No.
265 September 2004
Contents
Browse
below or click on the following to view an article
•
The Constitutional Treaty – Where Next ?
•
Salon International de l’Armement
•
Book Review : Right Time, Right Place – by Christopher Audland
The
Constitutional Treaty – Where Next ?
The
Constitutional Treaty has been agreed by the European Union Member
States. It will be signed in October 2004. Each Member State then
has to ratify it within 2 years of the signing of the Constitutional
Treaty. Member
States have two choices relating to ratification: through their
parliamentary mechanisms or through a referendum. Some Member States’
own constitutions require that a referendum takes place, some don’t
allow such a referendum. The majority can make a choice. If there
is no requirement to have a referendum, then the national government
can also choose whether it would make a referendum binding. This
means that in many Member States individuals will have to make decisions:
- whether
or not to vote in a referendum - whether
or not to vote for or against the Constitutional Treaty - whether
or not to lobby government or parliament on the issue - whether
to lobby for or against ratification - whether
to get involved in the debate about whether or not to have a referendum
- whether
to lobby for or against a referendum. What
are the necessary questions which need to be answered to help in
those decisions? QCEA
has produced a set of briefing papers, available from our website
at www.quaker.org/qcea, which cover
the context and historical background of the Constitutional Treaty,
its key components, the ratification process, some pros and cons
of the Constitutional Treaty, sources of additional information
and some action points. We hope they will help you in thinking through
these issues. The
key questions about this Constitutional Treaty that need to be asked
are: •
What in the Constitutional Treaty is actually new - i.e. what would
change in the political landscape at European Union level? It is
very difficult to be totally clear about this because the structure
of the document is quite different from those of previous treaties.
In our briefing papers we show some of the issues that are new and
some of the controversial issues that are not. •
Does the Constitutional Treaty fundamentally change the nature of
the European Union? It does in one respect at least. It will give
it a legal personality. However, it is hard to see that the Constitutional
Treaty takes the European Union closer to a federal Europe. The
range of competences has not really been extended with the exception
of the area of Justice and Home Affairs where decisions can now
be taken by Qualified Majority Vote rather than by unanimity only.
However, and because of the response of all Member State governments
to the ‘threat of Terrorism’, this is likely to happen
even without the Constitutional Treaty. •
Would the changes proposed in the Constitutional Treaty not take
place if the Constitutional Treaty were not ratified? Given that
all Member States have signed it, there is a likelihood that they
would find other, and maybe less transparent ways to bring about
the changes they want. An
important issue in any debate about the ratification process is
the actual question being asked in a referendum or in a vote in
the national parliament. So
are the arguments for a yes or no vote being used by those who are
campaigning. - Is
this about the Constitutional Treaty or is it about membership of
the European Union? - Is
this about expressing dissatisfaction with the national government? - Is
a low turnout going to affect the value given to the decision (in
some countries there has to be a minimum turnout for a referendum
to be valid)? - Does
a low turnout mean apathy in response to European Union issues or
in response to political debate more generally? Finally,
what would happen if a country failed to ratify the Constitutional
Treaty? Legally, it means the whole project has failed and has to
be tackled by some other route. In practice it might mean: •
One or more countries leaving the EU •
Some countries progressing on issues ahead of others (a 2 speed
Europe) •
Some further negotiation which allows countries who have failed
to ratify to say to their electorate that they have won some concessions.
They may, on the basis of such concessions, win a second round. •
One or more countries having a second referendum with or without
any substantive changes to the Constitutional Treaty. The
least likely outcome, unless there is a majority of Member States
who fail to ratify, is that the Constitutional Treaty will be changed
substantially on the issues which might matter most to the people
who now oppose it. An
example is the militarisation of the EU which is written into the
Constitutional Treaty. It is new; it represents a further extension
of a policy area which has crept into the EU in the last 10 –
12 years. It is regrettable, not least because it stands in opposition
to the UN Charter. But it is unlikely to be affected by any non-ratification
of the Constitutional Treaty, simply because it is a policy direction
supported by the Member States’ governments. QCEA’s
briefing papers set out action points which do not predict or anticipate
the view on the Constitutional Treaty which anyone might take but
which suggests that what is important now is to engage in the debate.
