Search
-->

1 of the vote in 1999 with Charles Pasqua

The lack of interest in the current European campaign, compounded by media coverage which internalizes the excess the indifference of the opinion, is also explained by the appeasement of the debate on Europe. The time is more where the future of European construction was, in France, vigorous pugilats. The passions that had shaken the public debate at the time of the referendum of the Maastricht Treaty (1992) and then the Treaty European constitutional (2005) are many spin-offs. The rugged battles between federalists and sovereigntists are no longer a distant memory.

The appeal of white Chevenement to vote Jean-Pierre or no in the June 7 poll is the most striking sign of this development. The European left the most stubborn and the most well-reasoned construction criticism is totally absent of electoral competition. His small party, the citizen and Republican Movement (MRC), did not have the means to engage alone in the battle as he did, without much success (2.5 of the vote) in 1994. He has not managed to agree with the Socialist Party or with the left Front. By his act of spite, Chevenement endorses the isolation of its approach.

The right leadership is better represented as it aligns two lists, those of Philippe de Villiers and Nicolas Dupont-Aignan. But this current appears in net loss of speed from his influence in recent decades. In 1994, Villiers had received 12.3 of the vote. A score that had even increased to 13.1 of the vote in 1999 with Charles Pasqua. Five years ago, the sovereignist Vendée had registered a more modest result with only 6.7 of the votes. Polls do even not guarantee it, this year, find a such score. They credit the that 5-6 of the vote while Villiers has partnered with hunting, fishing, nature and traditions (CPNT) which received 1.7 of the vote in 2004. A group in itself indicative of a certain weakness. As the Gaullist lists of standing the Republic, they are promised to a very marginal score (from 0.5 to 2).

At the other end of the debate, the federalists are hardly visible. It is now with the greatest caution that some candidates argued for a continuation of European integration. On this plan, Europe-Ecologie list are on the edge when they advocated a government economic and social of the euro area. But their "ecologist for Europe contract" carefully avoids any reference to federalism.

The néocentrisme of François Bayrou is also in retreat from the traditional pro-European spirit of Christian democracy. From extol the merits of a federal Europe, the leader of the Modem explains today that Europe must "support identities." In the PS, the need to reconcile the former supporters of the Yes and no in the referendum of 2005 requires cautious formulations on the future of the Union. The Socialists point, in their program, "a period of doubt towards Europe" which is not the savings themselves.

The Republican right is also forced to consider a range of sensitivities on the European question. The UMP cleverly chose to focus his campaign on a voluntarism that is beautiful to national initiatives. "When Europe, Europe can": this illustrated a portrait of Nicolas Sarkozy slogan strives to take advantage of a presidency where the French President is illustrated by his activism. One searches in vain in the programme of the presidential party of supranational flights which, moreover, were never taste of the current head of State.

The attitude of the French Europe is finally enough in phase with the turn taken the European debate. The hostility towards him is very minority: only 21 of the French have a "negative image" of the European Union (1). But the enthusiasm is not more to the appointment. Not more than 46 of our fellow citizens have a "positive" of Europe. Eurobarometer still tells us that too many are the French who "trust" (46) and "no confidence" (45) to the European Union as an institution. It is here more popular than the French Government (31 confidence) but less than local (62). Europe now has more to apprehend distracted indifference as the fierce hostility.