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
Ce que Paris conseille, l’Europe le médite; ce que Paris commence, l’Europe le continue.
What Paris advises, Europe considers. What Paris starts, Europe continues.
(Victor Hugo in 1848 before the French Constituent Assembly)
The Constitutional Treaty is dead. Vive La France!
In a 70% turnout on May 29th, 55% of French voters killed off the 448-Article monstrosity. Dutch voters buried it a few days later.
The results have been greeted with shock and hysteria by European leaders and Editorial writers. They have believed their own propaganda and therefore can only respond with incomprehension. Like eighteenth century aristocrats they peer over the parapet and remark with horror: "the French are revolting".
Since these European leaders and Opinion-formers are politically bankrupt they resort to psychological terms to explain it. It is an outbreak of madness. The French thought they were voting against Chirac. Perhaps it didn’t happen at all! France and the Netherlands have isolated themselves. We can continue as if it never happened.
But it did happen. And it happened despite the best efforts of the Government parties (the UMP and UDF) and the main Opposition party, the Socialist Party. It happened despite the overwhelming support of the French media.
But the overwhelming propaganda in favour of the Constitution was not enough to suppress debate. And with all due respect to Spain, France was the first country in Europe to have a genuine debate among its people. Much of the credit must go the French Communist Party, which launched its campaign with an excellent pamphlet in October 2004. The communist daily newspaper, l’Humanité, continued to raise the issues and countered the propaganda of the 'Yes' side right up until referendum day. It adopted a non-sectarian approach and opened its pages to dissidents from the Socialist Party as well as the Trotskyist leader of the League of the Communist Revolution. (It took a less generous attitude to the other Trotskyist party, "Workers Struggle". After all, there is such a thing as carrying non-sectarianism too far!).
The substance of the 'No' campaign was supplied by the Communist Party, dissidents from the Socialist Party, such as Lauren Fabius and Henri Emanuelli and the Republican Socialist Jean Pierre Chevenement (the latter resigned from the Mitterand Government over the first Gulf war). They all claim to be "pro-Europe", but for a different Europe, a "social Europe".
Up until 'Blairism', it has always been the position of reformist socialists that it is essential to have a strong state to protect working class interests and assist in the development of the economy. This position has been abandoned by most socialists (social democrats) in the face of the all-conquering globalisation of capital which has accelerated its sphere of operation since the fall of communism in 1989.
The Irish Political Review had been in favour of the existing European project up until and including the Maastricht Treaty. But we cannot close our eyes to international developments. The International Capitalists are the revolutionary class. Since the fall of communism they have not hesitated to disrupt societies in their own interest with the help of the World Bank and the IMF. Their modus operandi is to weaken states as a means of maximising their sphere of influence.
The European Constitutional Treaty dovetailed with the Globalisation project. It envisaged a free unrestricted market and at the same time disabled Member-States from exercising control over the process. The accession of the ten new states made it impossible for any new coherent European State to emerge. The last few years have seen a downward spiral caused by competition. The mobility of capital has enabled States with low wages and limited social protection to undermine employment in countries such as Germany and France which have high wages and generous social protection. The international capitalists have been quite open about all this. For example, last year a Bosch factory in France brazenly threatened its workers with transferring production to a cheaper country if they did not extend their 35-hour working week to 39 hours with no extra pay. European social legislation, such as the maximum 48-hour week, has been rendered meaningless by allowing derogations to Member-States such as the UK.
The left-wing supporters of Globalisation portray this process as inevitable. We must all submit to the inevitable laws of the market. The significance of the French 'No' vote is that it is the first challenge to this defeatism. It is a vote of hope signifying that politics matters despite all the 'conventional wisdom'.
Towards the end of the French referendum campaign, Chirac and others tried to claim that the 'No' campaign was incapable of re-negotiating the Treaty since it was composed of such diverse elements as the Communist Party and Jean Marie LePen’s National Front. But LePen was uncharacteristically quiet during the campaign. At an early stage he indicated that he did not wish to "demonise" the 'No' vote.
