In our insecure democracies, most politicians are prepared to do anything to gain or stay in power. For them in the same way that an anvil is utterly useless to an aviator: ideas, projects, values or programs are of little importance. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect that they will take any position, provided that this does bring them fifteen minutes of fame or one point in the popularity poll. Never before has there been such an absence of a long-term vision, ethics and courage. Populism has never been more pervasive, including in parties which claim to be opposed to those who adhere to the principles of populism.
Especially at this time when being popular with the people, while despising them at the same time, leads to accepting anything from the people themselves. Virtually no politician will resist the temptation, for fear of entering into a game of one-upmanship against a more demagogic opponent, from strong public opinion pressure that a matter be put to a vote, in particular, to hold a referendum in relation to this issue.
It must be acknowledged, however, that some subjects cannot be put up for auction. For example, can we allow the reinstatement of the death penalty to be submitted to the popular vote? What about the elimination of women’s suffrage? Calling into question the republican character of the State? French as the official language of our country? Or the right to hold referendums? Obviously, the answer is no. It is, therefore, clear that not all issues can be put before the people because some reforms are irreversible steps forward made by civilization and may not be jeopardized again by one generation at the expense of future generations.
On the European continent, there is is a key question that, if it were put to a referendum and were to take a majority of the popular vote, would trigger the destruction of the European Union. The EU is clearly a considerable achievement and should not be taken away from future generations. The question that would decide our destiny more than any other is as follows: « Do you wish to see your country leave the euro? » This question is one that is crucial: if put before the people of a major Member State of the EU next month or next year, the answer will be yes, being the result of current moods.
Experience shows that in a referendum, it is not the question formulated that is given an answer but rather a way to give one’s opinion on the person who decides to solicit citizens’ views. As I see it, there is no doubt that if the wall is breached, the euro will not survive and will fail soon, and with it seventy years of the construction of a peaceful continent —without precedent in the history of Europe. For example, the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ vote during the French referendum on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in 2005, and the Brexit vote in 2016, could only lead to disillusionment. As it turned out in the first case, and will be demonstrated in the second, a parliamentary debate would have been as democratic and far more constructive.
For my part, I will assess the numerous candidates in the many primaries and those in the next Presidential election, based on their answer to this simple question, that all those who matter outside Europe are asking (themselves) today: “Are you in favor of a referendum for the continued participation of your country in the Eurozone?” In other words, my contention is that—even if this is not politically correct—anyone who answers yes is unworthy of the task of Presidential leadership, because he is incapable of thinking about the future of the country, for he is too obsessed by personal interest. In fact, in politics being more concerned for one’s country than one’s own self-interest is the only question that really matters.