Plan B? Plug the EU’s yawning credibility gap

By Stanley Crossick

Date: 09/06/05

Fifty years to the day that the Messina Conference opened, the voters of the Netherlands - an important contributor to Messina - rejected the EU constitutional treaty in a referendum. Three days before, the French electorate made a similar decision.

On 3 June 1955, the Messina Conference declared the belief of the six founding countries that the time had come "to take a new step on the road of European construction". One cannot but wonder what went wrong in the ensuing 50 years?

The referenda results were negative despite the fact that:

the French government and 90% of members of the French parliament supported ratification;

• the Dutch government and 85% of Dutch parliamentarians supported ratification;
• the treaty was prepared over a 16-month period by a constitutional Convention which included representatives of 25 governments and national parliaments;

On 3 June 1955, the Messina Conference declared the belief of the six founding countries that the time had come "to take a new step on the road of European construction". One cannot but wonder what went wrong in the ensuing 50 years?

The referenda results were negative despite the fact that:

• the French government and 90% of members of the French parliament supported ratification;
• the Dutch government and 85% of Dutch parliamentarians supported ratification;
• the treaty was prepared over a 16-month period by a constitutional Convention which included representatives of 25 governments and national parliaments;
• third countries had already made known that they would regret the treaty rejection as unfortunate.

Why did the French vote 'No'? Polls indicate that there were several reasons, including that the treaty was too liberal in economic terms, was seen further to increase unemployment and threaten French identity. The referendum served as a perfect excuse to express discontent with the political class, including President Jacques Chirac. There was extensive opposition to possible Turkish accession and many believed the treaty could be renegotiated to achieve a better outcome for France. Strip out Jean-Marie Le Pen's extreme Right and the Trotskyite Left and you find little anti-European feeling.

Patrick Ricard, chairman of Pernod Ricard, commented: "What depressed me about the debate in France is that most of the (mainstream) politicians pushing the 'No' vote did it for personal political gain and not because they think it's best for the citizens."

In turning out in large numbers at the ballot boxes, Dutch voters expressed their resentment at being the highest contributors per capita to the EU. They felt that EU political integration was being imposed from above, that their national identity was threatened and they too are concerned about possible Turkish accession. Rampant populism also seemed to be behind many 'No' votes.

Much of the 'No' vote was emotional - angst is a powerful motivator. So many appear to have voted out of fear: fear that they are losing out to globalisation, fear of unemployment, of loss of social protection, of immigration.

Citizens are aware of the three biggest challenges that Europe faces: creating growth and new jobs, fighting terrorism and international crime and ensuring that Europe is influential on the world stage.

It is clear that years of weak leadership on European issues, a failure to explain the true facts to the European public and distorting what happens in Europe for domestic political reasons has come home to roost. Thus, many European citizens see the Union as a Trojan horse of globalisation, not as the sole mechanism through which it can be managed.

It is also obvious to them that no member state can work in isolation: we live in an interdependent world. Why then are they negative towards the European Union?

The Eurobarometer No. 62, published in the autumn 2004, reported that the EU institutions "tend to be trusted" by 50% of the EU-25 population but the figures at national level are startling: only 34% for governments and 17% for political parties. A paradox?

The ratification process is being treated as only an EU problem. It is not: it is only an extension of a national problem, the huge credibility gap between the political classes and the people in most countries. The political classes are not trusted: why therefore should the Union be trusted?

It is time, once again, "to take a new step on the road of European construction". What this new step should be must await the completion of the ratification process. And this must be completed. Eleven countries representing over 50% of the EU's population have ratified.

Declaration 30 of the constitutional treaty provides that, if four-fifths of the member states have ratified the treaty, the matter will be referred to the European Council. This clearly implies that the ratification process must be completed before any decision is taken.

In an age where political power is increasingly becoming privatised, the solution must include all the constituents of society in the process. We need a concerted effort by think-tanks and academia, business, trade unions and non-governmental organisations to launch an EU-wide debate to seek an answer to two questions: Why is there this credibility gap? How can it be reduced?

• Stanley Crossick is a founding chairman of the European Policy Centre. He writes here in a personal capacity.

Commentary feature in which the author, who is a founding chairman of the European Policy Centre, calls for a concerted effort by think-tanks and academia, business, trade unions and non-governmental organisations to launch an EU-wide debate to seek an answer to two questions: Why is there this credibility gap? How can it be reduced?