Fear and hope” “

UNITED KINGDOM. “The European Union will continue to function without the Constitution, as it has always done up till now”, says Julie Smith, professor of international policy at the University of Cambridge and assistant director of the Centre of International Studies, following the French rejection of the European Constitutional Treaty. Interviewed by SIR, Julie Smith said she was convinced that “the result will permit a time for reflection”. In particular, now that the United Kingdom is called to assume the Presidency of the European Union from 1st July, “the Blair Government will be able to manage this opportunity. Given that there are many European leaders unpopular with their own citizens, this could be the right time to insert the question in the agenda of Britain’s six month’s Presidency”. “I don’t think – continues Smith – that the failure of the Constitution, assuming it’s true, is necessarily a bad thing. It could in fact serve to re-open a genuine and profound debate among the citizens of Europe”. SPAIN. “A worrying result” but one that re-opens the door to reflection on the cultural and Christian roots of Europe”, says Consuelo León, researcher at the International Centre of Work and the Family at the LESE School of Business in Barcelona, in a comment to SIR. In the view of León, who collaborates with the “Raval Solidari” social promotion agency in Barcelona, “the French rejection of the Constitution demonstrates that public opinion and the government are poles apart”. “The ‘no’ vote – he says – is the result of economic dissatisfaction, fear of Turkey’s accession and the strong competition posed by enlargement to Eastern Europe, not to mention disaffection with the monetary union”. Nonetheless, he concludes, “the negative vote of the French does not remove the need for Europe to remain united, because a strong economic, political and cultural union is the only way of withstanding competition with the great powers in the world and being a credible interlocutor. Now we will have to reflect anew on what it is that unites Europe. And that will be an occasion to re-open and analyse many other questions”. AUSTRIA. “Now that France has voted against [the Constitution] – says Paul Zulehner, theologian and dean of the Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Vienna, referring to the 55% of the French “no” to the European Constitutional Treaty – we are faced by the scenario of an utterly conflicting vote in the individual countries between the populations on the one hand and their rulers on the other. In substance, it is a step backwards, since Europe has been in large part re-nationalized”. “Moreover – adds Zulehner – the coalition of the supporters of the ‘no’ vote comprises social forces that together do not practice any constructive policy: from Communists to right-wing extremists, and including opponents of globalization”. The theologian, an expert in European issues, also points out that the decision to hold national referendums implies “that in some cases what is at stake is not the European project and its development, but a vote on their respective governments and hence on issues that have nothing to do with Europe. It would have been better to call European citizens to vote on the same day: in that case it would have been Europe itself that would have voted on its new Constitution”. Yet every cloud has a silver lining: “It may be – says Zulehner – that the slowing down of the process of unification may also bring advantages”, as “an occasion to harmonise still better the freedom, justice and peace of Europe and hence to allay the fears of many who fear losing something due to the process of unification. Nonetheless, in spite of the ‘no’ of France and possibly of other countries, the historically unique process of a united Europe will be taken forward. There are no alternatives”. CROATIA. “The French vote, even though many are trying to downplay its significance, does not leave doubts: something in the European common project is not working”. That’s the view of Father Zeljiko Tanjic, professor of fundamental theology at the University of Zagreb, in commenting on the French referendum. What’s not working? It is said that the French are worried about losing their jobs, maintaining their standard of life, that they fear the excessive free-trade spirit of the Constitution and the role of their country in Europe. But there are also those who maintain that this vote reveals a profound spiritual crisis that is afflicting not only France, but the whole of Europe”. “The common home – says don Tanjic – is not a mere question of political and economic treaties. To feel at home, you need something more that politics and the economy. Europe has tried first to organize its political and economic ‘affairs’ rather than ‘rediscover’ its soul, which is completely ignored by the Constitutional Treaty. It’s a mistaken approach”. “By not sufficiently working on this basis, present and alive in the work of the founding fathers, Europe – concludes Father Tanjic – risks losing itself once again in the blind alleys of nationalism and