by Arnaud HERVE, Brest, France
arnaudherve@gmail.com

As public life across Europe becomes more politically correct every year, it is becoming more and more difficult to describe the coarseness, wiliness, the mixture of irrationality and lies of real-life historical strategies. It is also becoming »incorrect« to take time to display how far international decisions can be absurd, so deeply absurd. All those things that seem so dignified now, and in fifty years will be described as reckless, last-resort and slightly ridiculous political moves.

You remember the Rome Treaty, supposed to be the foundation of Europe in 1957? Nobody is telling you presently that you should be cautious about that, right? During this campaign in Ireland the general agreement is that such an old treaty shouldn’t be debated any more, right? That it is a decent, basic text that should be left to some academics in some history classes for specialists, and that as modern and responsible citizens you should concentrate on present practical issues.

Well, I can tell you a secret. Try to look on the Internet for videos of the signing of the Rome treaty. You will see decent gentlemen, all so poised in their elegant suits, signing the treaty in a large prestigious Italian building, as decent heads of States should. Take time to rewatch the hands of those gentlemen signing the common document. The secret is, only that precise page of the Treaty of Rome was printed. The rest of the document was blank. It was a blank, white, empty stack of paper. The poised gentlemen signed a treaty that was a fraud.

The rest of the document was blank because the Italian printer had had no time to print it. The Italian printer had had no time to print it because the ceremony had been organized in a rush. The ceremony had been organized in a rush because the organizers knew that Charles de Gaulle would soon come back to power in France, and would modify the evolution of Europe in a direction more favourable to sovereign States, less friendly to federalist plans. The organizers wanted to lock things up in emergency.

You have no idea of the number of historical events that took place, not as the dignified conclusion of a logical, lengthy, public and disinterested process, but as the rash move of tiny groups who wanted to prevent another group from doing something the very week after. History, real history is tactical. It is tactical AND chaotic.

Have a look at the text of the present Lisbon treaty. Look at all those protocols, those amendments, those tiny corrections. Doesn’t it look like a half-baked text, just something in preparation, that we should take time to perfect, or simply to write in a more decent, more readable manner?

During this campaign you, the Irish voters, will probably hear repeated efforts to convince you that the new Lisbon treaty embodies some sort of logic, some sort of competently planned future for Europe. The campaign will take place in a general atmosphere assuming this referendum is a normal, decent constitutional process for the Irish to express their will democratically.

The truth is, this new document is close to being illegal. We, the French, had been told that the Lisbon treaty was a »plan B« after our refusal of the Constitutional treaty in 2005. We had been told by our President that it was new, much better text. The phrase was »simplified treaty«. But when we read the text, we discovered that it was the same text we had refused in 2005, with only a few sentences changed, just enough to make it a new document from the formal point of view.

At the same time, we heard that our President was telling everybody in public meetings in Brussels and elsewhere, but not in front of us, that it was essential not to let the peoples decide by referendum this time, that it was necessary to pass it through parliamentary processes only in all countries, because renewed referendums would result in a renewed No almost everywhere.

The truth is, you the Irish are being used to justify a text that has been democratically refused elsewhere.

From the strictly formal point of view, it is a legal Irish referendum. But don’t you feel that in such conditions, it has something unhealthy, something twisted? You probably smelled a rat when you were asked to vote again after your democratic No to the Nice treaty in 2001. Well, this seems to be even worse.

You can be more or less favourable to Europe, more or less hostile, or somewhere in-between, depending on the precise subjects. But however, do you think it is healthy to confirm this tendency of passing treaties despite a growing dissatisfaction, a growing defiance of the various populations? Don’t you think we are building something unstable, something even dangerous, that might sooner or later result in a collapse of our presently good international relationships?

The truth is, this treaty is unwise, and probably more than you can imagine. Let’s take a few examples.

Eurocrats now have that thing about »qualified majority vote« at the Council of European heads of States. Sounds good, in Eurotalk. But what is it, in reality? It is a future of power struggles between Members States. It is bigger States imposing their will against smaller States, through temporary alliances and much bad mood, conflict and a growing defiance.

