France : they Just Said, "NO!!"

by Jean-Pierre Desmoulins

French citizens have just said "NO" to the new constitution that was submitted to their vote. I have heard so many things, in both the French and international media, so many analyses of the "NO" campaign in which I don’t see my opinion included, that I want to comment.

First, I had some difficulties in making my mind up. Like the journalists of MARIANNE, a weekly which I favor, I was induced to vote "YES" by my old European convictions, yet "NO" by logical analysis. I finally voted "NO," logic winning out over my heart.

My analysis of the current trend in European integration is that there has been two phases. To make it simple, the change happened approximately when the UK was admitted to Europe. In Phase One, the French-German pair imposed a political agenda. In Phase Two, an economic agenda was followed. Of course, economy was involved in Phase One and politics in Phase Two, but the inner core, the main ontological heart of Europe, has changed. The proposed constitution is just a way to set up - in a clear and intelligent way - the minimal political structures necessary to achieve the economic goals of Phase Two.

Both the economical and the political side of this constitution can be criticized.

The economic choices, without analyzing and criticizing them with some collective-vs.-liberal scheme which is outdated, open the door to a future problem in the heart of business itself, between what I call "producers" and "sellers."

Producers are countries like Spain, France, Germany and Italy, (to name the main ones), where the primary (agriculture, fishing) and secondary (industrial) sectors are the main providers of employment.

Sellers are countries like UK, countries around the North and Baltic seas, where the tertiary (services) is the main provider of employment.

New members of Europe coming from the former Soviet Block are somehow half and half with, for example, a tendency to be among "producers" for Poland and among "sellers" for Hungary. For various reasons, more or less because their production structures are obsolete, these new members are more attracted to the sellers’ sphere. Obviously, the economic model, which is backed by a linguistic model (using English as the universal business language) and cultural model (efficient U.S.-type industrial production and distribution structures) creates a de facto dependency of these countries on the American / English corporate structure. European producers are threatened not only by the producers of this corporate structure, but also - and mainly - by the producers of the emerging countries in East- and South-Asia.

In the long term, this strategic scheme will cause the producer countries of Europe to go only down. They will lose their jobs (which has already happened in some sectors like clothing). In the final stage, Europe will only be a service company for the producers of Asia. And when countries of Asia, having developed their education systems, will push some of their jobs towards the tertiary - which is the case, for example, in India right now - Europe will have neither production nor service jobs, just decline, with some islands of prosperity such as London, owing its financial and insurance businesses. This is exactly the declination model seen in Spain in the 16th and 17th centuries, due to the discovery and exploitation of the New World. De-localization of jobs today are just a new version of the slavery of that time.

The proposed European constitution aims at setting up Europe for the rest of the world in the same manner that centuries of trade had set up the big cities of northern Europe towards the inner and southern parts of the continent. This situation creates a lot, really a lot of risks, with an increasing need for transporting goods and an increasing number of potential crises: of war, of oil, in the beginning of the 21st century, are just examples of what could happen if such a model of development is followed. Northern European trading cities could be healthy if they relied on agriculture and the industry of their neighbors. Sellers can’t exist without producers.

The political model of the proposed constitution can be criticized. Some say, "It’s not a constitution, it’s a treaty." I agree. Some points are not acceptable and I will just focus on one: the fact that modifying the constitution will require __ALL__ member countries to accept the change. This is not acceptable. The French constitution can be modified by a "referendum," with all citizens voting, or by a "congress" which is a joint assembly of "deputies" and "senators". A constitution must leave open an exit door to allow a fix of what doesn’t work. Otherwise it’s just like some theocracies that suppress democracy by pretending it to be God’s will, so it’s not necessary to change anything.

I think that stopping the integration process of Europe with this model will force the problem back onto the table. This of course will occur after some bashing of these "French nuts" by the media and by some governments like the USA, who objectively would find it in their interest to see Europe weakened in it’s production capabilities. As it will be impossible to find a solution in the actual model of the treaties which rule Europe at 25, it will be necessary to find local solutions, i.e. rebuild another integration model with the same core as in Phase One. This will be Phase Three. The movement will come, in my opinion, from France, Germany, Spain and Italy, with some smaller countries associating. The challenge will be linguistic, industrial and political. If these four countries decide to adopt a common communication language, which could be something like IDO - a modern version of Esperanto - if they decide to integrate themselves politically with the final aim of building a common constitution (a real one), and if they fight for their own interests in the industrial and cultural fields, the Anglo-Saxon preeminence model can, in a few decades, just be trashed.

The moral and political defeat of the Bush-Blair coalition in Iraq, which could turn very fast into an unsustainable situation, could be, along with the French "NO" to the constitution, the signal of such a change.

As often in France, revolutions come from a conjunction of a popular feeling, somehow difficult to express for those who feel victimized, with critical analyses by an educated elite. The "NO" was promoted by extremist parties which have their roots in popular classes and by some dissident thinkers from nearly all other parties. In my opinion, it was this conjunction, so badly understood and commented upon by the media, which allowed the "NO" to win on May 29th.

Now, let’s wait and see for Phase Three, folks...