National governments are very keen to get ratification through.
That is a good place from which one can start a dialogue. If the
peace movement could co-ordinate its efforts across EU Member States
there might just be a chance of winning some policy progress in
return for broad support for the Constitutional Treaty as a whole. Martina
Weitsch Return
to contents
Salon
International de l’Armement
Devant
la plus grande exposition europénne d’armement, le salon
international d’armement EUROSATORY, nous n’étions
pas nombreux : une petite bande convaincue, déterminée,
soutenue par la foi. Annick
de Morlay, Corien des Pays bas, Ian de Belfast et Yvonne de Carpentras
faisant vigiles avec leurs drapeaux blancs, une bannière
et un panneau QUAKER. Dimanche,
Corien Van Dorp, ex-secrétaire de PAIX QUAKER des Pays Bas,
est arrivée en auto avec les bâtons, (et moi en train
avec le tissu blanc..) et nous avons fabriqué les drapeaux
blancs. Elle
est repartie en fin d’après midi, lundi, car elle n’a
pu prendre qu’un jour de congé de son cabinet dentaire.
Mardi après midi, est arrivée Annick Bonemeau de Morlay,
ex-amie de l’Arche, fidèle à Eurosatory. Mardi
soir, Ian Kirk Snuith, cinéaste de la B.B.C. de Belfast,
Quaker et également fidèle à Eurosatory, nous
a rejoint au Caroussel, dans les jardins du Louvre. Il y avait là
une manifestation de tous les mouvements. Un
des films de Ian était en lice pour un oscar, et il y avait
une grande réception à l’hôtel Savoy.
Ian a préféré venir à Eurosatory. Après
trente années de guerre, il savait que ce n’est qu’avec
des négociations que l’on peut sortir d’un conflit,
pas avec des armes. Annick
et Ian sont restés jusqu’au jeudi soir l7h 30, et vendredi,
je me retrouvais seule comme mardi matin. Nous
avions tous nos «t-shirts » que l’Arche avait
jadis fait faire, et nous tenions des drapeaux blancs, idée
de Georges Krasovsky, que j‘avais trouvée bonne lors
de la manifestation du Bourget. C’est effectivement très
porteur. Ian
avait un panneau bleu, avec imprimé en blanc, «QUAKER
FOR PEACE », et j’avais une bannière de 50 cm
de large sur l mètre de haut. En haut y figurait des bombes,
dont les bouts sont rouges avec des gouttes de sang qui tombent.
En-dessous, un oiseau blanc qui se couvre la tête de ses ailes,
pour protéger un rameau qu’il tient dans son bec. Le
sang coule sur lui et par terre. Aucune
parole écrite, rien que ce dessin expressif. En silence,
debout avec nos drapeaux, et Ian tenant dans une main le «
Peace testimony » des Quakers qu’il avait en anglais.
Nous avons eu beaucoup d’impact, beaucoup de commentaires
et de gens qui sont venus nous parler. Libby Perkuns et Georges
Krasovsky m’avaient chacun envoyé une invitation d’entrée
au salon, et Annick et Ian y sont entrés. Ian fut stupéfait
de 1’immensité de ce salon, et Annick de 1’impression
aseptisée qui en émanait. Outre les pouces levés,
des « Je suis bien d’accord avec vous ! », «
Vous avez raison ! », et « Courage! » Voici
quelques commentaires entendus: Positifs: Un
cadre de la CGT d’une entreprise ayant un stand, sortant hagard
et en nous voyant : «Ah! Vous êtes les seules personnes
normales que j’ai vues aujourd’hui ! » «
Si vous saviez combien d’argent il se brasse là dedans!» «
C’est effrayant ce qu’il y a là dedans!» «
On ne vend pas d’armes, on travaille juste, ici ! Rassurez
vous!» - Les
policiers: « Vous êtes en retard ce matin, il y a a
déjà beaucoup d’arrivés ». Leurs
manières de dire leur accord. - Un
jeune, auquel Annick explique que nous défendons la paix
sans armes, répond : «çà se respecte
! ». - «
Merci d’être là » et y compris des militaires. Vendredi,
au moment de la grosse vague des départs, un Français,
très cadre, bon ton, en passant devant moi. Dans un souffle
presque, en chuchotant : «Mes excuses, je vous demande pardon!» Les
négatifs: Un
grand Américain me hurle : « Qui vous paye ? »
Moi : « Personne, Monsieur! » Lui « Si, Si, il
y a quelqu’un ». Un
Français d’âge mûr : « Avec vos idées,
il y en aurait du chômage ! » Je
suis entrain de dire que ce n’est pas avec des bombes que
l’on fait la paix. Un jeune cadre bourgeois passe, secoue
la main : « Mais qu’est ce qu’on se fait comme
pognon!» Un
autre du même genre : « Que ce soit des tomates ou des
armes, je m’en fous, je suis venu faire du fric!» Le
grand slogan du salon était « DEFENSE », et beaucoup
disaient « C’est nous qui défendons la terre!
