The attempt to develop some sort of European Union in order to live in peace forever with our neighbors has been the greatest enterprise of my generation, the generation born before the war of 1939-1945.

     We have known Nazism, Communism, and their trails of horror.

     We have watched the killing of millions of people in absurd conflicts.

     Our parents have told us the horrors of the previous war, the War of 1914-1918. Every year, on the 11th of November, with most people of my village, we gather at the monument to the soldiers killed during that war. Their names are on the monument: they cover practically all the young men who would have been between 20 and 30 in 1918. And the same thing happened in all villages, in all towns, of France and Germany.

     Before that, there was not a single generation without a war between some of the nations that constituted Europe, wars the atrocities of which were always covered up by the governments involved.

     Now, for 60 years, there has not been a single war among our countries, and it seems almost impossible to imagine that there could be one during the life of any living person. Such is the main achievement of the European Union so far, and to say the truth, any argument for or against the Union looks derisory in the light of this achievement.

     We have followed two approaches more or less simultaneously : a liberal one, and a socialist one.

     Here is a glimpse of what has been achieved under the liberal heading :

• Freedom of movement of people, merchandise, and capital.
• Opening state monopolies to competition
• Fiscal competition between countries
• Increased protection of individual rights.
• Money management taken out from the governments.
• Victorious defense against communism

     And here is a glimpse of the principal socialist measures :

• European Community for Coal and Steel
• European Center for Nuclear Research
• Euratom
• Common Agricultural Policy
• European Commission for the Construction and Launching of Space Rockets
• Reallocation of Wealth (Subsidies to underdeveloped places).

     So, since the origin of the Union, a number of measures have been taken, some liberal, some socialist. The mixture of these two philosophies occurred for a very simple reason: each step of the European construction has been a compromise between liberal and socialist governments. Sometimes the positions of the former prevailed, sometimes those of the latter. The result is a reflection of each of the constituent countries: partly liberal, partly socialist. And it will always be that way.

     Of course, as a liberal, I resent the socialist measures. However to be truthful we must say that both were useful in the achievement of the very major objective that I have emphasized at the beginning: both have had the virtue of generating innumerable contacts between the leaders and between the citizens of the different countries. They have forced these leaders, these citizens, to work together on common goals, to appreciate each other, either in the common institutions, or in multinational activities, generating lasting friendships. Numerous marriages have been celebrated, and the children of these marriages are totally impervious to national antagonisms.

     The new treaty was not motivated by a new earthshaking idea such as, for example, the one that created a common currency. It was essentially triggered by a growing desire:

• to synthesize in a single, clear document, the 25 odd preceding treaties
• to correct some obvious sources of inefficiency such as the rotating presidency of the Council (the committee of the heads of State) every six months
• to give more power to the Parliament, leading to some rebalancing of the attributions of the Council, the Commission, and the Parliament
• to facilitate the expression of a common external policy.

     The task was given to a commission of some 105 people, made up of representatives from the member countries and the European institutions. They worked unexpectedly well, and came up with something quite reasonable in the light of the above objectives. And indeed, it was approved without much haggling by the 25 heads of State. It is now being submitted to the 25 nations through either their parliaments or through referenda. Twelve countries have already approved it, including one (Spain) by referendum. But as you all know, two (France and the Netherlands) have rejected it through referendum.

     It was unfortunate that this new treaty was given the name of "Constitution". Indeed, it had some features that belonged properly to a constitution, such as peoples' rights and the organization of powers within the alliance. But it had many other things, notably the summary of existing rules, or the description of auxiliary institutions such as the European bank, which are normally not included in a constitution. That in itself was the subject of endless and largely pointless discussions which obstructed more relevant discussions regarding the treaty.

• Those who thought that the constitution was too liberal
• Those who thought that it was too socialist
• Those who thought that it was too "federalist"