EU CONSTITUTION: GOOD FOR EUROPE AND THE WORLD

By - - and Mario Soares Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

LISBON, May 1 2005 (IPS) - A \”No\” vote on the EU Constitution would not be a mere pause in the path forward but a giant step backwards, desired only by those who always wanted a Europe that was no more than a free-trade area, writes Mario Soares, President of Portugal from 1986-1996. In this article, Soares argues that rejection would introduce a tremendous risk of disintegration and spell the end of a political, social, and environmentally-committed Europe. Worse, it would mean the rejection of the EU as a \’\’global power\’\’, a counterweight in European-US relations able to resist efforts at imperial hegemony by forces that consider the UN just a stumbling block. The hawks who advise George W. Bush would certainly be pleased by a \”No\” win. The \”No\” forces, in France and elsewhere, are a contradictory mix. Many are inspired by nationalistic notions. There are leftists and communists guided by immediate and ideological criteria. Then there are the neo-conservatives, ultraconservatives, economic neo-liberals, and religious fanatics. And among the French socialists, who are divided on the constitution, the group headed by ex-prime minister Laurent Fabius is for a \”No\” vote with the idea of using the referendum as a means of protesting the centre-right government of Jacques Chirac. All are partisans of the notion that \”the worse things are, the better they are\”, which historically has tended to backfire on those who live by it.

Politicians come and go; ideas, and their orientations, last. Politicians cannot avoid the crucial issues they are asked to address.

Faced with a choice between rejecting and approving the European Constitution, I do not want to believe that European politicians, whatever their nationality, are not aware that the domestic affairs within their respective countries –however valid they may be in the short term– cannot be allowed to affect a decision that is fundamental to the Old Continent and its role in the world. For this reason I trust that the Europeans, in the hour of truth, will vote “Yes” for the referendum on the Constitution, including the French, who according to the most recent polls, are leaning towards approval by a slight margin.

The draft that was approved by the European Council is not perfect. But constitutions never are, and this represents a possible compromise that is acceptable enough to the broad range of political-ideological forces that want to advance the EU project. The saying comes to mind: the best is the enemy of the good. We know that the European project was begun more than a half century ago in keeping with Jean Monnet’s method of taking one small step at a time, adopted by two of the major European powers -the socialists and the Christian democrats. Wisely proceeding in this way, the focus was to overcome differences through negotiations intended to set aside secondary matters to benefit the essential.

Today for Europeans what is essential is that continental integration continues on its course. This consists of nothing less than the most original political process of the 20th century, which moved forward thanks to the voluntary association of states that were previously rivals and were now willing to share certain aspects of their respective sovereignty in favour of the peace and well-being of their citizens, with the goal of constructing a non- exclusive model of development, with a social, cultural, and political dimension.

A “No” vote on the EU Constitution would introduce a tremendous risk of disintegration. It would not be a mere pause in the path forward but a giant step backwards, which would be desired only by those who always wanted a Europe that was merely a free-trade area, a single, broadened and competitive market but nothing more.

A “No” would be the end of a political, social, and environmentally-committed Europe. Worse, it would mean the rejection of the European Union as a ”global power”, a counterweight in European-US relations that is able to resist efforts at imperial hegemony by forces that consider the United Nations to be just a stumbling block. The hawks who advise George W. Bush would certainly be pleased by a “No” result.

It is important to recognise that the European Union, in this beginning of the millennium, has not been up to its responsibilities. It has practised a sort of “follow the leader” with the United States that has bordered at times on servility. Many European politicians have displayed a tendency to conform to old routines without seeing that the world is changing with unprecedented velocity and that formerly minor contradictions are now deepening and forcing the EU to adopt an strategy to gain autonomy and avail itself of the means to consolidate it.

The left, in particular, must see this. Because in this era of neo- liberal globalisation, with the right stronger and more arrogant since the fall of the Soviet empire, while certain super-countries are emerging, I do not see how the left can gain from weakening the European project which, whatever its contradictions, remains the major source of hope and balance for today’s world, sombre and lacking in points of reference.

The “No” forces, in France and elsewhere, are a contradictory mix. Many are inspired by nationalistic notions. There are leftists and communists guided by immediate and ideological criteria. The communists were always against a “Europe of monopolies” but never failed to take advantage of its progress. Then there are the neo- conservatives, ultraconservatives, economic neo-liberals, and religious fanatics. And among the French socialists, who are divided on the constitution, the group headed by ex-prime minister Laurent Fabius is for a “No” vote with the idea of using the referendum as a means of protesting the centre-right government of Jacques Chirac.

All of the above, some with more good faith than others, are partisans of the notion that “the worse things are, the better they are”, which historically has tended to backfire on those who live by it. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)