Charlemagne. The ultra-liberal socialist constitution

French Socialists join British Conservatives in disliking the EU constitution

THE European Union's draft constitution is in danger of being felled by a right-left combination punch from either side of the Channel. The French and British governments have promised referendums on the document, which provides a single constitutional framework for an EU of 25 countries and counting. In Britain, opinion polls suggest that the constitution will be rejected - though the vote will probably not take place until 2006. In France, most pundits had assumed that there would be a yes when the vote takes place in the autumn of next year. But last week Laurent Fabius, a former Socialist prime minister and would-be president, said that he would campaign against the constitution unless it is changed - thus splitting his party and ensuring that the no campaign will no longer consist only of fringe parties. A French no is now distinctly possible: a poll in Le Point this week showed only 51% of voters planning to vote yes.

But if Britain and France both turn down the constitution, they are likely to do so for entirely different, indeed contradictory, reasons. In France, the no campaign is dominated by left-wingers who see the constitution as embodying a heartless, free-market, liberal Europe. In Britain, the no campaign is led by right-wingers who argue that the constitution will impose failed, socialist ideas on all of Europe.

Thus the Bruges Group, an anti-European think-tank in Britain, claims that the constitution is “an enabling document to be used to impose outdated statist economic policies.” In similar vein, Oliver Letwin, finance spokesman for the opposition Conservatives, argues that “the EU constitution is a scaffold on which will be built regulatory powers over a wide range of economic affairs.” British opponents fret that the constitution's Charter of Fundamental Rights, which includes rights to “collective bargaining” and to “information and consultation” of workers, will open the door to the imposition of more onerous regulations on British business. They object to making “full employment” a fundamental goal of the Union, and worry about giving it a right to “co-ordinate” members' economic policies.

By contrast, many French Socialists decry what they see as the lack of ambition in the constitution, and particularly its failure to advance the causes of pan-European social legislation and tax harmonisation. Mr Fabius complains that the constitution has “grave defects, notably on social issues”. For him, “the most important questions for Europe are jobs and delocalisation ” - -the French word for jobs moving from high-cost France to low-cost countries in central Europe that have just joined the EU. He argues that the failure of the constitution to impose tax harmonisation or to expand pan-European social legislation means that nothing will be done to stop this. Other French Socialists argue that, by enshrining EU policies against state aid and in favour of competition, the constitution will force France down the road of privatisation and a smaller state.

How to explain this contradiction? Partly, it is because both sides are guessing how the document will be interpreted. The British government fought hard to secure an explanatory statement that the Charter of Fundamental Rights did not extend the scope of EU law and must be interpreted in line with national laws and practices. The French complain that this has effectively neutered the charter's ability to promote “social Europe”. British Tories are not convinced. They think the explanatory statement is so much verbiage, which will quickly be interpreted away by a European Court of Justice bent on expanding the powers of the EU. Only time and a succession of court judgments will show which side is closer to the truth.

That both French Socialists and British Tories dislike the constitution does not mean that one side is right and the other wrong. Given their different philosophical starting-points, it is entirely likely that both parties will find grounds for complaint in a document that lays out, in excruciating detail, how policy will be made in areas as diverse as trade, competition, monetary policy, tax, consumer protection, the environment and defence. Thatcherites might shudder at Mr Fabius's call for a more “social Europe”. But they would probably agree with his view that the constitution would be a better document if it confined itself to institutional issues, rather than setting in stone policies that may seem entirely inappropriate in 30 years' time.

The superstate fear

Moreover, for all the differences in tone and philosophy of the no campaigns in the two countries, there is a common thread linking them: a fear that the growing power of Brussels is whittling away the freedom of action of national governments in Paris and London. This anxiety has always been more pronounced in Britain, which came late to the European project and has often felt pushed to its margins. The French, by contrast, have a good claim to have invented the EU and have traditionally felt a sense of ownership over it.

That feeling, however, is slipping away as enlargement of the EU makes it ever harder for France to control the European agenda. On a series of policies, whether bailing out bankrupt companies or cutting value-added taxes in restaurants, the French government has found itself blocked in Brussels. During the summer, the French press was full of morose commentaries on the decline of French influence in Brussels, which is thought to be reflected in everything from the rise of English as the EU's main working language to the failure of France's European commissioner to secure a grand portfolio.

British Eurosceptics have long had a similarly jaundiced attitude to Brussels and all its works, which they have tended to regard as a Franco-German plot. What might it take to convince the British sceptics that the dynamics of the European Union really have changed? Perhaps only a rejection of the constitution by their old French adversaries could do the trick.

Commentary feature notes that the UK Conservatives and maybe the French Socialists are both going to campaign against ratification of the Constitution Treaty. Article tries to explain why these two ideologically opposed political parties are both against aspects of the Treaty. Perhaps both fear the growing power of Brussels.

• Primary Source