But Europe was meant to be just the contrary. After centuries of war, the new European construction was meant to be the replacing of power struggles by the rule of law. That implied, either one State one vote at the level of governments, or at the level of European citizens, one citizen one vote with no more important or more neglectable nationalities.

A medium solution, in the federalist sense, was the supremacy of the European Parliament over the Brussels Commission and the Council of heads of States, with representatives according to the number of voters, regardless of nationalities. You will probably hear people in this campaign who will tell you that the powers of the European Parliament have been increased. But if you look into details, that institution remains a consultative body. It can say No, it can say No several times, but in the end this No will be overridden.

All institutions where civic society can say No, by the way, tend to be trapped into a maze where their No will be undermined, and eventually overridden. It is a »democratic« construction where only the consensus can rule, and where only one political opinion can wield power.

The modern Europe was meant for peace. And look! We now have to sign for an “increased military spending”. The absurdity of this becomes clearer when you realize that it is always possible to organize military actions between some Member States whenever necessary. When you realize to what extent no military organization is necessary at all at the European level, then you understand that Europe is an exceptional opportunity to show the world the example of Nations of the same continent who renounce war and settle lastingly into cooperation.

Eurocrats push this absurdity even further by deciding there should be a new dignitary in charge of foreign affairs, which you could almost call sort of Secretary of State for war if you wish. They want to impose this new role, precisely in the field where we agree the less, in the very area where we are certain to see disagreement between Member States during the next decades, and as soon as the next war and peace decisions will occur.

Is that a correct evolution, is that proper constitutional thinking, imposing rigidity where we are certain to see the participants disagreeing? This is why I hope pro-European Irish, even the federalist Irish, could take some time to ponder whether we are really heading towards a stronger Europe, or a constitutional chaos.

This lost opportunity becomes even clearer when you realize that the new role to emphasize above any other was a European minister for transports, the one topic on which we are certain that Europeans will agree lastingly, and the one topic that is absolutely necessary for any kind of common economy, either social or free-trade oriented.

Many people will tell you that the debate is between a social or a free-trade oriented Europe. But I will tell you another secret. When you are elected, you of course come with the whole corpus of political preferences of your own party, your ideology if you wish, but when you rule you will meet a thing called historical circumstances. Historical circumstances are not ideologies, they are unexpected, they are heterogeneous, and when you are in charge you absolutely have to cope with them.

Let’s imagine you are the Mayor of Limerick. Well, if you’re the Mayor of Limerick, you can reasonably expect a loss or a gain of population in the decades to come. Such things happen, you never know. A factory that closes, another one that opens, no ideology will tell that for certain. Therefore it would be insane to include in the »constitution« of the city of Limerick a definite number of primary schools. If you decide a definite number of primary schools for Limerick, than, because historical circumstances will change despite what your ideology had told you, you will have to force some sort of “revolution”, and overall turmoil, in order to adapt to reality, instead of smoothly passing a new decision in the Limerick city council, for something that is just practical, limited in scope, only common sense.

That is the problem with Europe now. There are just too many things that are being specified by treaties, that should remain modest, circumstantial laws, or mere technical decisions. Sincerely, what is the point of setting the »Guts, bladders and stomachs of animals (other than fish), whole and pieces thereof« or »Live trees and other plants; bulbs, roots and the like; cut flowers and ornamental foliage« in a treaty that is meant to last ? Will we have to summon a special summit of heads of States to change any line of that? What is the proper political logic in mixing within the same text such general abstract constitutional principles as »the Union shall aim to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation« and commercial details such as »Margarine, imitation lard and other prepared edible fats«? Seriously?

You are being told that the USA have chosen this or that economic policy, that we the Europeans should follow or refuse. But the truth is that the USA remain a REAL historical entity, that can pass topical reforms in a few weeks, in order to protect its self-interests, by just adapting with common sense to historical circumstances. Why then is there such a fixated emphasis, such an emergency on locking any tiny material detail you can think about, if not to prevent the Europeans to manage their own interests?

The truth is, Europe as it is conceived nowadays is not meant for Europe, but for implementing globalization regardless of European interests.

