‘Yes’ campaign starting off on the wrong foot

By Marco Incerti, Sebastian Kurpas and Justus Schönlau

Date: 17/02/05

A survey we carried out among experts from 20 member states suggests that campaigners in favour of the constitution are starting off on the wrong foot. Advocating ratification, they tend to rely mostly on the arguments that are directly related to the content of the treaty which are unlikely to catch the people's imagination (such as, for example, the arcane system of double majority voting in the Council of Ministers). The anti-ratification campaigners on the other hand are tapping into well-rehearsed arguments that are better suited to appeal to a less-than-well informed public, about the threatened loss of sovereignty or identity.

According to the findings of our survey, the social dimension of the treaty will probably figure prominently in the campaigns of as many as twelve member states (including those where there will be a parliamentary ratification). Unfortunately for the supporters of the treaty, the argument is likely to be used in favour of ratification in only four of these states (Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Ireland and Spain).

In the UK, for example, any attempt at a European social policy is regarded predominantly as a dangerous development, or at best as an unnecessary addition of 'red tape' from Brussels. So unsurprisingly it will be used to argue against ratification by the no-campaigners in that country.

But the paradox is that the European social model may also end up being used as an argument against ratification of the treaty in traditionally more 'socially-minded' member states like France and Belgium. There it will be because of the (perceived) lack of substantial progress over the social dimension of Europe.

In France, this was the main argument used against ratification by one of the currents within the largest opposition party (le Parti Socialiste), in a calculated attempt to boost the chances of a specific presidential candidate. Although that position has in the meantime been defeated in an internal party referendum, this has not washed away the argument, which is there to stay and, especially in the current context of social tensions over labour-market reforms, is giving some troubled nights to supporters of the treaty.

The study we carried out shows that, in different forms, the foreign policy dimension of the Union is relevant in 15 member states and, more interestingly, it is used in almost all of them as an argument in favour of ratification.

The reasoning is that the European constitution includes provisions that are supposed to strengthen the powers of the Union in the field of foreign policy and that therefore it is good to ratify it. Conversely, the fact that in most states (with one notable exception - the UK) this is used as an argument in favour of ratification, confirms the findings of many post-Iraq-war polls, which have shown how the international tensions that preceded the military strike have led to growing support among the European public for a common action on the world stage.

The third evocative question that will loom large in the campaigns of many member states is that of the geographical limits of Europe, which is closely intertwined with the issue of its cultural identity. 'No' campaigners are playing on the fears of citizens, in particular by bringing into the debate the unrelated but explosive question of Turkey's accession to the Union. The issue is likely to be presented as an argument against ratification in 12 out of the 15 countries in whose debate it will be present. France is again a good case in point, with the failed attempts by President Jacques Chirac to separate the two issues in the face of creeping discontent from his citizens.

In the end it seems that to offset such emotionally charged arguments those who would like to see the treaty ratified may have to pin their hopes on the wallets of their fellow Europeans. In fact, it is often pragmatic considerations concerning the economic benefits of EU membership that have a positive effect on public opinion across the Union. Unsurprisingly, this argument is going to play a particularly significant role in the new member states, where the political actors are beginning to realise that, after years of sacrifices to join the club, there may be some benefits to reap from membership. In the most Eurosceptic of the newcomers, Poland, this may for instance become the only positive argument put forward in favour of ratification of the treaty.

Our findings confirm that an embryonic European debate is discernible only inasmuch as the issues addressed are the same in most member states, but that the situation is not yet ripe for a fully-flown European campaign.

• The authors are research fellows at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS). This analysis is based on the findings of a survey carried out among the national experts members of the EPIN Network named 'What Prospects for the European Constitutional Treaty? - Monitoring the Ratification Debates'.

The authors are research fellows at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS). This analysis is based on the findings of a survey carried out among the national experts members of the EPIN Network named 'What Prospects for the European Constitutional Treaty? - Monitoring the Ratification Debates'.

• Primary Source