MaxedOutMama
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
The French And The EU Constitution
This is an excellent column by Charles Wyplosz that looks at the reasons why the French may not ratify the proposed EU Constitution at the end of May. It reviews the history of the EU and France's position in it, and touches on the current economic trends that worry French voters:
"Ultimately" is not very promising to any individual voter. This column sets forth why the EU elite is now trying to sell the EU Constitution to France on the basis of maintaining their preeminence in Europe and defending France and Europe against international economic competition. The degree of the dilemma is evident in the dishonesty of the debate. In the European Parliament, all sorts of odd suggestions have been emerging to sell the Constitution.
One of the oddest, it seems to me, is this column by Peter Sain ley Berry, in which he argues both that the Constitution is fundamentally purely a technical document enshrining the current conditions and understandings in the EU (that is, it changes nothing) AND absolutely essential:
The truth is that the French workers are protesting against the current EU trend, and seizing this opportunity to do it. They don't want the EU to expand further. They are concerned about preserving their way of life, because while the Services Directive is going to be good for companies it will not help the French worker in the slightest - it will harm the French worker. And they wish to assert their "human and democratic" right to be heard in the face of an elite to whom appearances may be more important than a democratic process. It is no coincidence that the French intransigence is fueling a possible revision of the Services Directive.
I both see the need for restablishing economic competitiveness and the reason why many of the French people are unlikely to vote for this thing. For more, see No Oil For Pacifist's roundup. Lancelot Finn casts a brief look at the matter asking if the EU might break up and commenting:
But the EU is also founded on ideas about human rights, and there it has a powerful idea and the force of history going for it. It should strive to maximize that focus as a unifying theme but not a controlling culture. The difficulty of the path the EU walks is to prevent falling into the abyss of defining themselves as a secular culture with unwritten rules that dictate suspicion of other cultures. They have a demographic problem, so Europe must be truly open to immigrants. The Asian world is set on a path of hyper-capitalism, so they must adjust to that economic reality.
A culture can define itself as a series of negative rules (we don't shoot people down in the streets, we don't murder, we don't torture) but it also must have a powerful positive or aspirational focus. In Europe, that may be the concept of European culture, but that could easily resolve itself into an asinine us-vs-you construction like that of Hitler's Aryan Utopia, replacing racialism with Euro-centrism. On the other hand, Europe could re-orient itself to focus on its humanitarian efforts and outreach to other areas. In that case, Europe might evolve a very vibrant and open culture that used its excess productive capacity on humanitarian projects. Since the concept of "European" would be organized around objective actions, it would not become a narrow concept.
It's far too soon to tell, but if UN reform measures succeed, it is likely that Europe would be the prime beneficiary. A static, debating-club type of UN seems to be to be their cultural worst enemy.
At the same time, successive EU enlargements over the decades have brought in other powerful contenders, chiefly Spain and the UK, as well as smaller countries that are unwilling to bow before French-German leadership. In short, France has lost control of Europe. This is not new, but it has only recently started to sink in, and it hurts.The Services Directive was probably the final straw in all this, but enlargement itself meant that the original EU members found themselves competing in a larger market with a much higher gradation between pay scales and benefits. That meant that the rules of competition favored the new members to a degree. We have the same controversy in this country, cloaked under the guise of illegal immigration, so we can't afford to sneer at the French.
France is also economically wounded. Here is a country that has long cherished its "exception" from the normal rules of market economics, a foggy view that rejects both central planning and free markets and claims to offer a well-balanced middle ground. The French do not care that they have never been able to articulate their vision of a "third way," for they remain deeply convinced that the state has a key role to play in steering markets in order to defend "higher" values from the single-minded pursuit of materialism....
Of course, most French people would ultimately benefit from doing away with this inefficient web of big and small privileges, but most voters, depressed by poor economic prospects and unnerved by high unemployment, are simply unwilling to take the risk. They do not understand the roots of their economic troubles and are nostalgic for better times.
"Ultimately" is not very promising to any individual voter. This column sets forth why the EU elite is now trying to sell the EU Constitution to France on the basis of maintaining their preeminence in Europe and defending France and Europe against international economic competition. The degree of the dilemma is evident in the dishonesty of the debate. In the European Parliament, all sorts of odd suggestions have been emerging to sell the Constitution.
One of the oddest, it seems to me, is this column by Peter Sain ley Berry, in which he argues both that the Constitution is fundamentally purely a technical document enshrining the current conditions and understandings in the EU (that is, it changes nothing) AND absolutely essential:
The fact is the Constitution, with its portentous appellation, has been desperately oversold. Right from the time an ageing French President with his eye on history decided to produce a document that he hoped would last for 50 years in a Convention that recalled both French and American Revolutions.and:
We are, however, not nation building. The reality is that the Constitution is a largely technical measure needed to ensure the continued smooth functioning of the Union. It is a well constructed and very necessary framework, but inside is little that wasn't there before. When people learn this they lose enthusiasm - worse, on the principle of nature and vacuums, they fill up the framework with their own skeletons and prejudices. In vain does President Chirac plead that the Constitution has nothing to do with Turkey or with liberalising the Services market.
This campaign should not sell the Constitution as something historic; this is not about European liberty leading the people. The message should be that the great steps in peace and prosperity that have been achieved in Europe have been achieved by member states working together. The Constitution will help them to continue to do that, preserving the advantages that have been gained. It is a vital technical measure that Europe needs desperately if it is to function properly and deliver what its member states want it to do and what much of the world, mired as it is in poverty and crisis, has a right to expect.Now if you were a French voter, would being told to vote for the EU Constitution because it doesn't matter anyway and a "no" vote would make "the European Union would look pretty silly in the eyes of the rest of the world," convince you? The author concedes that "The egg on our faces might prove that we were human and democratic, but the Union's credibility would suffer, especially among emerging regional groups in Asia, Africa and Latin America, keen to follow the European model."
The truth is that the French workers are protesting against the current EU trend, and seizing this opportunity to do it. They don't want the EU to expand further. They are concerned about preserving their way of life, because while the Services Directive is going to be good for companies it will not help the French worker in the slightest - it will harm the French worker. And they wish to assert their "human and democratic" right to be heard in the face of an elite to whom appearances may be more important than a democratic process. It is no coincidence that the French intransigence is fueling a possible revision of the Services Directive.
I both see the need for restablishing economic competitiveness and the reason why many of the French people are unlikely to vote for this thing. For more, see No Oil For Pacifist's roundup. Lancelot Finn casts a brief look at the matter asking if the EU might break up and commenting:
But politically, the European project is philosophically misguided, out of touch with its people, and beset by economic sclerosis and long-term demographic decline. In this unpromising climate, the Europeans have abandoned traditional forms of legitimacy rooted in national sovereignty in favor of an experiment. While most of the hope and labor that has been invested in the European project could probably have been better spent, the experiment has done some good.My opinion (and it is only my opinion, feel free to jeer at it) is that the EU in its current form is not a weak construction. However I suspect that trying to move quickly toward a federalistic construction might prove problematic. At that point, the differing national philosophies begin to clash. Any union founded on a concept of economic rights instead of human rights is perilous, because this parses to a union based on a result instead of a process. While processes can survive tough times and changing circumstances, results are bound to vary, and the conflict and resentment generated will then be oriented toward the federal structure.
But the EU is also founded on ideas about human rights, and there it has a powerful idea and the force of history going for it. It should strive to maximize that focus as a unifying theme but not a controlling culture. The difficulty of the path the EU walks is to prevent falling into the abyss of defining themselves as a secular culture with unwritten rules that dictate suspicion of other cultures. They have a demographic problem, so Europe must be truly open to immigrants. The Asian world is set on a path of hyper-capitalism, so they must adjust to that economic reality.
A culture can define itself as a series of negative rules (we don't shoot people down in the streets, we don't murder, we don't torture) but it also must have a powerful positive or aspirational focus. In Europe, that may be the concept of European culture, but that could easily resolve itself into an asinine us-vs-you construction like that of Hitler's Aryan Utopia, replacing racialism with Euro-centrism. On the other hand, Europe could re-orient itself to focus on its humanitarian efforts and outreach to other areas. In that case, Europe might evolve a very vibrant and open culture that used its excess productive capacity on humanitarian projects. Since the concept of "European" would be organized around objective actions, it would not become a narrow concept.
It's far too soon to tell, but if UN reform measures succeed, it is likely that Europe would be the prime beneficiary. A static, debating-club type of UN seems to be to be their cultural worst enemy.
