After the French and Dutch “no”
Francesca Paci*
Here we go again. Reason has fallen asleep once more. 52% of French voters and 61.6% of Dutch voters said no to the European Constitution: emotions has won, but despite a unification process labelled as ‘too rational’ we are far from realising the dreams of 1968. The loss of the euro-enthusiastics, is in fact not so much the output of a healthy creative push towards an alternative model, as advocated by the Communist NO” in favour of “another possible Europe”, social, united, libertarian instead of liberalist. Rather, the failure of the project imagined by Valery Giscard d’Estaing seems to stem from fears, doubts, and entrenched defensive positions. Shopkeeper calculation instead of revolutionary passion.
The French and Dutch “no” gives voice to a protest which comes from the outside of “traditional” left and right, thus setting aside these traditional schemes. In Paris there is a “across the board”political refusal, that, both on the right and the left, fears an Americanisation of the European democratic model. In the Netherlands, however, it was more an expression of moral dissatisfaction, a shared concern that their model of social emancipation be put at risk by being linked to more conformist countries. It seems that a vote was cast on the one side by the national figurehead Charles de Guale and on the other side by the film director Teo Van Gogh, killed in Amsterdam last November by a Moroccan emigrant offended by his “anti-islamic” movie Submission. Very legitimate instincts of conservatism, but it is hard to read them as the vanguard of a new way of building a future Europe. Particularly since the paradigm of a global society with a human face is a union of peoples enriched by their differencies. From this point of view the negative result of the two referendums seems to be an effect more than a potential cause of the crisis of the old continent.
Europeans look at their future with fear and not with hope, despite the past enthusiasm that the unification process had generated. Now all of the analysts are explaining that the Treaty is the product of decisions made at the top, far away from people. Very true. As is the fact that the Treaty was not at all perfect. But this is not the place to discuss its lack of methodology and of content. Nor to list all of those who take advantage of this result, such as Putin and Bush who are very happy about the longlasting European political inadequacy, or the ultranationalist Le Pen,or the radical-chic farmers like Josè Bovè that will celebrate eating Roquefort cheese made with pure sheep milk at 35€ per kilo whilst uncorking a bottle of Rèmy champagne. No recriminations then, but, to use the words of the ex-president of the European Commission Jaques Delors, despite all its limits, we should not throw the baby away with the bath water. In which case we might as well join the Eurosceptics ranks such as the Italian party “Lega Nord”, that from the colums of the Italian newspaper “La Padania” has greeted the failure of the Constitution by calling for a return to the old Lira. Whoever calls for a new Europe cannot wash his\her hands of the competition according to the logic of “the worse the better” - he\she should join the fight. What will the French and Dutch plumbers do now after scaring off the danger of the Polish collegue-competitor? Are we totally sure they are safe from the economic crisis, from unemployment, from the melting pot which is eating away our rights?
Many liberal French newspapers have headlined it as a wasted opportunity - from Le Monde to La Libération, which is exactly where the internal split in left-wing parties was decisive for the negative outcome of the referendum. Europe is neither progressive nor conservative. It is a sort of neutral superstate led in turn by progressives or conservatives elected by the voters. One can promote leftist politics, even very radical, but without Europe how does one go about it? It would be very interesting, on this matter, to understand what the youth thinks, the generation between thirty and fourty years of age holding important roles in European society but that has not contributed to the drafting of the Treaty, instead entrusted to the energies of the old leaders. Maybe, one could suspect, this generation has not participated at all. If this were true the fault blame should certaintly fall on the fathers and grandfathers, ontologically clinging to their chairs and unwilling to leave them. But maybe a little self-criticism would be helpful, because maybe amongst the younger generation there are also those who gladly take advantege from all of the benefits of the postmodern society whilst being reluctant to take charge of its contradictions and difficulties. A world without frontiers is quite alright, internet and real time communications, the dream come true of a global village where the clan is enlarging from Tokyo to Rome and New York. It is less pleasant and easy to assume responsability for the tough task of reconciling identity and differences, religions, ethnicity, culture, under a common idea. But if we do not care, who should?
June 2005
* Francesca Paci is journalist of the Italian newspaper La Stampa and the writer of “L’islam sotto casa”.
PREVIOUS PAGE
|
