive French media was not impressed, interviewing no activists who were excluded from the debate and criticising the president's spin doctors for throwing him such soft balls.
One of Chirac's main targets in his television love-in were the dreaded Anglo-Saxons (again). Scaremongering about asylum seekers in British tabloids seems sober and thoughtful in comparison to French hysteria over les Anglo-Saxons, who are blamed for everything from France's growing problems of childhood obesity to its moribund economy. A yes vote will protect France from the excesses of the market. A vote against the treaty, Chirac warned, would make the British very happy.
Chirac might even have turned some of his hand-picked youngsters against him with this claptrap. Thousands of dynamic young French men and women flee France for London as soon as they graduate - others head off for similar opportunities in New York or Washington. Ten or twenty years from now, those young people Chirac lectured will be paying more than half their income in taxes to prop up France's social model - that is, if they find employment at all. Looking across the channel at Britain's low unemployment and lower tax burden, Chirac's children might conclude that a healthy dose of Anglo-Saxon liberalism might do France some good.
An outbreak of mudslinging among Chirac's lieutenants could do more damage to his campaign.
Interior minister and Chirac golden boy Dominique de Villepin indicated in a radio interview that the president was preparing to sacrifice his unpopular prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, to win support for the yes camp. Raffarin responded furiously, bawling Villepin out at a cabinet meeting yesterday and ordering officials to brief the press on their "violent disagreement."
Villepin had made matters worse by suggesting that Chirac was preparing the way to make him prime minister, once Raffarin was booted out of office.
Like many prime ministers before him, Raffarin's role has been to take the flak for reform that would otherwise be targeted at the president. Starting his job as a cheerful, guileless provincial offering a clean pair of hands in 2002 after an uncomfortable spell of cohabitation for the president, Raffarin launched into a modest reform campaign aimed at restarting France's economy and streamlining its unwieldy welfare state.
However, as union opposition to reform has grown, Raffarin has found himself increasingly unpopular among voters and the number one target for the left, who are desperate to grab a prominent UMP scalp as revenge for their defeat in 2002. Current UMP leader and potential presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy's popularity protects him from such a fate: Dominique de Villepin's prominent role in opposing the Iraq war protects him, but the fact that the interior minister has never faced election poses a rather more formidable obstacle to opponents.
Indeed, Raffarin offered his resignation last year, following heavy defeats for the government in local elections. Chirac turned down his offer, preferring to spare the PM before making a more timely sacrifice.
And, according to Villepin, that time is fast approaching. We reported earlier this month that Chirac has ordered Raffarin to abandon much of his reform program of the past three years to head off left-wing opposition to the treaty. This strategy of throwing the luggage from the balloon has failed to keep the yes vote afloat, and has had the additional effect of emboldening unions to increase their demands as they sense the government's desperation.
Now, it looks like the PM will be next to go. It will likely be after the referendum, Villepin hinted, but once the vote is in he promises "policies that are much more determined, bolder and more socially conscious . . . in order to take into account the feelings, aspirations and frustrations which are being expressed."
Villepin, who thinks of himself as an intellectual, has presidential ambitions of his own. Some commentators see him as Chirac's chosen heir for the right's candidacy in 2007, not least because his closeness to the current incumbent suggests he would extend the current system of presidential immunity against legal inquiries to cover the lifetime of presidents, not just their time in office.
Will this last desperate measure defuse left-wing anger and convince voters to swing behind the president? Or will the sacrifice of the PM be viewed as yet another cynical publicity stunt, like last week's "face the public" session?
We predicted the French campaign would be nasty: Who would have thought that the yes camp would spare most of their bile for one another?
Europe's Dodgy Diplomats
The European Union's foreign service is growing - despite the fact that its activities are yet to be made legal by the constitution.
According to British Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, Eurocrats are in the midst of a massive drive to create a diplomatic corps, complete with "missions to third countries and the United Nations, Euro-ambassadors, trade attachés, a diplomatic training college..."
Hannan notes that of course, the EU constitution allows for the creation of the foreign service. However, the constitution does not yet have legal force, and will not until all countries have ratified it - expected late 2006, barring any referenda troubles.
Even if voters reject the constitution, the ball is already rolling. The European External Action Service (EEAS) is being launched with the declaration "The fact of signing the constitution in Rome has imposed an obligation on the member states, in accordance with the general law of nations, to refrain from any action that might impede entry into force of the constitution."
This federalist trailblazing is an old Eurofanatic trick. Institutions are set up before the public - and sometimes even national governments - are consulted. As Hannan puts it, the EU allows the new institution to develop, "retrospectively legalising the power-grab in a treaty." When Eurosceptics complain, the official response is to argue that the institution has been in place for x number of years, and it hasn't had any complaints before.
Even a power-grab as transparent as the creation of the EEAS is defended with typical Euro-sophistry. Hannan complained that no EU treaty made provisions for the creation of a foreign service. But, ah, the Eurocrat response went: No treaty expressedly forbid such a service, either.
Hannan adds that the EU foreign service is not the only institution being enacted ahead of its legal time: The EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights already has legal force, despite the fact that only four nations have ratified it.
And where does this end? Hannan was in Lima recently. The EU has a diplomatic service there with a staff of 50, more than any of the 25 national embassies. When he asked the EU staffers what was left for national foreign services to do, the Eurocrats "grinned conspiratorially and muttered something about promoting tourism."
Reducing foreign services to glorified tourist offices fits in with the Eurofanatic strategy of demoting national governments to pressure-group status within the EU. Any government serious about its sovereignty should withdraw support from this dodgy diplomatic corps at once and advise its allies to ignore the service forthwith. The European Union should procede as quickly or as slowly as its voters demand - not in order to fulfill the crazed vision of Eurofanatics with nothing but contempt for the people.
French "Nons" Nose Ahead
The latest opinion poll in France shows that a slim majority of people will vote against the EU constitution in May.
According to the poll, held for tabloid newspaper Le Parisien, 51 percent of voters are opposed to the constitution while 49 percent support it.
This is a remarkable jump in support for the No camp - and an apparent collapse in the ranks of treaty supporters. Only last week, polls were suggesting the Yes campaign had a 20 percent lead on opponents of the treaty. If the trend continues, it confirms President Jacques Chirac's worst fears: That as the French public learns more about the Constitution, support for it will decline. Hence the President's haste in bringing forward the referendum, now to be held on May 29.
However, it is too early for Eurodissidents to break open the champagne.
The poll comes hard on the heels of a bad month for M Chirac's government. Public and private sector workers are protesting against minimalist pay rises, while profits for prominent companies appear to be on the rise. Protests have also been organised against the government's plans to reform France's 35-hour week. Schoolchildren, researchers and transport workers have led strikes and marches throughout the country against reforms, while No campaigners have been quick to seize positions at the head of every march.
Furthermore, Chirac's government is reeling from corruption scandals. The latest involved the finance minister, who was discovered to be living in an enormous Paris apartment at the taxpayer's ex