Laurent Fabius Interview

Originally Published: L'Humanité, May 17th., 2005

Translated by John Martin for Irish Political Review (June 2005)

The following appeared in l’Humanité 17/5/05. It is an interview with Laurent Fabius the former Socialist Prime Minister (translated for the Irish Political Review by John Martin).

Fabius is the Number Two in the French Socialist Party and was generally perceived to be on the right of the party. However, much to the surprise of many, he has defied his party leader and advocated a 'No' vote in the forthcoming referendum on the European Constitution.

At the time of writing the outcome of the referendum is unclear. However, a recent opinion poll showed that the French consider him to be the most effective campaigner on the 'No' side with 40%, followed by the French Communist leader, Marie George Buffet with 32%.

Interview

Humanité: You campaigned in favour of Maastricht and then approved the Amsterdam and Nice Treaties. Why are you now opposed to the project for the European Constitution?

Laurent Fabius: I approved the Maastricht treaty because it contained a major advance: the Euro. Despite its current shortcomings (it remains too strong) it can be a means of stability and power in the world. The single currency should allow the European Union, and therefore France, to balance its monetary strength with the United States. It should help us adjust to the development of China. But Maastricht was not the end of history. It was a first step towards a Europe of growth, of employment, a social Europe. That was the vision of Francois Mitterrand. We are far from that now.

The European Central Bank is a buttress of the "sacrosanct" price stability and independence from political power. It does not allow us the means to fight against unemployment and poverty. There are 20 million unemployed and what does the Constitution offer us in the Europe of 25, 27 and soon to be 30: policies of unrestricted competition to the detriment of production, wages, research and innovation. This is one of the reasons which led me to say 'No'. I am a partisan and artisan of Europe. But I draw the lessons of my experience in government. It is in this sense that my 'No' vote is for a more social Europe.

H: You have said that there is a strong risk of "social disruption" with the Constitutional Treaty. What do mean by this?

LF: I have always conceived of the construction of Europe as a movement which permits slowly and surely an upwards social and economic harmonisation. We on the left who are pro-European and Internationalist wish to unite the peoples under a social model. But with this last enlargement Europe has changed its nature. The new countries are diverse. The old methods will no longer work. If the Constitution is adopted each country will have the right to a veto in taxation matters. When the member states had a comparable level of taxation this did not pose a problem. But today some of the new entrants have a corporate tax rate of less than 10% which may be heading for 0%. How can that not exercise downward pressure on French, German and Spanish rates? This will lead to a fall in Public resources throughout the Union, damaging employment and public services. The Constitutional project forbids social harmonisation upwards. And yet the differences between the old members and the new ones are considerable. Competition will be extreme. Wages, social protection, workers' rights will be dragged downwards. That is why I speak of "social disruption".

H: Nothing legally prevents a renegotiation, but on what basis will it be?

LF: Declaration 30 annexed to the Constitutional Treaty anticipates that if in November, 2006, some countries have rejected the Treaty, the Heads of State will meet and re-examine the situation. In simple language that means that they will have a new discussion. And the new Constitution will not be in force until 2009. From this perspective it is important that the French 'No' is a pro-European and social 'No' because other countries will have different positions to ours and as always renegotiation will be difficult. France on its own cannot impose its point of view. But neither should it give up on its demands. With a clear vote for change France will be in a strong position. Renegotiation will have to be on three essential points:

1) Deletion in Part 3 of all specific policies which have no place in a Constitution.

2) Make the text more flexible.

3) Take out all the restrictions on strengthening cooperation. That is to say allow countries which wish to go further and more quickly together such as France and Germany to be able to do so.

This revision of the Constitution will not be perfect. But at least the Constitution will not be inflexible. It will be a step towards the Social Europe which we wish.

H: Martine Aubry (the Socialist Mayor of Lille and daughter of Jacques Delors—JM) has accused you of playing on people’s fears by considering foreign countries as our enemies and the causes of outsourcing of production away from France.

