EUROPE AFTER THE REFERENDUM IN FRANCE AND BELGIUM

by DAVID CAMPANALE

Former Chairman, Christian Peoples Alliance Party - UK

Now that France and Belgium have voted No to the European constitution, the ratification process in the rest of the European Union will stop. The French president, Jacques Chirac will see to that. He will not accept that this was a rejection of his conservative administration. Instead, he will act on the basis that the result is a vote against the EU as it is frequently portrayed in France - committed to free market reforms, enlarging and overly-influenced by the Anglo-Saxon economic model. For his part, Tony Blair will know that a referendum in Britain would produce the same result for identical, but opposite reasons:

Britons think the EU is a supra-national centralising conspiracy to rob us of our sovereignty. Across Europe, a collective time out has to follow and some heart-searching questions addressed.

For the time being, the prevailing institutional arrangements that govern the decision-making process in the enlarged EU will continue, regardless of what happens to the constitution. It has already been established in the French referendum campaign that a "no" vote will result in a return to the existing Treaty of Nice.

How are Christians to view the outcome? It was my experience, when Chairman of the Christian Peoples Alliance party in Britain, that believers are just as divided and confused on Europe as the rest of the population. As much as anyone else, they find it hard to be convinced by the 'head' arguments over the necessity of a constitution. Our Labour government's description of the constitutional treaty as a 'tidying-up exercise' has been neither a compelling nor exciting Prospectus. Across the EU, politicians have simply failed to take the public with them. In Britain words like - over bureaucratised, remote, unaccountable, autocratic, heavy-handed, top-down, non-transparent - abound when talking about the EU.

The central thrust of the constitution that is being put to the vote is towards more creeping centralisation and it is one of the significant factors provoking the current backlash from citizens across the EU. To re-engage, a deeper appeal has to be made, which goes to the heart and which touches upon deeper and more human values. Both the late Pope John Paul II and that latter-day political prophet, Vaclav Havel, directly urged the leaders of the European Union to address the spiritual void at the heart of the European 'project.' It is this issue which has been ducked and to which the leaders of Europe now have to turn. The Bible says that 'where there is no vision, a people perish'.

And to me that is the heart of the challenge that the people of Europe face. As Sir Stephen Wall, former advisor to Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor and Prime Minister Tony Blair has said: 'Neither economically nor politically can Europe afford a split over its future, especially when there is no one country of the Union whose view amounts to a vision. But it is the lack of that vision that imperils the constitution, not its anodyne provisions.'

Time and effort is now needed by Europe's leaders to negotiate not some revision of the minor institutional changes contained in the constitution, but to agree upon the purpose, vision and shared values that will dictate the political and economic priorities of Europe.

The divergence of views and national prejudices in the EU are so wide that in hindsight politicians will see that it was unwise and premature to seek to develop (let alone vote on!) a single framework to accommodate differences. Hearts and minds need to be won over. One way that this can happen is, for example, to highlight success stories of good policy initiatives that are delivering results in say Germany or Britain or any other EU member state. It is such success stories that are more likely to encourage other EU member states to seek to follow suit and continue to work towards closer European collaboration and identity.

Whatever emerges must be robust enough and flexible enough to allow each nation state to try different approaches whether individually or even in groups. Not with a view to creating a multi-speed Europe, but a Europe that is able to harness the continents diversity and build on the shared heritage of Christian values.

They could do worse than to look again at the motivations of the founding fathers of the EU, Christian Democrats such as Schuman, De Gasperi, Adenauer and Monnet. As these figures sought to rebuild a continent devastated by the ravages of the Second World War, they brought their Christian commitment to bear. After decades of peace that followed their efforts, few people now can conceive of EU member states resorting to war to resolve their differences and may question why co-operation is still needed. But the wider principle that no single, powerful nation should force its own interests to prevail over the wider good, is a Christian perspective that remains as vital as ever.

But are the signs of developing a spiritual identity realistic? At one level they are not. President Giscard D'Estaing, who chaired the Convention that produced the proposed constitution, forgot that the stated objective of the 2001 Laeken Declaration was to simplify. In many places the wording of the constitution has become far more obscure and its ambiguities would create a legal minefield if the Treaty is resurrected.

It is almost as if the Convention members sought to cover the void of values by resorting to dealing in technocratic language. But more importantly, Giscard D'Estaing utterly rejected the wishes of numerous Roman Catholic countries that acknowledgement should be given to Europe's Christian heritage and influences. It is time to re-open these questions.

At a recent conference in Holland, the CPA Leader Ram Gidoomal asked an EU Minister why there was no acknowledgement of the Christian heritage of Europe in the Preamble to the Constitution. He sneered and walked away. A journalist from a left wing broadsheet followed up the line of questioning with the comment - 'but what about people of other faiths?' I referred to Ram Gidoomal's experience during the London Mayoral campaign, when over half the support for our Christian Democrat party came from people of other faiths and none. They told us how much they appreciated the Christian heritage, tradition and values that underpin European society - something that politicians across the EU need reminding about.

It is a sign of hope and significance that the successor to John Paul II has chosen the name Benedict in honour of a forebear who dedicated himself to bring Christian teachings to the continent of Europe. But, I have detected silence from the churches of the largely Protestant states of Northern Europe over a Christian European identity. Despite this, the Christian political traditions of England and Scotland have much to offer the next stage of Europe's future. Britain may not be Christian in the sense that everyone is a believer, but the institutions of law, parliament and monarchy are unquestionably shaped by Reformed Christianity. In the second full parliament of the third millennium, MPs still spend more time in prayer on the floor of the House of Commons than they do in Prime Minister's Question Time. This is not, as some critics say, a reflection of how Christendom has compromised itself with worldly politics. It is simply a reflection that for centuries government in Britain has chosen to formally subject itself to the sovereignty of Christ. Clearly, not every MP is interested in seeking wisdom from God. But the fact is, the constitutional order - including the British monarchy - imprints this biblical approach upon the British system of government. It serves as a compass by which we can judge the direction and suitability of the waters in which we travel - whether in Britain or in our dealings in Europe.

In times past, our political ancestors in Britain had to answer the question posed to each of the Babylonian rulers in the book of Daniel - will they acknowledge that the Most High God is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and sets over them whoever he wishes (Daniel 5v21b)? In agreeing a constitutional treaty that deliberately excludes the mention of Christ, the leaders of Europe have stated where they stand. It has been left to the peoples of Europe, where their governments use referenda, to voice their response to this vision without values. Instead of ducking the hard issues and walking away, the result of the French 'No' is a second opportunity for Christians across the continent to re-engage with the debate about the heart of Europe. While we must urge politicians across the EU to work to that end, the churches in every EU member state have to play their part too, and speak clearly and without equivocation. There is no room for complacency.