The Press : Editorial Writers Give French Mixed Reviews for Treaty Vote

The question was “Yes ? “ or “No ? “ but the answer was more like “Maybe” when French voters last week endorsed European unity by a tepid 51%. The results of the Maastricht Treaty referendum left the world’s newspapers fretting over the Continent’s future. A sampling:

“In France, like any democratic state, a small majority decrees, and there is no doubt that the minority will accept the decision and the unification process will continue. But it is close to certain that it (the vote) will take its toll: The process will be slowed, and the timetable for the stages of the execution will be lengthened.

“In most governments in the European Community, there is the sense that, from a public relations point of view, preparations for unification were a big failure: Neither the governments nor the EC institutions in Brussels succeeded in explaining to the European citizens the benefits that they would derive from unification as it is now and from plans to strengthen it. And this failure is not only a technical problem.

“The (currency) crisis on the eve of the vote directed attention to the basic economic problems from which most European states suffer and to the balance . . . between these nations and Germany. It is now clear that European monetary unification is not a quick fix, but the opposite. Treatment of these problems is essential before completing unification.”

--Eliyahu Salfetter, writing in Haaretz , Jerusalem

“The little French ‘yes’ has reassured Europe. It has avoided a shipwreck but has not calmed the waters in which Europe still navigates between political and monetary rocks. The sigh of relief . . . at the first announcement of a favorable result to Maastricht was justified. A second look at the thin majority of the ‘yes’ votes, however, has turned out to be insufficient. It became immediately clear that it was not sufficient to save the treaty. . . .

“The Paris appointment is also a demonstration of a Europe which runs on two speeds: France and Germany (and countries tied to the mark) and then some way behind the rest.”

-- La Repubblica , Rome

“It was a narrow shave for Maastricht and possibly the worst of all results. In theory, the closeness of (the) French referendum should soon be forgotten. One, after all, is enough--and the sanctified Danes didn’t manage much more than that. But, though Francois Mitterrand and almost all of the Western world chorus mopped brows and reached for their rhetoric . . . there are few winners from this miscalculated democratic exercise.

“President Mitterrand, perhaps, may hope that the reason for asking the question in the first place--the domestic disruption of his right-wing rivals--will still provide some succor. The Gaullists did, indeed, split most humiliatingly; there is, indeed, a chance that the president may now find European themes which will help him coexist with a suitably pro-Maastricht prime minister from the right when his own, bedraggled Socialists lose power. But these are narrow, self-serving gains compared with the damage that has been done.

“France, remember, likes truly to think of itself as the heart of the Community, the visionary guiding spirit. If France can do no better than this, if its three biggest political leaders can be brought so close to the wire of humiliation by a gaggle of communists, fascists and Gaullist patriots . . . where is the momentum that will see the treaty turned to deed?”

--Guardian , London

“The one thing Mr. Major has been determined to avoid since he became prime minister in November, 1990, is the development of a two-tier Europe, with Britain relegated to the fringes. This now seems likely to happen. The French have voted, by however small a margin, to maintain the Franco-German condominium over the European Community, while the tidal wave of market speculation over the past two weeks has washed away the more vulnerable countries, leaving an inner core of states with currencies strong enough to hold their parity against the mighty deutschemark in the Exchange Rate Mechanism.

“Humiliating this may be, but it is also a blessing in disguise. The economic prospects of those countries that remain in the putative inner core are far from enviable. . . . The inner core, therefore, faces the risk of severe and protracted recession.

“Britain is better off outside the deutschemark deflation zone. The task for (Chancellor of the Exchequer Norman) Lamont . . . is to draft a comprehensive economic strategy that allows us to take advantage of our new-found freedom outside the ERM.”

-- The Daily Telegraph , London

“The governments of countries that do not belong to Europe received with satisfaction the results of the French plebiscite. In the first place, the vote permitted the removal of the specter of a worsening exchange crisis; secondly, it allows the expectation that in the long run, there will be greater coordination in the economic policies of Europe, making it easier to extend that coordination to policies around the world.”

-- O Estado de Sao Paulo , Sao Paulo

“The European unification process . . . must go on. Despite growing doubts, three reasons speak for this process. First, in the summer months, it became clear that there are nationalist developments everywhere that are being stirred up by demagogues. Not every opponent to the Maastricht Treaty is a demagogue, but all demagogues in Germany and in other countries are opponents to the treaty. . . .

“Second, a relapse of Western Europe into the singularization of the nations is a bad omen for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. . . . If they are expected not to go down in the quagmire of nationalism, the European Community must be a supportive pillar. But it could not act as a pillar if it fell back into former times. As a consequence, we would have the ‘Yugoslavianization’ of Europe as a whole.

“And third, Europe’s chance to claim its position in the world of tomorrow is solely based on a closer European union. . . . “

--Die Zeit , Hamburg

“There are no reasons to renegotiate the Maastricht treaty. It is and will remain an important stage of the policy of unification. But it is right to think about the mistakes and shortcomings that have provoked the anti-Maastricht virus. A lot is to be done. . . .

“The hysterical attack on the EMS clearly shows the consequences of a lack of information. It almost sacrificed the unity of Europe to speculations. . . . But the successful defense of the franc shows that speculators will not have a chance if Bonn and Paris agree.”

-- General-Anzeiger , Bonn

“France appeared cut in half, and that’s disturbing. But this is also the case for Europe. The monetary crisis that is shaking the European Community demonstrates the emergence of a two-speed Europe. A hard core, composed of Germany, Benelux, France and, possibly tomorrow, Switzerland, is irresistibly separating itself. But the Maastricht Treaty tries explicitly to preserve a certain cohesion between the north and the south of the Community. The French yes to the referendum offers a chance, albeit thin, to limit the harmful evolution (to a two-speed Europe).

“But the size of the opposition also calls for a quick reaction by European and national leaders. (British Prime Minister) John Major will undoubtedly invite his partners to take another look at Maastricht in an emergency summit. And he will be right, lest the 12 start moving in reverse. The French population, which has always been predominantly favorable to the European idea, has confirmed the malaise engendered by Maastricht.”

-- Le Soir , Brussels

“If the result of the vote had been ‘non,’ it would have not only turned the Maastricht Treaty into a blank sheet of paper, but also would have accelerated the confusion of the Euro-currency market and the international economy. The EC Commission, which has been pushing the treaty, would have lost credibility. And each country in the EC would have suffered a considerable political impact at home.

“Therefore, the result of French national vote contains a positive note, but it doesn’t promise a bright future. . . .

“The head of each government of the countries in the EC and the EC Commission must incorporate (into their actions) the public opinion (shown by the vote) to the maximum extent. Now that it is known that nearly half the people oppose the treaty, it is desirable to handle the contents of the Maastricht Treaty flexibly.”

-- Mainichi Shimbun , Tokyo