France – where has the ingenious troublemaker of Europe gone?

By: Sylvie Goulard, European Movement France, CERI

We may all remember the gifted but impertinent pupil at school who stood up to the teacher and who was punished for his own cheekiness and that of others who were only too happy to hide behind his back. Such is the schematic description of France in Europe today.

Impertinent is France for sure, and this is not a new phenomenon. Since the beginning of the Community, France was one of its most inventive member states and at the same time a troublemaker that always demanded a favourable treatment. France inflicted some of the most serious crises to the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community and later the EU: the defeat of the defense union in 1954, the break-up of membership negotiations with Great Britain in 1963, its empty-chair policy in 1965, and the rejection of the constitutional treaty in 2005 have been examples of combining some valid points with unjustifiable claims. The French are proud to breach their word and to irritate everybody. In this respect, the No vote against the European Constitution in 2005 is just in line with French tradition. But this time, this ancestral Gallic behaviour comes with a new phenomenon – the feeling of paralysis.

France is politically paralysed…

 
First of all there is a political paralysis that is due to the dire state of French democracy. While the society aspires to more debate and more transparency, the absence of a powerful parliament as a counterbalance to the president becomes all too obvious. Since the parliament's dissolution in 1997 and the referendum in 2005, the Gaullist appeal no longer works, and this has serious consequences for Europe: by not allowing a public debate on controversial questions in due time, a radicalisation over the Constitution's delicate issues took place.

The French political class also suffers from a lack of regeneration. The accumulation of mandates (local/national) and an almost limitless length of political careers imply that the French political class is less and less representative of society. Old male politicians represent the majority, much to the detriment of women and the young. Among politicians, there are more former civil servants than representatives from the private sector.

In 2002, following an unprecedented mobilisation of the left and the centre, president Chirac was elected against the far right candidate, Jean-Marie Le Pen, with 82 % of votes. But this result had hardly any consequences for Chirac’s governance: there was neither an opening to the left, nor a reform of the institutions, nor any departure from the past. To the alarming distress that draw the French to vote for a xenophobe nationalist, Chirac had nothing better to offer than “business as usual”.

This political paralysis is now aggravated by economic difficulties. Economic gains are unevenly divided, some big French groups have benefited a lot while many in the society never saw any benefits at all. It prepared the ground for the diffuse perception that globalisation is evolving to the detriment of France. Delocalisation, heightened competition and the impotence of the public sector are disquieting to the French. The economic elite may adapt to this new reality, but the phenomenon is felt by regions where the shutdown of a factory can destroy all perspectives. With a particularly high rate of unemployment among the young, and low employment for the old, the rise of insecure work contracts and part-time employment are a reality that is particularly harsh on the poorest of society. The political discourse continues to be Colbertiste, or at least interventionalist, but it is less and less in line with reality.

The Airbus crisis just highlighted the political impotence, not without the candidates rushing to pie-in-the-sky promises. In a country which has denounced inequality since the ancien régime, creeping social differences and the breakdown of the "social elevator" have created frustration and resentment. Public debt (which is financing running expenditures!) has attained frightening proportions.

The exacerbated sensibility in cultural questions together with their universalistic orientation makes France particularly vulnerable to worldwide tensions. The French denounce standardization, and they have every right to stand up for diversity. But the French are too often in the defensive, even if their resistance is appreciated – except in the west – reflected by a high popularity of Jacques Chirac in many parts of the world outside France. 

The dilemma of the European French

 
In Europe, the geopolitical change since 1989 was badly digested. The enlargement to 27 is felt, especially by Europe's "elites" as the end of their European dream; this is not changed by the fact the same elites, while believing in this dream more or less, undertook very little to realize it. The perception is that the newcomers took "our" Europe from us, a claim often heard in Paris. At the same time, links with the long-term partner Germany weakened. In the Franco-German temple, mass is always celebrated but the creed of the First Believers has vanished.

Like some other European partners, the French erroneously believe that Europe is “a lever of potency” for its own benefits, using its partners as a stepladder in the pursuit of its own interests. Others, sometimes the same, suddenly overcome by nostalgia, hold to instants of courage, as demonstrated by the speech of Dominique de Villepin in front of the UN Security Council in February 2003.

It is in this context the presidential election will have important consequences. Whoever is the winner, European history will turn. The time of defending agricultural interests above all is probably over. The future French president will have to reshuffle the European cards: advance the adoption of part I of the constitution not to circumvent the “No” voters but to respond to the needs for new institutions; recreate the links with our partners, starting with the Germans; invent a new legitimacy for Europe and a new communication, more credible, simpler, which leaves place for debate and protest.

In a new more democratic spirit, it will be possible to define Europe’s projects for tomorrow and to put an end to this paralysis which lasted long enough and prevents the EU at present to pursue its daily business. While Europe continues to regulate important questions, such as Reach or Open Sky, it does not respond to the Europeans’ needs.

France is not the only EU member state that is incoherent. For example, every member state talks about the necessity to secure Europe's energy supplies. But not everybody is ready to reopen the debate on nuclear energy, or to show any enthusiasm for the revision of the Treaty to allow for a transfer of sovereignty in this field.

What are the chances of a French European?

 
In the French election campaign Europe is a disguised subject: the main candidates talk about Europe, they even speak about it rather often. But it is difficult to know what their actual message is. Ségolène Royal is careful not to reopen the debate after the constitution divided the Socialists, and says the least possible about it. Her concepts are deliberately vague:  “economic government ", "Europe by proof ", and a "social protocol” of the treaty. This is perhaps clever. Nicolas Sarkozy treats Europe as any other subject: Like a hussar, he alternates between enthusiastic declarations in favour of Europe and a sovereign approach, for example on competition policy or when he is proposing a ministry in charge of “immigration and national identity”i. He is the candidate who best explains his intentions, is the most explicit of all and is inspired by the liberal tradition of the Rome Treaty.

But his pro-European commitment and integrationalist proposals - such as the abolition of unanimity or the call for EU’s own resources – contradicts with his no less clear commitment to a “Europe of Nations”, with his refusal to consider Germany as a privileged partner or with his attacks on the Commission on competition policy. Sarkozy remains a European French, not a French European. Francois Bayrou, by far the most enthusiastic European, remains restrained. He showed some courage when he refused to join in the ECB bashing but surprisingly, he is committed to a solution that combines an IGC with a referendum to overcome the constitutional crisis. If he ever gets elected he will find it hard to get a readable text from the IGC that the French are going to vote for!

Like most other European countries, but perhaps more than its partners, France seeks to find its own self: the French hesitate over their national destiny, turn around Europe and lose precious years - in their refusal of modernity.

The Community method, invented by Jean Monnet, is an effective tool that has not been used because member states have totally forgotten about its value. If this method could get a chance of a critical rereading, it would enable Europe to advance. No harm would be done by challengers who pretend to sit in the driving seat but refuse to drive. The leading role is reserved to those who want to create a strong Europe.

One of the paradoxes of the No vote was that France was hiding behind the argument that the other European countries are even less European than the French, but economically better off. They may be doing well, but for how long? What is their answer to globalization? The idyll of the nation state?

The proper pupil undoubtedly leaves fewer marks than the dunce. So talented they are...but then again they do not have all answers either.

 
Sylvie Goulard,

Chairwoman of European Movement France
Researcher linked to CERI (Sciences-Po, Paris)

For the original French version, please download the attachment.