Banana Republique
eursoc.com
By EURSOC Two
29 March, 2005
What is it about French democracy that inspires such, erm, confidence in observers?
Is it the endemic corruption, that at times threatens to make Zimbabwe look like Denmark? Or the docile press? Or the electorate's fascination with unspeakable extremists on the right and the left?
Whether one of the above, a combination of all three or additional factors, something about the way France is run tempts commentators to write of French "democracy" rather than democracy. Earlier this month, the EU Referendum Blog warned of the bought votes and pre-completed slips piled in French warehouses prior to May's referendum on the constitution.
Now former British cabinet minister Michael Portillo is in on the act. Writing in the Sunday Times, he looked back at the last French referendum on the EU, 1993's vote on the Maastricht Treaty.
A member of John Major's government at the time, Portillo and several other cabinet members had gathered to await the results of the vote. Portillo, who led the troubled government's Eurosceptic wing, hoped that a No from France would halt the EU's federal ambitions. In the opposite corner, ministers including Douglas Hurd hoped France would approve the treaty.
Neither was prepared for what happened next:
"Within minutes of the ballot boxes being sealed Major received a call from Paris to tell him that the vote had been carried by 51% to 49%. That surprised me. In my experience of elections it had never been possible to know the outcome of such a close contest so quickly. To this day I harbour shameful doubts about how the French government could be so sure so soon. British ministers exchanged sceptical glances in private as Major went outside to tell the media of his pleasure at the result."
The French Yes spelled the beginning of the end for Major's government (and, incidentally, Britain's Conservative Party's tenure as a serious political force). Major was forced to push Maastricht through parliament despite his party's misgivings.
Now Tony Blair is hostage to a French referendum. A Yes vote would mean Blair must dedicate his first year in office into campaigning for a British Yes in 2006 - a prospect he surely cannot relish. Blair plans to step down as PM sometime in his next term: Failing to persuade British voters to accept the EU Constitution would spell a disappointing end to his reign, not least because "putting Britain at the heart of Europe" was one of his aims as PM.
A No from the French, however, would kill the treaty. Blair would be spared a referendum and could retire on his own terms. Perhaps he could use the last six months of 2005 - when Britain holds the EU Presidency - working to rebuild the EU along sensible, reformed lines. Surely this is what he hopes for, although a Chirac-inspired drive to build a core "social Europe" following a French No cannot be ruled out. Chirac would be desperate to salvage his presidency if his country voted No.
Nevertheless, as we wrote last week, one cannot underestimate the power of France's media once it is instructed to fall behind a policy. As the Daily Telegraph says,
"Surely the French can be relied upon to let us down. One thing is for sure: the full weight of the Gallic establishment will be deployed in the attempt to bludgeon voters into submission. The BBC's pro-Brussels sympathies are as nothing compared with those of French television and most newspapers; the state will spend vast sums in the attempt to twist its citizens' arms. Anything that can be done will be done."
The Telegraph concludes that France's people might for once rebel against the machinations of their betters. But whatever happens, having the future of a British prime minister hanging on a vote in France demonstrates that EU integration has already gone further than most of us would like. |
