Life after the No vote

The negative French and Dutch vote on the European Constitution is now history, though its will be long lasting.

Sixty-three per cent of the Dutch voted No in the referendum. They did not include Cardinal Adrianus Simonis, head of the Catholic Church in the Netherlands. He told The Times that he had voted Yes. Apart from the fact that such a high Church leader does not find it difficult to declare his vote, one notes in this instance another example of the continuous Church support for the European project.

Three days before the Dutch it was the French who had said No. This is very strange because the process for the compilation of the Constitution was dominated by the French, whose positions - in tandem with the Germans - won the day over and over again during the preparatory period.

The Constitution was to have mapped out the European Union's institutional direction for the next 50 years if ratified by parliaments and electorates by the end of 2006. The vote appeared to defy Church recommendations, including a May 20 joint statement by the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community and Conference of European Churches, which welcomed the Constitution's "definition of European values".

It is very clear that there is life after the No vote and the Church is not ready to sit on the fence in the meantime.

Mgr Noel Treanor, secretary-general of the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community, called for "discernment on the part of both politicians and citizens", in a statement released on June 3.

Mgr Treanor continued: "The constitutional treaty is the product of a creative effort on the part of European and national political representatives, civil servants, constitutional specialists and representatives of the numerous components of European civil society.

"Its achievement as a compromise between 25 member states still stands. It will remain an essential source for the further evolution of the European project.

"All citizens of Europe, Christian citizens in particular, must re-energise their appreciation of the political and societal importance of the European project and of its achievements so far. Today the European project remains as vital for promoting peace, achieving economic growth, and assuring social cohesion and inclusion as it was 50 years ago."

Following the No vote, Mgr Aldo Giordano, secretary-general of the Council of European Bishops Conferences, called for "appropriate conclusions" to be drawn from the May 29 vote, which is widely believed to signal a crisis for the EU. He told Vatican Radio that the referendum results had come as a "cultural and political shock", adding that the French decision would have "consequences for the process of European integration".

Two days after the French No the general secretaries of the 30 European bishops' conferences published a statement after their May 26-30 annual meeting at St Gallen, Switzerland. They said that the church had had "many positive experiences of dialogue and co-operation" with the EU.

They continued that "in the light of the results of the French referendum and the consequences a No vote could have on the unification process, it seems urgent for the Church to commit itself to a phase of deepening the vision of European unification.

"A perceived lack of landmarks and foundations, the erosion of values and ethical standards, the spread of ambiguous and sectarian religious practices, anti-Semitism and a growth in new forms of poverty are disorienting and a cause for concern regarding the future of Europe. It seems that some basic economic and sociopolitical trends are contributing to a new anthropology that is not in tune with Christian values," they said.

However, they said Church leaders also "painted a picture of uncertainties and worries" that had underlined the need "to take modern culture and secularisation seriously" and said they believed a combination of "innovation and tradition" was "the only way to deal with strong de-Christianising tendencies in Europe".

It is positive to note that the Maltese political establishment reacted in a very mature way to these two negative instances in France and the Netherlands. Our main political leaders showed how we Maltese have to shoulder our responsibility and take a position instead of hiding behind the French or Dutch No.

One hopes that even the Church in Malta will take a pro-active position like the general secretaries of the Episcopal Conferences of European Bishops already did.