You are in:
- Archives » 2007 » April 2007
From The Archives
Two years ago, Jacques Chirac lost the referendum on the European Constitution. It was the perhaps the most devastating blow in a series of events which undermined his presidency.
He wasn't the only loser: France's Socialist Party, whose leadership had called for a Yes vote on the treaty, was left painfully divided as its supporters flocked to the No camp.
The Constitution looked dead in the water. Britain's presidency of the European Union was looming, a six-month spell Tony Blair was determined to use to renew the EU by pushing liberal measures (and ignoring the Constitution). Chirac responded by talking tough on France's untouchable agricultural policies (a key Blair target) and demanding that Britain lose its rebate from the EU...
Two years on, Chirac is in the dying days of his presidency. He will be succeeded by a Socialist or by his deadly rival Nicolas Sarkozy - neither a welcome result for the President. Across the Channel, Tony Blair too is coming to an end of his premiership, battered by the Iraq disaster and unrest from within his own party.
In Germany, centre-right Chancellor Angela Merkel replaced Chirac's close supporter, Gerhard Schröder, and has distanced her adminstration from the stifling Franco-German axis. However, she seems determined to resurrect the European Constitution (The Times argues why she's wrong here).
Here's a look back to how EURSOC covered the heady spring of 2005...
Use yr delusion (13 June 2005):
Jacques Chirac's ploy to deflect attention from his constitution coq-up has worked like a dream, at least in the British press. Two stories have dominated the front pages this week: The first, Chirac's rally of 23 other EU leaders to rob Britain of its £3.2 billion annual rebate. The second, the possibility that Tony Blair might step over the mouldering corpse of the constitution and save the EU from economic stagnation.
Both stories stretch the imagination a little too far. The latter can be dealt with easily: Plenty of central European nations, the Iberians and a handful of northern Europeans might be doing well thanks to liberalising measures introduced in the past decade or so. But France, Germany and Italy - three of Europe's biggest nations and largest economies - are about as likely to introduce free market reforms as they are to make English their national language.
The prospect of Blair leading the 200 million people of these countries to the high ground of liberalism via EU leadership is remote to the point of absurdity. The forthcoming British presidency of the EU might give Blair the opportunity to press for more of the reforms demanded by the Lisbon 2010 agenda, but the voters are in no mood for change. Sadly, we must accept that many years will pass before France, Germany or Italy do more than contemplate the measures we would like to see introduced.
The other leading story, Britain's plucky defence of its rebate, is, as Chirac intended, a distraction. Britain's foreign minister Jack Straw, doubtless perturbed by the press frenzy, has said that anyone who believes that the rebate will be the central focus of this week's heads of government convention is "deluded."
That said, the media storm surrounding the rebate has done the British public the service of highlighting some of the more ridiculous aspects of the EU budget: Without the rebate, Britain would have paid fifteen times as much into the EU as France. Even with the rebate, we still pay two-and-a-half times what France pays. And if Britain's rebate is factored out of France's contribution to the EU, France pays next to nothing - yet swallows up 25 percent of the Common Agricultural Policy budget (which itself makes up nearly half the entire EU spending plan). One of the EU's richest nations, with an economy roughly the same size as Britain's, with no obviously impoverished regions and certainly no infrastructure problems, pays sweet rien to its EU comrades? That's solidarity for you.
No wonder Chirac refuses to countenance any CAP reform.
Like everything else Chirac seems to try these days, his rebate-related stirring could backfire on him. Most Britons think about the EU as regularly as they contemplate their sewage system. It is only when it begins to stink that they see its workings exposed. And with M Chirac kicking up a right old whiff on the front pages of the British press, the average Brit might wonder why he and his fellow citizens have to fork out several billion a year just to keep French farmers from burning sheep on the Champs-Elysees.
No, the real issue for Europeans this week is democracy. As reported last week, Brussels has ignored the results of the French and Dutch referenda. The Telegraph, stepping aside from the rebate brawl, warns that MEPs have already voted through several items which take the constitution as their authority. They have also proposed a single EU seat on the United Nations security council - absurd and unacceptable to begin with - and compounded the insult by using the constitution as its legal basis.
Javier Solana, who was expected to become the EU's minister for foreign affairs if the constitution had survived the votes, said that "we" had to continue - "the worst that could happen for Europe would be a state of psychological paralysis."
Well, I don't know about you but a paralysis of EU activity sounds a lot more like what the voters of France and Holland demanded than a march forward that ignored their voices altogether.
The Telegraph says that while Solana and his cronies seem like comic, deluded figures, there is a very real danger that Europe's citizens are the deluded:
"To our masters in Brussels, the goal of a united Europe is not simply desirable but inevitable. Public opposition to that goal is thus an obstacle to be overcome, not a reason for changing direction. We may find their attitude laughable. But, when the laughing stops, they will still have their constitution."
Some old-fashioned Eurocrats urge their zealous young counterparts to play a longer game. Writing in the International Herald Tribune yesterday, former German chancellor Helmut Schmidt warned, "We can repress the historically created egocentric nationalism of Europeans only gradually." Sinister stuff, which reveals not only the contempt at the heart of the European Project but the fact that a debate is emerging among its leaders.
Should they seize this moment of confusion and drive the EU forward (much like Tony Blair is being urged to do with economic reform) or should the French and Dutch referenda be taken as a sign that the EU should return, for now, to nibbling away at national sovereignty, lose the appetite for bigger chunks?
Going back to the Telegraph to conclude, the columnist reminds us that yes campaigners warned that a rejection of the constitution would mean a rejection of the entire EU Project. France and Holland registered record turnouts for their referenda and overwhelmingly rejected the constitution. Hey, Brussels: Perhaps they are trying to tell you something.
