Jean-Pierre Jouyet, the French secrétaire d'Etat for European affairs has suggested scrapping a clause in the French constitution (article 88-5) that was put in place in 2005 by Jacques Chirac and makes it compulsory for all future EU enlargements (after Croatia which should be joining in 2009) to be submitted to a referendum, thus allowing the French population in all its wisdom to decide whether certain countries are welcome in the EU. A cynic such as I thinks that this clause was mainly put in place to make the French feel better about Turkey, currently an EU candidate. The logic goes as follows: mes chers compatriotes, you don't want Turkey in, you feel alienated by the enlargement process of the EU, we will therefore submit all future enlargements to your opinion, please vote for me.
Unfortunately, what applies to Turkey would equally apply to other potential candidate countries, including those in the Western Balkans. These countries (i.e Bosnia Herzegovina, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, FYR Macedonia & aforementioned Croatia) however are logically destined for accession, if only because in the medium run the Copenhagen criteria will be fulfilled. From a diplomatic point of view, it is becoming clear that submitting membership of these countries to popular opinion would be catastrophic, not the least because the French, rather tired of the EU & always ready for a protest vote, could say non.
So what to do? It is worth mentioning here that Nicolas Sarkozy, who was extremely clear during the presidential campaign that he was against Turkey's membership (and still is, he believes that th EU & Turkey should have a special relationship that does not stretch to full EU membership) is nevertheless intelligent enough to realise that alienating a good bit of South Eastern Europe would do nothing to help France's already mediocre reputation. He is therefore suggesting scrapping article 88-5 , though collegues of Jouyet are quick to say that scrapping the article would not de facto mean "no referendum", rather that it would allow the head of State (Sarkozy) to choose whether a referendum is desirable or not, whether a referendum or ratification by the Parliament is preferable.
Reading between the lines I would be tempted to say that this could be dangerous. Imagine a scenario where Sarkozy cancels a referendum on the accession of, say, Bosnia-Herzegovina, allowing the Parliament to ratify and then imposes a referendum on the accession of Turkey. Chances are that the French population would vote NO to the latter, just as Sarkozy, himself opposed Turkey's membership would wish.
This picking and choosing of which candidate countries are submitted to popular referendum means different standards. The Copenhagen criteria exist to give each country a precise set of conditions which, once filled, allow the country to join the EU. They represent a common and, more to the point, objective standard that is far less passion fuelled than the half-baked ideas an under-informed population can have on such an important subject. It seems to me perfectly feasible that Sarkozy would submit an enlargement to referendum if he wanted it to be rejected (Turkey) or to parliamentary ratification if he wanted it to work (e.g. FYR Macedonia).
In the meantime, Sarkozy has said little on this plan to scrap the "offending" article though it is pretty clear that he wants to review what his predecessor did. On the other hand, such an amendment to the Constitution would require the approval of 3/5ths of the Assemblée nationale and that it far from certain in itself. Affaire à suivre....
Unfortunately, what applies to Turkey would equally apply to other potential candidate countries, including those in the Western Balkans. These countries (i.e Bosnia Herzegovina, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, FYR Macedonia & aforementioned Croatia) however are logically destined for accession, if only because in the medium run the Copenhagen criteria will be fulfilled. From a diplomatic point of view, it is becoming clear that submitting membership of these countries to popular opinion would be catastrophic, not the least because the French, rather tired of the EU & always ready for a protest vote, could say non.
So what to do? It is worth mentioning here that Nicolas Sarkozy, who was extremely clear during the presidential campaign that he was against Turkey's membership (and still is, he believes that th EU & Turkey should have a special relationship that does not stretch to full EU membership) is nevertheless intelligent enough to realise that alienating a good bit of South Eastern Europe would do nothing to help France's already mediocre reputation. He is therefore suggesting scrapping article 88-5 , though collegues of Jouyet are quick to say that scrapping the article would not de facto mean "no referendum", rather that it would allow the head of State (Sarkozy) to choose whether a referendum is desirable or not, whether a referendum or ratification by the Parliament is preferable.
Reading between the lines I would be tempted to say that this could be dangerous. Imagine a scenario where Sarkozy cancels a referendum on the accession of, say, Bosnia-Herzegovina, allowing the Parliament to ratify and then imposes a referendum on the accession of Turkey. Chances are that the French population would vote NO to the latter, just as Sarkozy, himself opposed Turkey's membership would wish.
This picking and choosing of which candidate countries are submitted to popular referendum means different standards. The Copenhagen criteria exist to give each country a precise set of conditions which, once filled, allow the country to join the EU. They represent a common and, more to the point, objective standard that is far less passion fuelled than the half-baked ideas an under-informed population can have on such an important subject. It seems to me perfectly feasible that Sarkozy would submit an enlargement to referendum if he wanted it to be rejected (Turkey) or to parliamentary ratification if he wanted it to work (e.g. FYR Macedonia).
In the meantime, Sarkozy has said little on this plan to scrap the "offending" article though it is pretty clear that he wants to review what his predecessor did. On the other hand, such an amendment to the Constitution would require the approval of 3/5ths of the Assemblée nationale and that it far from certain in itself. Affaire à suivre....
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire