The European Union seeks to institutionalise its political structure. It proposed a “Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe” (let’s call it ‘Constitution’) as a foundation for a stronger political union of countries. All member states must ratify the Constitution for it to come into force.

Some countries left the ratification of the Constitution to their parliaments. Result: no debate and quasi-Stalinist majorities - see for example Austria (181 in favour and merley 1 against!) or Germany (569 votes to 23). Some countries held a referendum, without raising any real discussion or debate. Such is the case in Spain, where only 42% of the electorate showed up at the ballot box, most of those (76%) voting in favour. Other countries, such as the UK, postponed the debate as much as possible in order to avoid interference with general elections or, as seems the case in France, to pass the blame for not ratifying the Constitution on other countries.

In France, the debate on the referendum is taking centre stage in the media for weeks now, and is likey to do so until the vote, on the 29th of May. Why is that? Probably because the risk of a “No” to the Constitution is real, which makes for an exciting media event. Voters feel suddenly more involved too, sensing that their vote can make a difference. Also because some of the questions raised in the debate about the Constitution go deeper than traditional electoral issues such as 'lowering taxes' or 'closing boarders for poor immigrants'.

Instead, people are now discussing issues such as the importance of democratic institutions or the impact of economic policies on their daily lives. They are talking about fundamental rights, which are usually taken for granted. They are suddenly confronted with long-term decisions and start to think about the repercussions of their choices. This makes for a lively debate.

A special vote

Yet, what makes this referendum really exciting is that people cannot vote for a person. Nobody can narrow the debate to a mere 'if you like this guy, vote for him'. Even within political parties, opinions are divided. Traditional political divisions no longer apply. Communists along with extreme-right fascists are voting against the Constitution. Within the Socialist party, there are both Yes as well as No campaigners. The same applies to the ruling party. The government is, of course, pro-Yes, but one can still vote No and consider oneself a Chirac advocate. This is no simple debate; there is no simple answer.  Isn't this what politics should be all about: not persons but ideas!

Schematically speaking, the French debate comes down to four questions:

1. How much power do we want to give European institutions, as compared with national institutions?
2. How can we control these European institutions?
3. How do we define our fundamental rights?
4. How much liberal economic doctrine do we want to see imbedded in the Constitution?

The question as to whether or not we want Europe is hardly ever posed. Most people want Europe either for idealistic, humanistic or economic reasons. Interestingly enough, most people agree on the first two questions. The standard answers are:

1. We want the European institutions to have significant power but only if they are democratic.
2. We want democratic control by means of the European Parliament and elected national representatives (Council of Ministers and European Council).

Most of the discussions are about fundamental rights (the 'right to life' vs. the right to an abortion, for example, is a concern as the latter is not a right, recognised as such in the Constitution) and about the impact of liberal economic policies on everyday life (including concerns about vested labour rights, etc…). And, indeed, when it comes to such issues there are no standard solutions. Consequently, personalities from the same political party contradict one another live on TV. Opinion magazines are calling each other liars while referring to the same constitutional articles. As a result, voters cannot simply follow their traditional political preferences.

Interpretation

So, how are voters supposed to decide? The text of the Consitution does not provide an easy answer either. The articles of the Constitution are difficult to read. They contain multiple cross-references, and the underlying vision or guiding principle is hard to grasp. This is, in fact, precisely what some of the No-voters deplore: a Constitution should be an inspiring text with clear guiding principles, not a juridical collection of incomprehensible articles! But then, what else can one expect from a text made up for 25 different nations?  The lack of inspiring qualities can be regretted but this, in itself, is no reason to reject the text alltogether.

As I see it, one's position in the debate about the Constitution very much depends on whether he or she has either an optimistic or a pessimistic view on our human nature. Do you feel humanity is heading in the right direction with respect to the development of democracies around the world, the globalisation of the economy, and that the living standards of most people are improving (except, admittedly, in Africa and South America)? Then you believe that we should go on in the direction that the Constiution is pointing. Optimists are pro-Constitution.

Do you feel humanity is going the wrong way, with global levels of poverty increasing, democracies turning into empty shells for private economic interests that pollute the environment and corrupt all chances of improving our lives? Then you believe the current process of economic liberalization should be stopped. As a consequence, you deplore the EU process, which has by and large pursued a liberal economic evolution in the last 23 years (or some would even say since the Treaty of Rome), and reject its  latest formulation - that is, the Constitution. Hence, you should vote No.

EU Grondwet peiling