If we want the European debate to get off the ground, which it failed to do throughout the recent round of public consultation, our starting point should be the real situation in France, Europe and the world in 2004, not some old prejudices dating from the 1960s.

1 – The construction of Europe began more than half a century ago. It was pursued during the Cold War, and has been pursued ever since, by means of new treaties at average intervals of three years, as the success of the Community in particular fields has opened up new areas of activity and its success in general has attracted more and more new applicant countries.

Almost twenty years have now passed since the Single European Act, signed in 1986, gave the European Parliament legislative powers. The French Council of State estimates that more than half of the new statutory provisions that enter into force each year stem from decisions made at the European level rather than purely national decisions. The Union has a budget of €100 billion, equivalent to almost 30% of the French budget. It has its own currency. It is the Union that represents us – which it has done for no less than 40 years – in the international negotiations with the greatest impact on our economy, namely those on trade in goods and services and those on the environment. It is even in the process of equipping itself with military capabilities, and its headquarters will shortly take over command of the peacekeeping forces in both Bosnia and Afghanistan from the Americans.

Europe has become the natural framework within which France conducts its economic, regional and environmental policies and the bulk of its activity in the field of foreign affairs. To dismiss all of this and pretend it is possible to ignore these fundamental realities is as appealing to diehard minorities as it is every bit as vain as the attitude of nostalgic Marxists who deny the realities of international economics.

2 – This European construction process has not been a campaign waged against the nation states; on the contrary, the present European Union is the glory of its component nations.

In the pursuit of the European project, France has found historical compensation for the loss of its status as a great global power. Germany has sought redemption in it for the crimes of the Nazi regime. By qualifying for monetary union, Spain wanted and managed to recapture its historical place in the top flight of European nations, while the countries of Eastern Europe feel that membership of the Union has opened the door to political and economic modernity. Europe has enabled Ireland, Portugal, Denmark and Greece to escape from their unequal and often perilous existence in the shadow of an overweening neighbour. For different reasons, Europe – or, more precisely, European integration – gives each Member State a historic opportunity to fulfil and even enshrine its own national ambitions.

In all of our countries today, the European project is one of the only major projects – and sometimes the only one – that can mobilise a nation, particularly its young people and its economic, social, scientific, academic, military and other elites.

3 – This brings me to a third observation, which is too often ignored by both the defenders of national sovereignty and the federalists, namely that nobody can build Europe alone. It is a team task or, to put it more aptly, a vast collective building site.

It goes without saying that a ‘different Europe’ is always possible. Every one of us can map out an ideal Europe on paper. The snag – or the advantage – is that the task entails formulating rules for living together, which means that the views of others must be taken into consideration. The credibility of the European project is measured first and foremost by its capacity to win hearts and minds, in France and in all or part of Europe; this is an extremely ambitious aim. The present treaties have many defects, but they are accepted by 25 European countries. The draft constitution still has scope for improvement, but it has attracted consensus support from almost all of the political parties in all countries involved in the European integration – the only notable exception being the British Conservatives. In no Member State is there a party or movement capable of proposing an alternative that could appeal to a majority in that country, let alone in Europe as a whole.

4 – Political Europe, in its present form in 2004, is very largely a French invention. No other country has contributed more than ours to either the initial blueprint or its subsequent development. Europe is to French politics what the Airbus is to the aviation industry: its most splendid triumph, achieved by pooling our own and our partners’ best assets in pursuit of a French idea.

This ‘made in France’ label, incidentally, also explains the British reservations, which are as old and persistent as the European project itself. Viewed from across the Channel, European integration has always had shades of a diabolical weapon invented by France to dominate the continent by non-military means. First the ECSC, the brainchild of Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman, then the Treaty of Rome, the faithful application of which was determined by General de Gaulle himself, as was its extension to agricultural policy in 1962, then the European Council created by Georges Pompidou and then Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, then the European monetary system devised by Giscard and Helmut Schmidt, then the single market invented by Jacques Delors, then the Schengen Agreement called for by François Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl and then monetary union, ratified by the people of France themselves.

As for the current draft constitution, it has been drawn up by a Convention masterfully chaired by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing. The Commission was represented on the Convention by Michel Barnier, the main contribution of the European Parliament was the Lamassoure report on the division of powers between the European Union and the Member States, and Hubert Haenel was the chief contributor to the key chapter on the European legal system, while the final text on the European institutions is almost a carbon copy of the joint proposal presented by Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder in January 2003. No need to look any further for the cause of the exasperation of Spanish leaders or the fulminations of the British tabloids (quotes from Le Figaro and Le Monde).

5 – The draft constitution will give the European Union the effectiveness and the democratic nature it still lacks.

