More On The French Referendum

Irish Political Review, May 2005

John Martin

The French referendum campaign has not gone as well for the supporters of the EU Constitution as they would have liked. Since the end of March opinion polls have been consistently showing the "no" side with between 52% and 58% support. Recently, after a huge propaganda campaign, which involved bringing Jacques Delors out of retirement and passing the Constitution through the German Parliament, the polls are breaking even, or tending towards the 'Yes' side.

Why have there been such problems for the 'Yes' campaign? Last December the socialists voted by a 60-40 majority for the constitution in an internal referendum. The socialist leader Francois Holland was voted "man of the year" by one of the French current affairs magazines and the right wing government parties were overwhelmingly in favour.

The 'Yes' side were hoping that following the vote of the socialists, left wing dissent would be kept to a minimum and the referendum would pass on the 'nod'.

But it is clear that the minority within the Socialist Party which voted against the party leadership last December is the most political element. While the socialist leader of the 'No' campaign, former Prime Minister Lauren Fabius, has remained silent since losing the internal party referendum, other dissidents have been active. It is too late for the leadership to silence them because there is no doubt that the minority is now a significant majority within the party.

In the absence of Fabius, the leader of the socialist 'No' campaign is Henri Emmanuelli. Emmanuelli looks like an ageing Italian boxer. He is never going to be a champion or even a contender: not slick enough. But he has a few good fights left in him and this one could be his best.

His most recent bout was a head to head with Nicolas Sarkozy in a television programme called 100 Minutes To Convince. The format has a leading politician (in this case Sarkozy) giving his views for 100 minutes. In the course of the programme he is challenged by journalists and other politicians on various themes. Unfortunately, Emmanuelli was allowed only 15 minutes to challenge him on the EU Constitution.

Emmanuelli opened aggressively by claiming that the Constitution was not "social". This immediately put Sarkozy on the defensive. The leading pro "free market" politician in France was reduced to claiming that it was "social". He tried to say that the European Trade Union movement supported it. But Emmanuelli countered by saying that he marched with tens of thousands of European Trade Unionists against the Bolkestein Directive in Brussels and they were also against the Constitution. By the end of this brief debate Sarkozy was reeling, but fifteen minutes was far too short for a knockout blow to be delivered.

In an article in the March issue of the Irish Political Review I suggested that French political culture can be understood in terms of communist and Gaullist values. But there is a third political tendency. This tendency likes to think of itself as being progressive. It denounces the conservatism of France. "We must change", it says and "we must keep pace with international developments". It supports the EU Constitution because "competition" and the "free market" is the wave of the future. Supporters of this view are found in the Socialist Party as well as the Government parties. They like to think of themselves as "modern". But some people think that they belong to an older tradition.

The pugnacious Emmanuelli came out with the following in a newspaper interview to justify his opposition to the socialist leadership:—

"There was a majority of socialists who supported Petain in 1940. Those who resisted have passed into posterity. Those who supported his policies are held in opprobrium."

Of course, that kind of talk was denounced as being 'below the belt'. But could there be an element of truth in it? This is not to say that the 'Yes' side are fascists, only that this tendency supports the dominant international political trend. In 1940 it was Nazism and in 2005 it is free market, globalist values.

The campaign against the Constitution has been largely driven by the French Communist Party. As indicated in last month’s issue it published a best selling pamphlet on the constitution in October 2004. It has also been campaigning against the Bolkestein directive since July of last year. The communist daily newspaper l’Humanité has been an invaluable means of mobilising opposition to the Constitution.

The communists are opposed to the Constitution on economic grounds. They claim that it is the only Constitution in the world that enshrines free market values. In my view this claim is justified. Almost at the beginning of the Constitution Article i-3-2 indicates that the Union offers freedom, security, justice without internal frontiers and an internal market where competition is free and unrestricted.

Article i-3-2 indicates that the Union works for the sustainable development of Europe founded on balanced economic growth and on the stability of prices, a highly competitive social market which tends towards full employment and social progress and an increased level of protection and improvement of the environment. It promotes scientific and technical progress

At first glance the above article appears to have something for everyone. "Sustainable development", "balanced economic growth" and "improvement of the environment" sound ecological. "Social progress" and "full employment" sound socialist and the "highly competitive" and "stability of price" phrases sound capitalist if not monetarist.

However in my view the ecological and socialist sounding phrases are mere pious aspirations without substance. They are political window dressing. There is no indication of how these might be achieved anywhere in the Constitution. On the other hand, the Constitution is extremely detailed as regards stability of price and competition.

Article i-4-1, for example, defines as a fundamental liberty the free circulation of persons, services, products and capital.

Section iii fleshes out how the objectives in article i-3 might be achieved. Article iii-177 says that to achieve the aims of article i-3 there must be close coordination of the economic policies of member states in conformity with the principle of an open economy where competition is free.

The second paragraph of this article lists as a principal objective the stability of prices and again indicates that the Union must conform to the principle of free competition. In case there is any doubt, the third paragraph says that member States must respect the following principles: price stability, healthy monetary and public finance polices and a stable balance of payments.

Article iii-178 also refers to the objectives contained in article i-3. It says that member states may act in respect of the principle of a market economy where there is free competition, favouring the efficient allocation of resources.

The pious aspirations of "social progress" and "full employment" etc in article i-3 are not mentioned at all in these articles or anywhere else.

