When President Chirac announced the date for the referendum on the constitution of the European Union in the beginning of March 2005, many of the politicians regarded this a mere formality. The constitution would be of technical interest for experts and specialists only. After a public debate of unprecedented dimension and intensity and a turnout of voters of nearly 70%, the referendum was won by the ‘No’ side with a comfortable 54.9% support on May 29, 2005. How did this new enthusiasm of the French people for the topic of the European Union develop in only three months?
Conflict lines
During the debate on the European constitution, traditional political cleavages were blurred. On the one hand, the sides were divided along the well known opposition between centre and periphery, just as in the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. The ‘No’ campaign was lead by the political parties of the extreme left and right, while the governing conservative party as well as the socialist and green parties conducted a ‘Yes’ campaign. On the other hand, a large number of opponents of the constitution were found on the ‘Yes’ side, especially in the socialist and green parties. The most spectacular example was the former prime minister and socialist Laurent Fabius, who supported the ‘No’ vote against official party policy. Many of the political commentators regarded this as a turning point in the debate, because the ‘No’ vote was now considered to be ‘politically correct’. Moreover, the conflict line between the ‘Yes’ and the ‘No’ supporters did not coincide with the conflict line between the proponents and opponents of the European project. The extreme left, which was lead successfully by the Communist Party PCF, a traditional opponent of the European Union, was campaigning for a ‘Pro-European No’, a ‘No of the Left’, and was thus able to distinguish itself from the extreme right.
New direction
This ‘Pro-European No’ deprived the ‘Yes’ side of the basis of their argumentation. The ‘Yes’ side started its campaign with uninspired and little meaningful slogans such as ‘Say Yes to Europe’. The ‘Yes to Europe, but No to a Europe subordinate to neo-liberalism’ of the far left forced the public debate into an entirely new direction. Not the continued existence of the European Union but rather its content, conception and social projects were at stake. The discussion was quickly dominated by left wing topics and found vast public response, because the European Union and European topics were for the first time discussed in direct connection with topics of daily concern to the French people: the dangers of globalisation, outsourcing and the relocation of jobs, as well as the French social and welfare models. Some newspapers criticised that the referendum on the European constitution was transforming into a referendum on neo-liberalism. A complex and technical issue was transformed into a simple alternative: vote ‘Yes’ and accept the neo-liberal principal of EU politics, or vote ‘No’ and protest against these principles and help to provide a new, more social basis for the European Union.
Government popularity
The direction towards which the debate slanted was a result of the social context in which the debate on the referendum started. The popularity of the conservative government was very low and policies of the government were met by a number of protest movements in the spring of 2005. Additionally, discussions on the Bolkestein directive, regarding the free movement of services in the internal market, were accompanied by harsh and polemic criticism. The Bolkestein directive calls for free competition of services within the European Union. The directive raised deep fears of unfair competition and unemployment in the French public. The directive became a symbol of the European Commission as the custodian of the neo-liberal dogma, providing cover for the ‘anti-social’ policies of the French Government. In principle, the political left continued their discussion of the Bolkestein directive in its campaign for the ‘No’ for the referendum. The arguments of the far left gained in credibility as they could base their arguments on the controversial position that consecutive governments had held towards the European Commission. Brussels was the centre of discussions in France, whenever the government had to vindicate unpopular decisions and measures, such as privatisations and cut-backs in the welfare system.
Social rights
Especially the ‘Yes’ campaign of the left tried to face the campaign of the opponents on their own ground. The European constitution represents the document with the strongest position for social aspects ever drafted by the European Union, they argued. This is especially highlighted by the fact that social aspects are included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union. They argued moreover that the public would be better protected than before with the large number of social rights that would now be actionable at the European Court of Justice. Left wing opponents countered these arguments by pointing out that the Charter is less ambitious than French law when it comes to social rights and by claiming that the constitution would be an obstacle to harmonising social and labour regulations in the European Union.
