Fabrice LACHENMAIER, Director of the association New Ideas Europe and President of the European Movement in Alpes-Maritimes, responds to questions from Nice-Première about the follow-up to the referendum on May 29, 2005. He shares his hopes to reinvigorate the debate on European construction.
Nice-Première: On May 29, 2005, the French said no to the TCE. What were you saying a year ago and what do you say today with a year’s hindsight?
Fabrice LACHENMAIER: I advocated saying Yes to a foundational text for a new way of working in Europe. This text aimed to refocus the European project around the citizen by, for example, giving legislative character to the Charter of Fundamental Rights or by recognizing the co-decision role of the European Parliament. Of course, constitutionalizing Part 3 on policies was debatable. A constitution should be a working tool for elected representatives who then decide, with their popular legitimacy, to implement policies that reflect the majority’s sensibilities. The Constitution is neither right-wing nor left-wing… I advocate for a new text focused on undeniable advancements and arising from a convention. It could be voted on the same day by all Europeans. Regarding the existing treaties that form the infamous Part Three, they remain as they are, and a No to the Constitution does not allow for their revisal. The European Movement of Alpes-Maritimes, which I lead, is calling for a new Treaty so that Europe can continue its development with French involvement and thus avoid the institutional deadlock we are heading towards with successive enlargements. Over the past year, the Treaty’s life has had its twists and turns. Fifteen countries have ratified it via referenda or parliamentary means. The ratification process is still current, and rightly so, the Heads of State do not wish to abandon the project of a Constitution for Europe. The referendum was used to engage in a debate on domestic French politics, and European issues were not, in my view, satisfactorily addressed. However, I am pleased to see, through recent polls, that the French remain extremely favorable towards European construction. I continue to think that we should say Yes to a constitutional treaty. Yes to a constitution because, whatever people say, Europe functions well. Since the first treaty signed in Rome in 1957, we have experienced an exceptional period of peace and prosperity compared to over 2,000 years of war and turmoil. Yes to a constitution because I am reassured knowing that 25 member states watch over “my democracy” and not just one. Can you imagine 25 States all drifting together and at the same time towards totalitarianism? Yes to a Constitution because unity is strength, and if we want to maintain control of our choices in the future, we can only do so together. What can France do alone against the new geopolitical and economic ‘giants’ being established: China, India, Russia?
Nice-Première: The debate on Europe was very present. Politicians were able to interest citizens. How do you explain that today, the “European” subject is taboo?
Fabrice LACHENMAIER: I do not believe that Europe is a taboo for the general population. However, once the referendum was over, politicians resumed their usual discourse of “I can’t do anything, it’s Europe’s fault”, the media reverted to consensus topics under the pretext that “Europe does not sell”. Only teachers continued an educational effort with Europe Day on May 9. If politicians surfed on European news, it was to gauge the electorate’s temperature for upcoming national stakes. It is true, however, that the debate on Europe was present thanks particularly to civic initiatives: New Ideas Europe, which I direct, has carried out in Alpes-Maritimes, a vast multisectoral communication campaign focusing as much on information as on training on European topics. It is because citizens demanded a debate on Europe that the political class was forced to tackle this issue from new angles: social Europe, relocations, globalization, participative democracy, enlargement, etc.
Nice-Première: What has the French “no” changed?
Fabrice LACHENMAIER: Firstly, I note our marginalization at the institutional level: French presence has diminished in leadership positions, and this trend has accelerated this year. The French No also disrupted the entire European ratification schedule and a broad period of reflection was proposed. We are experiencing a minor institutional crisis, but there is no need for doomsday scenarios: the French refusal in no way impedes the Commission’s work (which has legitimacy granted by the States) or the Parliament (which has popular legitimacy). Europe continues its construction with the treaties in force and according to established rules.
Nice-Première: What is your plan B to relaunch the debate?
Fabrice LACHENMAIER: I do not have a plan B, but fully adhere to the European Commission’s plan D for “Debate, Democracy, Dialogue”. It involves feeding reflection on the Europe we want to build. This extensive consultation takes the form of public debates, publications, and internet forums. Furthermore, institutions acknowledge that communication and transparency on their working methods and policies need strengthening. In France, the report by Deputy Herbillon (commissioned by the Prime Minister the day after May 29) titled “the European fracture” proposes 40 innovative avenues to perpetuate the debate on Europe: I eagerly await their consideration. I think it’s appropriate to wait for all countries to have pronounced on ratification before proposing a plan B that can achieve consensus. It will likely involve a new, shorter, and more concise text of the Constitution. However, I would have liked those in favor of the No to present their plan B; now is the time to tell us what Europe they want…
The debate must continue in Europe. It is inconceivable to only ask citizens every ten or fifteen years for their opinion on a structural project so important for their daily lives. We need to draft internal regulations for the “Europe” co-ownership to then consider policies that will allow us to maintain our position in global competition.
To fuel this debate, a general civic mobilization is necessary. I call for active militancy by joining, for example, the European Movement, a pluralistic association born in the aftermath of the Second World War, which originated the creation of European Institutions, and to participate in the activities of New Ideas Europe (www.ideesnouvelles.com), a local association based in Alpes-Maritimes that develops educational and cultural projects, especially in schools.
We also need to develop initiatives that continue the discussion with the general public. We have just launched a petition for a European Civil Service for young volunteers who wish to have a solidarity experience in Europe, the outcomes of which can be valued in a CV. This petition has already gathered hundreds of signatures (www.mouvement-européen.org). I remain very optimistic about the evolution of the debate in France.