The Union is not functioning well because it persists in applying the methods and procedures of the little six-member Common Market to the political union of Greater Europe. The draft constitution makes the following improvements:

- It specifies once and for all the respective powers of the Union and the Member States and entrusts national parliaments with the task of monitoring this division of powers. ‘Brussels’ will no longer be able to encroach on the rights of Member States. The symbol and supreme guarantee of the Member States’ rights is that the EU budget will be strictly limited to a ceiling set by a unanimous decision of the national governments (the current ceiling is 1% of GDP).

- It gives the Union its own leaders, who will be politically accountable to the people. European laws will have to be adopted by both the national governments, acting within the Council of Ministers, and by the representatives of the people in the European Parliament. The President of the Commission will be elected by Parliament on the day after the European elections, in other words by the citizens of Europe through their vote in the elections. The President will be ‘Mr Europe’ or ‘Ms Europe’. In addition, a French amendment has ensured that people will have the right to submit collective petitions as a means of appealing directly to Brussels.

The people of Europe, the major economic and social players, the Central Bank, which is responsible for the euro, and our international partners will thus have an interlocutor with the strength that comes from election by the representatives of 450 million European citizens.

- It safeguards national identity and sovereignty, including those of the French nation. Linguistic diversity and the ‘cultural exception’ feature in the draft constitution, as does the French vision of public services; every Member State will have the right of unconditional secession from the Union at any time. Governments will not be subordinated to the Union and will coordinate their policies within the European Council, which will have a permanent President, distinct from the President of the Commission.

- It gives the peoples themselves or their parliamentary representatives the right to decide on future accessions to the Union. Heads of government will no longer be able to decide alone on future applications for membership of the Union. A public debate will be necessary in every country, culminating in a parliamentary vote or a referendum.

This Union will disappoint both dyed-in-the-wool federalists and dogged defenders of national sovereignty. It will be neither a superstate nor a loose confederation. It will be a specialist joint subsidiary in which the role of the Member States will be akin to that of founding shareholders. It will be the international equivalent of associations of local authorities in conurbations. It is a Europe of nations but of nations united in Europe. In fact, a new vocabulary needs to be invented to describe this new political reality more precisely.

At the same time, for want of consensus among the 25 Member States on the highly sensitive issue of the foreign and defence policy, that component of the draft constitution remains incomplete. This is why France has recently taken new political initiatives in these domains.

6 – As for present French frailties, which some perceive as signs of decline, Europe is not the problem but one of the solutions.

National identity? No one has ever claimed that we were in danger of being overrun by German, Italian or Hispanic culture. In the face of American cultural hegemony, the unity of the fifteen EU Member States has enabled us to safeguard the cultural exception in global trade negotiations. Thanks to Europe, we are able to form a united front in defence of our diverse national cultures.

Immigration? The illegal immigrants who settle in France rarely pass through our neighbours’ territory but arrive direct by air (in 80% of cases) or by sea. Everyone acknowledges that the major problem of migratory pressure can only be dealt with effectively if it is tackled at a European level, if we provide ourselves with common instruments with which this phenomenon can be brought under full control.

Unemployment? External trade is the only engine of economic growth available to us when our internal engines of consumption and investment have stalled. At the same time, if unemployment is higher in France than in the Netherlands, Portugal or Ireland, there are clearly domestic causes which it falls to us ourselves as a nation to address.

The plain fact is that Europe cannot carry out, on our behalf, the reforms that we ourselves are reluctant to enact. Pensions, health insurance, the hospital system, administrative reform, local and regional governance, the education system, higher education, law and order in our cities and the integration of French people of foreign origin are major issues on which the future of the national community depends and which we alone are responsible for resolving. It is also self-evident that a weak France unable to solve its own problems could no longer aspire to drive Europe forward.

7 – The year 2004 will mark the reshaping of Europe. The ‘big bang’, when ten new Member States accede to the Union, the draft constitution, the Chirac-Schröder-Blair agreement on European defence policy and the Turkish candidature will compel all parties and all countries to spell out their vision of Europe in the 21st century, which can only enhance the European elections in June of this year.

Do we want Europe to be a global power or a free-trade area? Do we seek the coronation of the French vision or the triumph of the Anglo-Saxon vision, which is actively supported by the United States?

Choosing a powerful Europe means supporting a constitution, supporting a European defence capability and rejecting accession by Turkey and any other applicants outside the European continent.

Conversely, a rejection of the constitution or of a European defence capability or approval of Turkish accession would swing the project in the direction of a free-trade area.

As the heirs of the Gaullist, Christian Democrat and Liberal traditions and the melting-pot for the ideals of Charles de Gaulle and Jean Monnet, the UMP must clearly express its desire to see France and Europe embrace the new century.

Alain Lamassoure, 23 February 2004