» «Les
églises sont pleines de gens comme nous!». Nous entendons
cela à chaque Eurosatory. «
Vous n’y connaissez rien!» Il
y a eu beaucoup d’échanges par le regard, juste en
passant, regards approbateurs de beaucoup de visiteurs étonnés
qu’on leur dise « Bonjour ou au revoir! ». Ian
avait remarqué que plusieurs personnes lisaient son panneau,
ensuite tournaient leur badge ou le couvraient de leur main. Nous
étions photographiés, surtout le dernier jour. Japon,
Chine, Corée du sud, Bulgarie, Allemagne et un Américain
de l’ambassade américaine à Paris. Annick,
Ian et moi même avons prié. « Pour que leurs
yeux s’ouvrent à la lumière d’une paix
sans armes! », m’a-t-elle confirmée. Ian
a souvent fait la remarque: «Mais où sont les chrétiens?»
Yvonne ajoute : «Je crois que jamais de ma vie je n’ai
été aussi fatiguée, 74 ans en juillet, ce n’est
plus très jeune. Les conditions d’hébergement
furent difficiles, mais si Dieu veut, je suis prête pour 2006. «
N’oublions jamais, qui fabrique veut vendre, et que pour vendre,
il faut créer le marché! ». Yvonne
Kressmann Return
to contents
Book
Review : Right Time, Right Place – by Christopher Audland
Memoir
Club, Stanhope, Weardale, County Durham. 2004. ISBN 1 84104 091 6.
Price £20 It
may not be entirely to Friends’ taste, but a newly published
book which crossed my desk vividly illustrates the truth that history
is made by men – and women –much more than by abstract
forces and institutions. Right Time, Right Place is the autobiography
of Christopher Audland, who was for eight years Deputy Secretary
General of the Commission. He then went on to become Director General
in charge of energy policy, and retired just over fifteen years
ago. What
is fascinating about this book – and it is the first autobiography
I have seen by a former senior British figure from the European
Institutions – is the overwhelming sense of commitment to
European integration that motivated the author from the very start
of his career, long before the Common Market or EEC was set up.
A schoolboy during the war, he served in the Royal Artillery from
1944 and was a young officer in Egypt, Palestine and Greece. This
early experience in the aftermath of World War II, and the long
shadow of the First World War which hung over his generation, drove
him to search actively - through a career in the British diplomatic
service in Germany, at the Council of Europe, in Washington and
later in Brussels - for peaceful solutions to the problems that
had cost previous generations and his own so much. Friends
will appreciate the nature of the faith revealed through these pages
by someone who acknowledges a “strong Christian tradition”
inculcated through family and school, but admits to being no more
than “basically” Church of England. But the professional
life, as revealed in these pages with an attractive mixture of literal
description, modesty and understatement, argues a powerful commitment
through works. The book is well worth reading to see how the development
of the European Union struck someone of that generation who was
also in a position to leave his mark on it Martyn
Bond Return
to contents Back
to the main Around Europe page |
