Select group of euro-elites use double standards with impunity

THE former British minister for Europe, Denis MacShane, tells a good story from one of those negotiating sessions in Brussels where European leaders advanced, bit by bit, the creation of the new Europe.

"I am helping myself to a ham sandwich and chatting to Germany's foreign minister, Joschka Fischer. Suddenly, a figure rushes up. 'Quick, quick, I need something to eat and a drink.' It is Jacques Chirac. He looks eagerly at the ham baguettes on the German's plate.

But Fischer says: 'You're not having mine.' I step forward and say he can have my untouched food. 'Merci, merci, l'Angleterre,' he says, and grabs a glass of beer to loop back into the meeting."

This week, Chirac has abandoned the solid food and is on a political drip. Or, at least, he should be. France's rejection of the EU Constitution is due in no small measure to French dissatisfaction with him. But French presidents do not see themselves as accountable when things go wrong.

Chirac has already invoked his presidential immunity to parry allegations of graft, cronyism and corruption in his past.

He will now disown the blame for France's referendum debacle. Just as a smaller man had to give up his sandwich to his insatiable hunger, a lesser political figure, French prime minister Jean Pierre Raffarin yesterday fell on his sword in satisfaction for Chirac's humiliation.

The sandwich story says a lot about Chirac. But it is perhaps symbolic of a wider arrogance to be found among that elite group who determine the direction of the EU.

Take, for example, last week's threat by Czech prime minister Jiri Paroubek to ban his own president, Vaclav Klaus, from travelling abroad unless he dropped his opposition to the EU Constitution.

Klaus is perhaps unique among EU leaders and heads of state in vocalising his opposition to the new constitution. Last October he refused to go to Rome to sign the treaty establishing it. The Czech government had to send its prime minister instead.

The prime minister takes the view that as president and "part of the state's executive power", Klaus should "cool his stance".

Klaus disputes this interpretation of the Czech constitution. And he says that the prime minister should not have gone to France to campaign for a Yes vote because this was against the traditional norms of democratic behaviour between states.

The Czech squabble hints at a worrying double standard when it comes to European integration. If you are against the process, those are your own personal views and you don't use your position to express them. If you're in favour of EU integration, however, you may use whatever publicly-funded pulpit is available.

Hence Charlie McCreevy's announcement some months ago that, as an EU commissioner, he would be campaigning for the new constitution instead of waiting to see what European electorates and parliaments would decide.

Nothing illustrates this double standard like the business of staging second referendums when the people give the 'wrong' answer first time around.

Remember how, after the first Nice referendum, Bertie Ahern went to the Gothenburg summit and reassured his EU colleagues that the process was still on track, that Ireland would come up trumps in the end, and that they should go ahead and ratify the Nice Treaty in their own countries?

So far, the French are being coy about whether they will do this. It is up to Chirac. He must decide whether to listen to his own people or to the other members of the exclusive club of EU heads of state. British EU commissioner Peter Mandelson has already suggested the French might run the referendum again.

Reading between the lines, we know Chirac would like to. After Sunday's defeat, he contacted his fellow EU leaders to reassure them of France's commitment to European integration. That seems a strange thing to do, so soon after the people have spoken.

It is only strange, though, if the people's view actually matters. And there is no real evidence of that. The EU's most important player, Germany, has ratified the constitutional treaty with ease, by avoiding putting it before the people at all.

There is, at least, an argument for not holding a referendum. Politicians can say they are appointed by the people to make decisions even huge ones like transferring sovereignty to a new state and the people can always make their feelings felt at the next election by changing the government.

(Or the 'provincial government', as it might be more correctly termed after the new EU Constitution is ratified.)

Far more troubling is this idea of holding second referendums. Since the people have made their views known, shouldn't they be heeded?

Those who think not can argue that Ireland backed Nice the second time, and the Danes backed the Maastricht Treaty after an initial refusal. Thus electorates may say 'no', but they don't necessarily mean it.

It may be a way of getting more leverage in future negotiations or getting further concessions immediately as happened in the Danish case.

Or the first 'no' could be a mere protest vote, a matter of honour a 'mere escutcheon' as Falstaff says something to be overcome the second time with barely a concession, as in Ireland's case after Nice.

There is some weight to that argument.

Certainly, the French result last Sunday wasn't simply a vote against a new constitution which would bring about further European integration. It wasn't just a vote against Chirac, a vote against high unemployment, or a vote against interference from EU regulations.

There were votes by all sorts of mad people in favour of all sorts of mad things. It was a vote against the free market by ageing communists who still see Stalin as a hero.

It was a vote against the French republic by people who think France should have the monarchy back. Don't forget, this is the country which gave Jean-Marie Le Pen 18% of the vote in the last presidential election.

The trouble is, that's the way things go in a democracy. You have to put up with it. Each time you ignore the people's verdict, you don't just trample on their rights. You infantilise them further. You train them to expect not to be listened to but to accept governance by elites who know better.

You prepare the ground for low turnout in future elections, and large manifestations of discontent among minorities who feel they have no legitimate voice.

That's why it's disconcerting to hear Luxembourg prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker, whose country holds the presidency of the EU, urging all the other EU member states to go ahead and ratify.

Despite France's 'no' vote and despite the fact that the Dutch may deliver an even more resounding 'no' vote today, it would appear that Freddie Mercury got it right. For the euro-elites, "nothing really matters". Except getting their new constitution through, that is. That justifies every cavalier dismissal of the democratic process.

There is one chink of light for the eurosceptics and, ironically, it is Gallic pride. France is not like Ireland or Denmark.

It is, in its own eyes, 'un pays sérieux', a serious country. The same heightened sense of dignity which saw Jacques Chirac snaffle another man's sandwiches might well cause the French to balk at going back on their word, once uttered. For once, 'no' might very well mean 'no'.