xenophobia. In this context, the Church seems to be one of the few ‘forces’ that in all countries is backing Europe, in spite of the lack of any explicit recognition of the Christian roots in the Treaty”. FRANCE. “The French used this opportunity to express their own hopes and their own fears. My only regret is that they did not do so before; this would have helped to allay at least a part of their fears”, said Pastor Jean-Arnold de Clermont, President of the Protestant Federation of France, in a statement commenting on the victory of the “no” votes in the referendum on the Constitutional Treaty for Europe. Now, he continued, “all the Churches are faced by a twofold responsibility”. “In Europe, and particularly in France, the social crisis is grave and for this “both government policy and European policy are equally to blame”. According to De Clermont, “they will only regain credibility by placing employment, social protection and solidarity at the centre of their project”. This is a need to which “the Churches must bear witness”. They must also – continues the statement – “ensure in a particular way that this vote, that expresses a profound social aspiration, be not confused with that of the extreme right, which is dictated on the contrary by exclusion, nationalism and xenophobia; attitudes incompatible with the message of the Churches”, which have always been “pluralist, open to debate and to the search for ways of mediation”. The Churches, concludes De Clermont, “have the duty to take the side of immigrants and asylum seekers”, and therefore for them Europe “must be perceived as a hope that is founded not on fear of others, but on the realistic sharing of life and on the will to go forward together”. ITALY. The Constitutional Treaty of the Union undoubtedly represents an “important and positive” development, even though “the text of the Treaty, and often the concrete policy of the member countries of the Union, do not appear sufficiently conscious of the Christian roots of Europe, the authentic humanism of which it is the bearer, or of the unity of intentions and capacity to open itself to the future that the developments underway in the world make ever more urgent and indispensable”. So said Cardinal Camillo Ruini to the 54th assembly of Italian bishops held in the Vatican from 30 to 31 May. “Only by this way” – he declared – can the unity of Europe be truly rooted in the heart of the populations”. The same concept was repeated by Monsignor Giuseppe Betori, general secretary of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, in the final press conference: “We need – he said – to beware lest Europe leads to a flattening of identities wherever this is unnecessary for the progress towards the common good”. “I don’t have any deep knowledge of the domestic French situation – he declared, in a personal capacity – but it seems to me that the national identity is jealously defended by the French. There are issues such as the family on which, one does not quite know why, there is so much legislation there, or why models born in some other country rather more towards the centre of Europe have to be exported a bit further south and east. We are fine as we are”. CCEE. There is an “inescapable and urgent” need for the Church to “commit itself to the deepening of the ‘vision’ of European unification”, in response to the “results of the French national referendum of 29 May” and the “consequences that the vote rejecting the Constitutional Treaty could have on the process of unification”. That’s the comment of the final communiqué of the meeting of the general secretaries of the CoUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN EPISCOPAL CONFERENCES (Ccee) which ended at St. Gallen (Switzerland) on 30 May. At the centre of reflection: the future of Europe and the role of the Church. “Only by the coupling of ‘innovation and tradition'” referred to the transmission of the faith “can we respond to the marked de-christianization that is underway in the continent”, observed the general secretaries. As regards the bioethical questions linked to scientific research on embryonal stem cells, “it is absolutely essential that the Church enters into dialogue with science, and contributes to a conscientious stance being taken by public opinion”. Another idea that emerged from the debate was that “of collaborating with the Commission of the Bishops’ Conference of the European Community (Comece) to establish a network of experts at the European level”. “The connecting thread that guides the life of the Ccee – said Msgr. Aldo Giordano, general secretary – is that of evangelization. The Commission is in fact called to “be a European space at the service of communion between the bishops, ecumenism and the meeting between Gospel and culture”. Schools, universities, politics, mass media, immigration, relations with the Moslem world and responsibility for the creation: these are the most important sectors for the Commission’s commitment. As for ecumenism, we need “to realize, in essence and without haste, the call to unity recalled by Benedict XVI last Sunday”, ends the communiqué.