LF: I haven’t broken any rules nor have I entered into a dispute with the leaders of the Left. In the matter of the transfer of production from France outside Europe, it is not obvious that stating the facts is to play on people’s fears. I represent upper Normandy where "outsourcing" is not a fantasy, alas, but a painful reality. Jean Jaures said: "courage is to search for the truth and to tell it". To recognise the extent of "outsourcing" is to tell the truth. Fighting against it is not easy, but it is necessary. Regarding "outsourcing" within Europe, it is an urgent task to help the new entrants more. It is in our common interest. This assumes an upward revision of the European Budget, which is precisely what Jacques Chirac refuses to do. On the contrary, he has demanded a reduction. Other essential decisions that are required include a minimum level of taxation, for example, corporate taxes and an upward social progression (employment laws, social welfare etc). But as I’ve said these last two measures are forbidden by the Constitution (Article iii-210). This is very serious. It means that if the Text is passed we will be deprived of the means to fight against outsourcing of production.

H: But how can we struggle against outsourcing of production to countries outside Europe?

LF: The development of the emerging countries is a source of satisfaction for all those who like me have been preoccupied by underdevelopment. But it is in the interests of all that this is balanced and regulated. If we do not decide to discuss seriously, at a world level, the social, environmental, energy and financial implications of development in China or India, that will be a source of planetary imbalance. For a country like ours it will be difficult to have strong industry. However, there cannot be growth without a solid industrial base. Today, Europe does not possess the means to react effectively. The case of the textile industry is a good illustration. The Ministers have made numerous statements of intent. But at the rate things are going the French Textile industry will have closed down by the time measures are taken. I fear that the same scenario will repeat itself for the furniture industry and eventually even the car industry.

For a long time many believed that there would be an automatic adjustment and counted on a rapid increase in the wages of the emerging nations, on our advances in technology and the costs of transport preventing disruption. But this reassuring analysis is out of date. The demographic weight of countries such as China and India exercise a massive pressure on our wages and salaries. They have accomplished massive technological advances and the revolution in information technology has reduced the costs of transport.
Therefore we must conceive another model of world regulation. And it is for Europe to propose it with generosity and solidarity. At the same time we must allow our own industries to develop by training and technological development to create employment. That is why we need a great ambition in Europe for industry, research and technology. To avoid these questions is to hide the most important problems which we will face in the next 20 years. Let us not avoid doing this with this Constitution.

H: Has your experience of the Jospin Government and then the failure of the Left in the 2002 election (Jospin finished third in the Presidential election behind Jean Marie Le Pen and Chirac—JM) led you to defend a 'No' vote?

LF: Of course. The defeat of Lionel Jospin was also a collective defeat. Like others I bear my share of responsibility. Among the reasons for the defeat was the division within the Left and the distancing of it from factory workers, employees, teachers, pensioners and the young. For three years I have drawn the lessons, in particular, by advocating "frontal opposition" to the right: in other words resolute and responsible. I observe that a large part of the people of the left have united around a 'No'. This is no coincidence and it is a magnificent hope. The unity of the left remains for me an absolute necessity.

H: Will a 'Yes' victory compromise the possibility of implementing left wing policies in the future?

LF: If we wish to develop scientific research, a transport policy, public services, it is necessary to have the financial means to do so. However, the Constitution will not allow us a sufficient budget: unanimity is required and borrowing is forbidden. At the same time the Constitution sets in stone the Stability Pact and risks preventing member States from implementing a policy of growth. So we are not able to do things at the European or the national level. In such a Europe left-wing policies in favour of employment and social progress will be very difficult. The Right-wingers, like Nicolas Sarkozy, have started to come out of the woodwork and have recognised publicly that this is the real reason for their support for this Constitution. For the UMP (the leading Government party—JM) and the MEDEF (the employers' organisation—JM) a free market Europe will happen with a 'Yes' vote. And they want to use this Europe to force regressive policies on France. The choice is clearly between a "free market Europe" and a "social Europe". To prepare for the social alternative we must vote 'No'.