There is no doubt that the substance of the 'No' vote came from the left. However, although LePen’s party is particularly nasty, the 15% (probably declining) of voters whom he represents should not be dismissed. There is a rational basis for that vote. Why should a nationalist-minded French voter become an internationalist if he perceives that international trends are undermining his livelihood? It was interesting that Henri Emanuelli of the Socialist Party said that one of the reasons why he went against his party leadership and campaigned for a 'No' was that he was afraid that, if he didn’t, socialist voters would be driven to vote for the National Front!
Losers and Winners
One of the big losers in this referendum has been Jacques Chirac. He called the referendum and lost. There is no doubt that his authority within France and Europe has been undermined. His only consolation is that his bitter rival Nicholas Sarkozy can hardly claim to be a replacement since the Free Market values that the latter stands for suffered a crushing defeat.
Probably the biggest loser has been Francois Holland, the leader of the Socialist Party. At least Chirac can claim that his party united behind him. The same cannot be said of Holland. As the campaign progressed his authority weakened. He was unable to discipline his dissidents and, when the 'No' side grew in strength, Jacques Delors and Lionel Jospin had to be wheeled out in a desperate attempt to shore up the flow of left-wing support towards the 'No' side.
One of the big winners has been the Communist Party. Much of the groundwork for the 'No' campaign was done by that party, which was holding meetings on the Constitution around the country since last year. Although Marie George Buffet is not as accomplished a media performer as Fabius or Emanuelli, she did not put a foot wrong. Her response to the victory was calm and measured. Unlike Emanuelli, LePen and others she did not call for the resignation of Chirac after the referendum. She suggested that the Government submit to the choice of the people or resign. This reflects a realistic acceptance that, if the Communist Party is to have influence in the development of Europe, it will have to work with the elected French Government no matter how much it might dislike it. The Communist Party has been in the doldrums in recent years, representing about 5% of the vote, but it is very likely that its share of the vote will increase in the coming years.
But the biggest winner was Laurent Fabius. His interventions were crucial and his pro-European credentials reassured many non-communist voters. He was also the first to articulate an alternative vision (see interview in this magazine). On the night of the referendum he showed almost 'God Like' contempt for media protocols and refused to give any interviews. He said that he would be returning to his people in Normandy. Twenty four hours later he descended on Paris to pronounce on the result. Such arrogance was worthy of Mitterrand!
He is not universally liked, but it is extremely difficult to see who else can possibly be the Socialist Presidential candidate in 2007.
Where Now?
The interview with Fabius in this magazine gives a hint as to the direction that Europe could take. However it does not deal with the likely possibility of some countries not sharing the social vision of France (e.g. the UK). Last year during the internal Socialist Party referendum debate he suggested a two speed Europe. If Europe is to develop, with some countries preferring to follow France and others preferring the existing Constitution, the former countries will require economic protectionist policies. Otherwise, there will continue to be a drift towards outsourcing of production to the low tax 'free market' orientated countries of Europe.
A new two speed Europe would also have implications for the European Social Fund and the Common Agricultural Policy. It would be unrealistic to expect the 'social' countries to subsidise the 'free market' countries.
For Fabius’s project to succeed, the support of Germany is essential. A new more social dynamic within Europe can only happen if there is a referendum in Germany. Germany has already approved the Constitution in its parliament. However, recent elections indicate that there is strong left-wing disenchantment with the rightward drift of the German Social Democrats. This discontent is united around the former Social Democratic leader Oskar La Fontaine who is a trenchant opponent of the Constitutional Treaty.
Ireland
As has been pointed out in this magazine, the political establishment in this country has a wildly unrealistic view of the reasons for economic success. Ireland has benefited from being part of a Protectionist Europe. Its low tax policies have attracted a disproportional share of American capital wishing to have access to the European market. But the Nice Treaty changed all that. The wide political and economic diversity in the countries of the European Union has undermined the social model. The only way it can be retrieved is by a "two speed" Europe.
If the French social vision spreads to Germany the choice between "Boston and Berlin" will no longer be academic. Ireland will face an urgent practical decision. We are heading for interesting times!