A Final(?) Letter To Valery Giscard d'Estaing
Debate Between Patrick Martin & John Martin
Thwarted By A Surge Of Democracy
Bringing Europe Closer Together?
France pulps copies of EU treaty
French pressure dilutes services directive
In early March Jacques Chirac announced the date of the French Referendum on the European Constitution for the 29th of May.
When he made his announcement the opinion polls showed a 'yes' lead by a margin of 60% to 40%. The Government parties, the Socialists and the Greens were all urging a "Yes". The French Parliament overwhelmingly voted for the Constitution. So, logic indicated that once the political parties launched their campaigns, the "Yes" side would increase its lead.
The problem with the 'logic' is that there is widespread alienation among the French with their political parties. And the alienation is not passive. Au contraire!
In last year’s regional elections the Government parties were wiped out by the socialists. Only one region, Alsace, remained with the Government parties. However, Francois Holland, the rather non-descript socialist leader had to admit that the results did not reflect confidence in his party, they were merely a stinging rebuke of the "liberal" (i.e. free market) policies of the Government.
There is widespread opposition to "Anglo-Saxon" values. The French quite like their 35-hour week and social protection. In recent years there have been cut-backs in public expenditure, a rise in unemployment to 10% and the government has tried to water down the law on the 35 hour week.
There has been a wave of demonstrations in response to these developments. On the 10th of March a national strike was called and 1 million people demonstrated. The Socialist Party has an uneasy relationship with this resistance. At one demonstration against cuts in public expenditure Francois Holland was booed because of his support for the European Constitution.
The recent unrest has caused many Establishment figures to worry that opposition to Chirac will express itself in the defeat of the European Constitution. They argue that the two issues are separate. But are they separate?
The French Communist Party does not think so. At every demonstration it distributes leaflets and stickers urging a 'No' vote. It insists that there is a connection between public expenditure cuts, free market polices and European developments such as the Bolkestein directive and the proposed European Constitution.
The party was remarkably quick off the starting blocks in this campaign. The communist newspaper l’Humanité published a pamphlet on the Constitution back in October 2004. The publication has been something of a best seller and is still being sold. Most of the information in this article was gleaned from this pamphlet.
The Constitution wishes to "realise as much as possible the free circulation of capital". It forbids "restrictions on the movement of capital" within the European Union. This might be sensible if the Union was a centralised political entity. But Europe is still a collection of states. Each state has different tax laws. So the effect of the free movement of capital will be to encourage the different states to compete against each other by lowering corporate taxes and wage costs in order to attract investment. This will erode decades of gains achieved by the French labour movement. The problem has been exacerbated with the accession of the ten new countries.
The most common phrase in the text is "free and unrestricted competition". Political objectives must be subordinated to the aims of free exchange and open markets. Also, the Union and Member States must maintain the competitiveness of the European Union economy (iii-209). Elsewhere the Constitution requires member states to avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints on the creation of small and medium enterprises (iii-210-2b).
The role of Public Services is hardly mentioned in the new Constitution. This is a regression from the Nice Treaty which proclaims Public Services among the values of the Union. The Constitution on the other hand forbids subsidies which threaten competition or are incompatible with the internal market (iii-167-1). The only derogation is for public services which are provided free of charge.
This is very similar to the notorious Bolkestein Directive. But is the health service in France free? An argument could be made that it is not because there are usually nominal charges at the point of use. Is it implausible to suggest that Private Health Insurance companies could sue the French State for subsidising Health? Even if the French or any other State Health service is allowed to continue, the requirement that such services give access to all citizens in the EU will encourage citizens in EU States with rudimentary services to travel to such countries with dire financial consequences for States providing high quality public services.
State aid to cultural activities is allowed but only if it is compatible with the internal market (iii-167-3d).
There will be a two speed citizenship with the Union. Residency will not confer rights. Full rights are only conferred on those born within the Union. Migrant workers will not have the same rights (i-10-1).
The Member Countries are obliged to respect such principles as price stability, control of public finances, monetary policy and a stable balance of payments policy (iii-177). The independence of the European Central Bank is guaranteed (iii-188). So it is in a position to intervene if it perceives that democratically elected governments do not conform to these guidelines.