This is not a matter of more or less free trade, more or less social protection, more or less protectionism. It is a matter of saying what we want in global summits where the others know what they want. Eurocrats on the contrary are recruited according to their ideology that they are the spearhead of the building of a »global society«. The paramount example of which being Pascal Lamy, former commissioner for foreign trade, now head of the World Trade Organization, who continues to dream of a nationless unified global market. But that is wrong, just wrong. States on the global level continue to push their national interests. And there is no reasonable prospect that the USA, China or others will surrender their national interests in the decades to come.

In short, we are the only nice guys, trying to shake hands politely with all the tough guys on the block.

Global decisions are not necessarily evil, they might be indeed necessary. But they must take place at the global level. We are the Europeans, not the planet. A future good, reasonable, common sense European treaty should accept first the basic principle that Europe is meant for Europeans.

Let’s see the problem through a local, concrete example. In my own region of Brittany, we have that smaller town which is called Carhaix, and in Carhaix the government just announced this month that the hospital will be suppressed. No more local hospital. We are being told that the decision is necessary to comply with European budgetary principles. But just think about it: an emergency department that is moved further away from the population… Does that make sense? What is the economic theory that will support emergency departments to be moved further away, adding about one hour of transport for people in critical conditions? I thought there were moral political principles above economic theories. Such as health. For real people. In real places.

The city hosts a pop music festival, attracting two hundred thousand visitors every summer, so that, reasonably, you can expect a day with five or six emergency cases at the same time. And not only they are removing the emergency department, but they are building a helicopter port instead, in order to rush the patients to the next big town… where emergency departments are already full…

The other way round, concentrating resources, skilled staff and equipment in a single medical centre can be a good idea, but for long-term pathologies, for which you can plan surgery, hosting and so on. But have you ever heard about common European plans to build better centres for rare pathologies? I wouldn’t mind coming to Ireland for surgery, being operated by a Danish doctor and a Polish nurse, if the results could be better. My organs are the same as the Irish, no doubt about that. But no, cooperation for the rare pathologies of the Europeans is not planned by the Lisbon treaty. It would seem to be a priority, but not for the Lisbon treaty.

There are high-brow moralistic political debates, where you are being told that you are some sort of xenophobe, or nationalist if you don’t support Europe as it is evolving now, but when you get back home you observe things which you cannot help thinking are wrong, just technically wrong.

The truth is, are the Eurocrats who frame the treaties so perfect, if what they do results in local changes that seem like nonsense, plain nonsense, that seem like losses without compensations ?

In 2001, you the Irish were told that it would be a Europe-wide catastrophe if the Nice treaty wasn’t signed. You finally voted for a modified text that suited your needs better, and nothing wrong happened. Now they tell you that the Nice treaty was so bad that it needs to be changed with an absolute necessity. In 2005, we the French were also told that civilization would collapse if the referendum »failed«, as they said. But behold, the day after we voted No, the sun still rose in the morning, and we were able to go to work just as before.

This year, it’s up to you the Irish again. Don’t worry, don’t listen to bad omens. You are free, which entails the right to vote No without being condemned. We cannot accept a democracy where we are only allowed to vote Yes. The French, German, Dutch and others need the Irish to care about their own interests, just as I personally need my colleagues to care about their own household, so that I can continue to work with them on a long-term basis.

From many points of view, voting No might even seem better for the future of Europe, than committing ourselves in such rigid policies, not meant for future real circumstances. Therefore it is probably necessary, in the various national referendums that we hold, to always let the door half-opened for sincere European federalists, because those who are sincere, as years pass, will be more and more numerous to realize that Europe is heading the wrong way.

You know, when you are navigating a very large oil tanker to the Cork harbour, the route has to be perfect. Not half-perfect, just perfect. At least, you should keep the possibility to change direction and speed if you meet an obstacle. The Lisbon treaty is like that: not safe, not reactive, not adaptable, and poorly written. You might wish some sort of treaty for Europe, but it is very likely that voting No will force the Eurocrats to come up with better solutions.

Let’s take more time. Let’s reconsider our needs for the twenty-first century.

Let’s vote No for the moment.