Another French referendumdum?
Interesting developments on the ratification in France of the revised European Treaty, as reported in rue 89. Like Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy believes he can push the Treaty through Parliament without a referendum. Indeed he is to keen/desperate that it should slip through painlessly that he made the unprecedented step (for a serving president, who is supposed to above party politics) of going to the UMP headquarters as soon as he got back from Lisbon to tell the UMP députés it was their sworn duty to get the Treaty ratified before Christmas. Not only will he whip it through, he wants France to be the first to do so, thus he hopes expunging the lingering guilt of the disastrous 2005 referendum. However Marie-Noëlle Lienemann, a Socialist Euro-MP, and Paul Quilès, a former Socialist minister have come up with an intriguing loop-hole which would, they believe, force the French president to hold a referendum.
“For the Lisbon Treaty to take effect,” says Ms Lienemann, quoted in rue 89, “it has to go through two stages. First stage: modify the French Constitution (articles 88-1 to 88-7). Second stage: ratification of the text of the new treaty.”
To modify the French Constitution there has to be a 3/5ths majority in the Congress (a special sitting of both houses of the French Parliament at Versailles). If all the Socialist, Communist, Green and MoDem députés and senators voted against, the motion would fail, the Constitution could not be changed and the president would be obliged to hold a referendum. In theory this is possible since those parties combined have some 363 representatives in a total of 908.
Nicolas Sarkozy will say that the presidential election was a vote of confidence in what he touted as “his” treaty, and that is referendum enough. However, an opinion poll conducted on the 24th and 25 October by CSA found that nevertheless 61% still want a proper referendum on the Treaty, as oppose to 31% who say it’s not necessary. The same poll found that 68% (of those expressing themselves) said they would vote Yes, but that’s misleading because fully 52% of those asked said they would abstain or spoil their ballot paper.
It’s a tough one. I am sure that Europe does need its new tool kit to make it function more smoothly (not that it will, even then, but still….). On the other hand I understand those who, like the Economist this week, claim the Treaty is too important for the people to be deprived of their direct vote. Ms Lienemann’s move does nothing except politicise the Treaty, deliberately trying to undermine Sarkozy possibly for its own sake. Sarkozy’s assumption that everyone who voted for him voted in favour of every single one of his policies is disingenuous, but then so is Paul Quilès’ justification for forcing a fresh referendum: “In a democracy who could be afraid of the people?”