The French Socialist Party had an internal referendum on the Constitution last December which the "yes" side won by a 60-40 margin. This was around the time of the US Presidential election. One argument that may have carried weight at the time was the idea that Europe should unite in the face of the militarism of George W. Bush. But this Constitution does not facilitate an independent European defence policy. The Member States can participate and work closely with NATO (i-41-7) and European defence is not incompatible with membership of NATO (i-41-2).
An indication of how ideologically driven and out of touch the authors are with reality is given in a clause on the consequences of war. In case of war or the threat of war, member states will consult each other to avoid the internal market being affected by it (iii-131).
In many ways this Constitution reflects the drift away from the 'social Europe' of the founders of the Union. However, why is it necessary for these free market and pro NATO policies to be inscribed in a constitution? The answer can only be that it is an attempt to set in stone the framework of the European Union for decades. If the Constitution is ratified in all twenty five states, it will be almost impossible to change it. Any amendment will have to have the agreement of all member states.
How has the "yes" campaign responded to the arguments of the Communist Party? The answer is that it didn’t want a debate. Chirac was hoping that since the Socialists were 'on side' there wouldn’t be too much dissension. This strategy is now in tatters (see The future Of Europe article in this magazine).
The other approach is to pretend that the Referendum is a vote on Europe and if the Referendum is not carried it will be the end of Europe and life as we know it. The communists have responded to this hysteria by explaining in a matter of fact way the consequences of a 'No' vote.
Article iv-447 indicates that all member states must ratify the Constitution. In case of failure by one or more states to ratify, the Union will not cease to function. The Treaty of Nice will remain in force. Indeed this Treaty remains in force in any case up until November 2006 and several clauses of the Nice Treaty will still apply up until 2009.
The Constitution itself doesn’t deal with the consequences of a failure to ratify. But there is an Appendix which indicates that, if four fifths of states have already ratified, the matter will be dealt with by the European Council. No indication is given as to how this body will deal with it. One possibility is that the Constitution will have to be amended and the whole process of ratification will start again. Another possibility is that the country or countries which have rejected the Constitution will be expelled from the European Union. However it is extremely unlikely that a country the size of France will be expelled after having a referendum. But it must be admitted that it would take a lot of moral courage for Ireland to reject the Constitution.
Another rather eccentric argument in favour of the Constitution is that ratification will ensure that Turkey will remain outside the European Union. This view has been put forward by Nicolas Sarkozy, the leader of the government party. No reason is given. I can only assume that it is yet another attempt by this 'free market' politician to undermine Jacques Chirac, who is in favour of Turkey joining. (Chirac was originally against Turkey joining, but then the French-based company Airbus won a big contract with the Turks and he changed his mind. That’s how superficial the French President is.)
The Socialists, or at least the Socialist leadership, have been arguing that the Constitution favours a Social Europe. But this view is unconvincing. The reality is that it contains a litany of pious aspirations. However, some of the clauses are not so innocuous. For example, article ii-15-2 guarantees the "freedom of work". What does this mean? If someone wants to work he shouldn’t be prevented from working? So if a government such as the French government has a policy of a 35 hour week employers can ignore this law and claim in the European Court that French law is denying workers the freedom to work longer hours.
Needless to say, the Constitution does not guarantee the "right" to work. In case there is any misunderstanding regarding workers' rights article ii-111-2 says that the Constitution does not create any new power or obligation for the Union.
But the Socialist Party is not united. Laurent Fabius the former Socialist Prime Minister who led the 'No' campaign during the internal referendum, has remained quiet. He may yet break ranks. But another senior party member, Henry Emmanuelli, has campaigned for rejection of the Constitution.
Emmanuelli has refused an invitation from the communist leader Marie George Buffet to join forces with her party. This is probably sensible. Such a move would not help him convince fellow Socialists. However, both the dissident Socialists and the communists have a similar message. It is 'No' to the Constitution, but 'Yes' to a social Europe. They are careful not to be seen as anti-Europe.
So far the Socialist leadership has not sanctioned its dissidents (although one Socialist senator, Jean-Luc Melenchon, has been denounced for speaking on a "communist platform"). Emmanuelli is on record as saying that:—
"I do not wish to split the party. But a party is a means, not an end. I have been a member for more than thirty years and it is difficult for me to choose between my conviction and my loyalty to the party. However, I have been persuaded that this Referendum is one of the last chances to put a stop to the liberal drift in Europe which has generated unemployment, poverty and social regression."
I can only agree. The French Referendum will be crucial for the future of Europe