Voters denounce the official campaign. No information, no fair debating

Sophie Pedder : un autre exemple de ces exercices de style exécutés en honneur du traité européen. Il s'agissait d'aller à la rencontre des votants et je n'étais pas peu fière d'avoir eu L'IDEE de faire un tour dans une librairie... Ce n'est pas tous les jours que la fée inspiration me gracie de visions!

Voters denounce the official campaign. No information, no fair debating

On this sunny Saturday afternoon, the bookshop “L’Ecume des pages”, located on Boulevard Saint-Germain in the 7th arrondissement of Paris, is swarming with customers. Not the last crowded is the political sciences department. People look for self-help books deciphering the European Constitution. Whether they vote “yes” or “no”, they are desperate for more information and very critical of the campaign led by the politicians.

Leonard, a 31 year-old 3D designer, who suffers from an intense Polish competition, plans to vote “no”. “I have been worried by relocations the Eastern enlargement. The constitution is too liberal. There has been no talk about a harmonisation of social rights”.

But there is another cause for his refusal: the bad strategy of the political elite. “Politicians play a huge part in this Euroscepticism. The “yes” camp keeps predicting the apocalypse if the “no vote” wins. It also says that a “no voter” is a simpleton who cannot understand what is at stake. This attitude is so condescending!”

He concludes “Don’t look for me to take the blame of a “no” victory. It’ll be their fault. Basically, the Constitution is not legible. Worse, they are unable to explain it. It really discourages you to be interested in this project”

A point of view shared by Chantal, 53. The civil servant is denouncing the weakness of public debate. “Politicians say anything and everything. Last night when Nicolas Sarkozy (president of the right party UMP in favour of the “yes”) and Henri Emmanuelli (one of the socialist advocate of the “no”) were on TV, they were not discussing, but delivering electoral ideological speeches. Neither of them bothered to quote any article from the text to base their arguments.”

This comforts her in her decision to vote “no” . For Chantal, the Constitution is obscure, illegitimate and undemocratic, a picture of what the European Union has become under the tutelage of the Commission. “It is the work of a bunch of technocrats who don’t have the nerves to write that Europe is based on Christian principles!”.

An opinion that followers of the “yes” find difficult to reverse. “I vote yes”, Sylvie says, “because I think the Constitution goes in the right direction, Europe’s one. But honestly I can’t justify it. I have no idea what the Constitution is about. This is why I came here. You can’t count on the official campaign to learn something! And it’s such a pity. It helps spreading amalgams like between the Bolkenstein directive, the government policy and the Constitution.”

Near her, Bernard, a fishmonger, has thought of a solution. This “yes” supporter - “because the Constitution mainly incorporates previous European treaties, it’s foolish to refuse what we accepted years ago. France badly needs a big European Union to be influential in a globalized world” - is convinced that an apolitical campaign, entrusted to the care of law and constitutional experts would do wonder.

“People want pedagogy, reliable and objective comments not another political dispute. If politicians get it and keep quiet before May 29th , there is still a small hope to see the “yes” wins the referendum “