Regarding the "stability of prices", this will be implemented by the Central Banks (Article iii-185-1). Article iii-188 guarantees their independence. Neither the member states’ Central Banks nor the European Central Bank can solicit or accept instructions from member state governments or other institutions within the Union.

It is extremely difficult to see how any socialist could support this Constitution. In the past there might have been an argument for free market policies as a means of disrupting local monopolies. But this was in the context of a large European Social Fund and a generous Common Agricultural Policy. It was also in the context of a small number of states with broadly Social/Christian democratic values. Such free market policies were a means of encouraging greater economic integration (i.e. an economy organised across the European Community rather than on a national basis) and not an end in itself.

But these conditions no longer apply. The growth and stability pact and now this Constitution will place constraints on public expenditure policies designed to mitigate the effects of free market policies. There is no doubt that since the end of the Kohl/Mitterand era free market policies are seen as good in themselves and not as a means to an end. The European Constitution reflects this shift to the right.

Amid a plethora of pious aspirations Article i-3-4 says that in its relations with the rest of the world the Union will contribute to "free and equitable trade". It is very clear that free market values are fundamental to the European project. This is not just an internal matter for the European Union: these values define its relationship with the rest of the world.

Article iii-156 says that restrictions in movements of Capital and payments between states of the Union and states outside the Union are forbidden. This latter article has caused severe embarrassment to Chirac. Recently, the French President advocated a "Tobin tax" (named after the Nobel Prize winning economist), which is a tax on movements of Capital as a means of eliminating world poverty. He now has to keep quiet about that because such a proposal would violate this article of the EU Constitution.

Recently, the lack-lustre performance of Chirac has come in for criticism. It’s my suspicion that this is not due to incompetence or lack of energy, but rather his heart is not in it.

Since the opinion polls began to show a 'No' majority the Eurocrats from other countries have been trying to find scapegoats. If it is not the "French political class" it is the French people themselves. The view has been expressed that the French don’t really oppose the EU Constitution they are just using the issue to sanction their government. In my view this is patronising rubbish.

The Catholic Daily Newspaper La Croix conducted a detailed analysis of the reasons given for voting 'No'. The paper, which has taken an even handed editorial line on the Constitution, concluded that the 'No' voters were not confusing the forthcoming referendum with a general election. On the contrary, following the focus group surveys that it commissioned, it concluded that the reasons given for voting 'No' were quite profound.

There were broadly two reasons for voting 'No'. The first reason is not to sanction the French Government, but to sanction the European project itself which many French people consider to have become too "liberal" (i.e. free market orientated). The French blame the transfer of production from their country to low cost countries in Asia and Eastern Europe on "free market" policies imposed from Brussels. They also think that competition has undermined gains won by the labour movement such as the 35 hour week. The Bolkestein Directive confirmed their negative views of European economic policies.

The second reason given for voting 'No' relates to the French identity. The market researchers found that the French have a very particular relationship with the state. They perceive it as a protector, as a source of security. It is centralised with clear national boundaries. Europe, on the other hand, represents the opposite. It is diverse with provisional boundaries. The enlargement of the EU to the East and the proposed accession of Turkey, even if it will not happen until 10 or 15 years, have accentuated French fears.

However, although the opinion polls indicate that a majority might vote 'No', one opinion poll also showed a majority hoped that the 'Yes' side would win! The contradiction is explained by the fact that some 'No' voters fear the consequences for Europe of a French 'No'. They want to send a message to Europe but on the other hand they fear the consequences of a majority 'No' will undermine it. This indicates a certain fragility on the part of 'No' voters which could be exploited by the 'Yes' campaign as polling day draws near.

Another weakness on the 'No' side is that many of their campaigners are perceived as extremists. Jean Marie Le Pen of the National Front is advocating a 'No' vote. However, much to the chagrin of many on the 'Yes' side, this person has been uncharacteristically quiet during the campaign.

One prominent 'No' campaigner on the "right" is Phillipe De Villiers. This politician is considered to be a conservative Catholic. He is also proud of his aristocratic lineage. He represents the Vendée region of France which is famous for its rebellion against the French Revolution. Normally such a reactionary would be a liability for any political campaign. But worryingly for the political establishment, he has been appealing to mainstream French values. One issue that has been raised during the campaign has been the level of cheap Chinese clothing imports resulting in job losses in France. De Villiers contrasted the response of the USA to this problem with that of Europe. In the US protectionist measures were implemented almost immediately, whereas the European commissioner, Peter Mandelson, decided to implement a 6 stage consultative process (in other words do nothing). De Villiers’s conclusion was that the EU is being run by free market dogmatists.

When a reactionary from France accuses a senior British Labour Party politician of being a "free market dogmatist", that is a problem. It indicates that French values are diametrically opposed to British values. If the French reject the EU Constitution on 29th of May it will be because it is against the Constitution’s free market orientation and the undermining of State control in relation to employment law. On the other hand, if the British vote 'No' next year it will be because it is too 'social'. Those two visions of Europe are not compatible.

In recent years British values have been in the ascendant and Continental politicians have not resisted the drift towards Anglo-American economic policies. A French rejection on the 29th of May could galvanise an alternative vision.

Table Of Contents

More On The French Referendum

Irish Political Review, May 2005

John Martin