Indifference must not kill constitution

By Stanley Crossick

Date: 09/12/04

EU LEADERS have a number of priorities but, above all, they must focus on ratification of the new constitution.

Lithuania has already ratified it, with a parliamentary vote on 11 November, so it is one down, 24 to go!

All national parliaments are likely to ratify - although doubts are expressed about the result of the vote in the Czech parliament - but there are 11 or 12 referenda to win.

The leaders will have to choose not only the right messages to convince people that the constitution is good for them, but also the right messengers.

As doubts persist over the referendum results in several member states, including France, Poland and the UK, some conclude that the Union was built through a conspiracy of the political elite and now that people know what it is about, they don't like it. The truth is more complex.

Citizens no longer follow their political leaders as in the past.

The July 2004 Eurobarometer poll reveals that 41% of people in the EU-25 "tend to trust" the EU, but only 32% their own parliaments, 28% their own governments and 14% their political parties.

In the UK, the figures are 19%, 25%, 19% and 10%. These figures reveal an alarming lack of confidence in institutions. It is hardly surprising, then, that 'Brussels' is not popular, as it is the sum total of unpopular parts.

Referenda are an unsuitable vehicle for answering complex questions. Voters must be persuaded why it is in their interests to ratify the new treaty. They are unlikely to read the treaty, a complex and large document that contains more than 155,000 words and most will decide by listening to the public debates.

But these will be influenced by many factors, beyond an objective analysis of the treaty. Preferences for or against EU integration, media reporting, the popularity of the government or the president/prime minister will all play their part in influencing the voters' choices.

National and EU leaders should make sure that people are aware of what is at stake when they vote.

The real question in the referenda over the constitution concerns, in fact, EU membership.

There is wide consensus throughout the Union, among national and EU leaders, that the constitution is needed to enable the Union to cope with enlargement to 25 members and beyond.

And yet one 'No' vote risks wrecking the treaty, which must be ratified by all member states before entering into force.

To avoid paralysis of the Union, no member state that fails to ratify the constitution should be allowed to hold up the others. It should cease to be a full member and renegotiate its relationship with the EU.

This includes the UK, but it is difficult to imagine that a French rejection of the constitution would lead to the exclusion of France, which has been together with Germany at the heart of the EU project.

But few government leaders would dare to admit such a political reality before the referendum, fearing that the threat might in itself have negative consequences.

A crucial question is what messages should be sent to the public as to why the EU is a good thing and why further integration is needed?

Two should be considered. Firstly, three easily understood words encapsulate the Union: peace, prosperity and progress.

Peace, which must not be taken for granted, is the first and most important product of the Union.

Prosperity, which encompasses both economic and social well- being, is the second.

Progress refers to the Union as a framework for modernizing member states' economies and societies.

Secondly, citizens have an overarching concern - security. Economic security (jobs), personal (against terrorism and international crime), and external security (ie a common security and defence policy).

Citizens understand that security requires cooperation between member states and blame 'Brussels' for failure to deliver it.

And yet the reason for failure is that cooperation between member states does not work, particularly in a Union of 25 member states, each of which has a veto.

The single market, the euro, trade or competition policy were only achieved because the EU had been given powers to act and that no member state could alone wreck the Union's initiatives.

Developments in justice and home affairs are a telling proof of how progress has followed the extension of the EU's powers and, above all, majority voting replacing unanimity.

But politicians have to find a way of explaining in simple terms the difference between intergovernmentalism and the 'community method' and the advantages that the constitution brings about in allowing the Union to act more quickly.

The Eurobarometer findings also emphasize the need to choose not only the right messages, but also the right messengers.

'Voluntary organizations' are far more trusted throughout the Union than politicians: NGO leaders should work together to help people understand the stakes when they go to the polls.

But new communications methods should also be explored. It is worth studying how the Republican Party succeeded so well in getting its messages to the voters before the recent US elections - through internet chats, talk-shows - and in particular how it mobilized voters who did not intend to cast their vote.

EU leaders should learn from the American elections to make sure that the constitution is not killed by voters' indifference.

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

Article suggests that national and EU leaders should do everything they can to raise awareness with European citizens of the significance of the European Constitution.

• Primary Source