Turkey
Many feared beforehand that the referendum debate would be dominated by the question of Turkey’s accession to the European Union, which is opposed by the majority of the French people (57% according to a public opinion poll of February 2005). This fear was faced with an amendment of the French constitution, determining that the French people are to be consulted through a referendum before each new accession. The far right expectedly raised the issue in the debate, but remained rather reserved. An openly xenophobe campaign would undoubtedly have mobilised their voter base (almost 19% in the presidential elections of 2002) but would have resulted in an overall weakening of the ‘No’ side. The far right appealed to a protection of the European identity and criticised the fact that the European constitution did not define clear geographical boundaries of the European Union. Additionally, the far right argued that a ‘No’ in the referendum would bring the negotiations on the accession of Turkey to an immediate halt.
Democratisation
The ‘Yes’ promoters for the political left and right tried to refocus the direction of the debate in their favour. They argued, that the European constitution would present a turning point in the development of the European Union, which would now develop from an economic and monetary union into a political union. Additionally, the strengthening of the European parliament, the increased inclusion of national parliaments in decision making and the introduction of citizens’ initiatives would be clear improvements in the process of democratisation.
Global position
The ‘Yes’ side commended the fact that common foreign and security policy goals were decided, as well as the fact, that the European Union gained a visible representation on the world stage through the introduction of the new political positions of President of the European Council and Foreign Minister of the European Union. The constitution would therefore strengthen the position of the European Union and thus the position of France in the world. In this discussion, the ‘Yes’ side reminded of the appointment of the European Union to present a counterpoise to the United States, an EU-vision shared by an overwhelming majority of the French public. These arguments often lead to a threat-scenario; a ‘No’ vote in the referendum on the constitution would isolate and weaken France in Europe, and would weaken the position of the European Union in comparison to the United States.
Outcome
Even though the outcome of the referendum was expected to be close, the clear vote of 54.9% against the constitution came as a shock to the ‘Yes’ promoters and large parts of the public. With a closer decision, it might have been possible to repeat the referendum at a later date according to the media. Polls after the referendum showed that the far left had successfully asserted its line of arguments. When ‘No’ voters were asked about their main reasons, 46% stated ‘fear of unemployment and a decline in the socio-economic situation through the constitution’ as their principle reason, 40% stated ‘an overall weariness concerning the current situation’, 35% wished the constitution to be renegotiated, and 34% found the constitution to be too liberal. The possible accession of Turkey to the Union was of minor priority in the decision making process. The ‘Yes’ voters listed ‘the strengthening of the European Union against the United States and China’ as their main motivation.
Newspapers
Immediately after the rejection of the constitution in the referendum, the time for analysis, self-criticism and justification started for the media. The newspapers participated extensively in the debate and for the first time and without exception took positions for either the ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ vote. The fact that the newspapers supported partisan positions was criticised by independent observers as well as by representatives of both sides in the course of the public debate. Especially the leftwing ‘No’ promoters accused parts of the media of a conspiracy against them, discriminating their arguments and portraying their leaders as demagogues. In the meantime, the left side celebrated the vote as their own accomplishment and a historic moment for France and Europe alike. For them the vote represented the dawning of the unification of the ‘true Left’, which would enforce new political approaches in Europe. A number of newspapers that openly supported the ‘Yes’ side in the debate, criticised the vote as a mere insurrection against the French government and called the vote an egoistic immolation of the European Union on the altar of dissatisfaction with French domestic affairs. Some of the publishers and journalist conceded however that they had underestimated the ‘pro-European No’. Polls showed that 64% of the ‘No’ voters would like to see renegotiations on the constitution.
Mistakes
The mistakes of the ‘Yes’ campaign were especially discussed and analysed. It was held against them that their position was too defensive from the very start of the campaign and that the focus of their argumentation was on foiling the anti-liberal position of the ‘No’ campaign in stead of mobilising an alternative position of their own. The emphasis on the geo-political importance of the constitution in itself was far too remote from the everyday concerns of the French public, whereas the far left specifically addressed these concerns.
Consensus
After the referendum, the media looked for an optimistic outlook on the future. The majority of the French people are pro-European and want a politically strong Europe that is able to play an important role in the world, while providing effective protection from the adverse effects of globalisation. The analysis showed that there is no disagreement in French society about the general aims of the European project. There is however a strong disagreement about the question whether the constitution paves the way towards achieving those aims.
Chantal Mairesse, Humboldt University, Berlin
(Translation: Christoph Lietmann, Humboldt University, Berlin)