I am very pleased to be in Britain today because it is a proud land which has shown in the past how hard it could fight to defend its independence. For a neo-Gaullist in particular, coming to London is always a great honour.

I would like today only to ask three questions and try to give three answers:

Is this Constitution supranational?

Is it good for Europe and the countries of Europe?

Is there another solution to propose to the peoples of Europe?

The first question, I will sum up the arguments. Beyond the appearance and the deliberate will to make this draft look weak and trivial in order to ease its ratification, it appears to me to be a considerable step towards a single European State for three reasons: first integrating the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the body of the text (Article seven), gives an exorbitant power to the European Court of Justice; second this Constitutional architecture foreshadows the one of a Federal State, and the most important I think is that the Council of Ministers loses its role of representing the States because of the extension of qualified majority voting which will turn it into a sort of second chamber. The generalised use of qualified majority voting changes the very nature of the Council. Third, this federal state which refuses to say its name has a very extensive conception of its role.

If we play down the Constitution's significance, we lie to our people, and when we lie to our people we cannot be elected - morally it is impossible. And their reaction, when they see that they have been deceived, will be furious. We are preparing now troubles in 10, 20, 30, 50 years in our different countries.

In answer to my first question we agree, this Constitution is federal. The federalists say it is a federal Constitution.

The second question is simple: do we need a federal state to strengthen Europe? No, it will weaken the States of Europe.

What is behind this Constitution is federalism: an ideology stuck in the politics and psychology of the immediate post-war period. It has advanced itself by stealth, setting the elites against the peoples. It has thus endangered the European idea itself.

French "Europeanism", born of degenerated idealism, comprises three main mistakes:

1. The first mistake is a belief in a European identity which is constantly referred to but which doesn't exist. As long as each nation has its own history, its own language, its own vision of its future, the emergence of a European superstate is very unlikely. Yet such an identity is essential to a continent-wide democracy. So the plan seems to be to destroy national democracies but without creating one on the scale of the Union. Because this democracy, European democracy, cannot exist - is there a European party? No - a European language? No - a European identity? No. We share some values; we share an idea of freedom; we share capitalism but we are not a unique country. The Universal Suffrage will remain in our countries, but as an empty shell, leading the way for desperate violent reactions.
   
2. The second misconception, is the idea that "nation means war". Have they not grasped that European nations don't want to fight any more? They are now way too rich, too old, too educated and far too accustomed to working together to get involved in 1914-style slaughter. On the contrary, it is precisely the frustration that will arise if people are forced to comply with decisions imposed from abroad that will provoke a nationalist backlash.
   
3. The last mistake is the belief that unity always creates strength. Even when those strengths are working in different or even opposite directions. It doesn't take long to defeat this argument; the crisis in Iraq revealed the emptiness of a single foreign policy. The Euro, European currency, shows that you cannot build a currency on different economies - and you are lucky not to have the Euro.

May I have five minutes to describe the French situation; it is very difficult to speak about one’s own country when abroad because your country, wrong or not, is your country.

Since General de Gaulle left the Elysée in 1969. Since Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's presidency, French élites have been obsessed by a sort of libertarian and anti-national conception of modernity. Today this idea leads France to accept that its budgetary policy, for instance, should be dictated by other countries or by a Commission which has never been elected. Can we accept to see our law decided by a majority against our Parliament - a problem we will have in all the countries if the Constitution is adopted?

To such a class (the French political class) the single currency and the necessity of the loss of national sovereignty is a very comfortable excuse for weak leaders to escape from their responsibility.

The French are taking every opportunity to take revenge on their politicians. This is the main explanation of the incredible results of the first round of the presidential election of April 2002 which brought Jean Marie Le Pen to the second round against Jacques Chirac. I want to underline here that the French people have not suddenly become far Right. No, their vote for the National Front expresses revolt and desperation against a society which becomes harder for the weak, easier for the strong; against a political system which offers no real electoral choice. The main parties know this but they refuse to change anything. That's why there is a real danger that our leaders will deny us a referendum on the Constitution. Because I am sure that with Philippe de Villiers, William Abitbol and many leaders in France we will win the referendum this time - the No vote will win

If so, they would be making a terrible mistake. Not only would they be carrying out a coup against the people, but they would be giving the voters reason to vote for Le Pen. If there is one reason why I stand before you today, it is that I refuse to accept that France must choose between the National Front and national decline. Indeed, the National Front would itself bring further decline. We cannot allow the far Right in our country to monopolise the idea of the nation-state, the democracy. The traditional Gaullist concept must remain alive within the mainstream republican conservative parties. I have to tell you that I often feel pretty lonely at meetings of my political party but I feel among friends when I go out among the French people, who do not change and who are independent people like the British.

To conclude, I think that French people want Europe but another Europe, completely different from the one they are building. The answer to the third question is very simple. We have the responsibility in France, in Great Britain and in the other countries in Europe not only to say No to the Europe they are building but to present another Europe to the people. We will win if we manage to explain that the modern people is us. They have built a very old Europe which is an empire and the empire always failed in European history. So we have to work hard to explain to the young generation that the true Europe, the Europe of freedom, of democracy is a Europe which is founded on democratic nations which accept to work together on flexible
co-operation around clearly identified projects. That way, I think, we will convince our peoples that they are facing a very difficult choice but if we do not succeed together with you in Britain to overturn this development I think we will have great trouble in our countries.

Thank you.

*************