The Asterix complex..

That’s what a rather good piece in this week’s TIME magazine, on the French campaign re the EU constitutional vote this Sunday, called that aspect of French psychology which projects a self-image of a small, proud, gallant, quarrelsome and , besieged people fighting with their wits against a big, sophisticated but trickable enemy. (Piece not available online) That deft little bon mot very much resonated with me, as someone who is both an insider–from origin–and outsider–because I live in Australia now–to France. It expresses very well the often frustrating–to foreigners–contradictions in the French character, as well as chiming with French self-image. What to foreigners often looks like rudeness, arrogance, self-centredness and grandiloquence, is, in France, regarded as ‘l’esprit gaulois’, going right back to those actual (not cartoon!) Gauls whom every French child, regardless of ethnic origin, is taught to regard as their direct ancestors. France, a highly self-confident nation sure of its civilising mission in the world (no prizes for guessing who, despite appearances, it closely ressembles in this) is, however, at the moment not at all a happy nation, and in fact could be in a state of what you might call national depression, popularised in the press as ‘la Sinistrose’. There’s many reasons for the attack of sinistrose, chief among them the leaden weight of the Government, led by the discredited Chirac, who is perceived as hanging grimly on to power because he doesn’t want to be indicted for corruption(you can’t impeach a serving President, in France). Then there’s high unemployment, a sense that creativity and dynamism are lacking in French business, science and culture, fury about rising prices, blamed by many on the euro, and general anger about a great many social problems. Now there’s yet another thing to stress about–or rather, the return of a traditional stress factor: and that’s Britain.

It’s back to the future, and the traditional sense of grievance, a feeling that Britain has somehow trumped the French in every way, socially, economically, politically, culturally, internationally. In the earlier, halycon days of the EU, that feeling had been put on hold for a while, as France, leading motor of the Union, could look across the Channel and feel pleasantly superior to Britain in just about every way that counted, but especially quality of life. Even after Britain joined, France could still comfortably bask in its pretension of being Numero Un, at least for a while. When Britain refused to join the euro zone, many people in France were delighted, hoping the Brits would be taught a lesson they wouldn’t forget in a hurry.
Lots of people in France now, furious beyond measure that their Government ‘deluded’ them into voting Oui for the euro, are now prepared to give them a stinging slap. They are also expressing schizophrenic attitudes towards Britain, saying in the same breath that ‘we should take a leaf out of Britain’s book’ and equally expressing huge suspicion of Britain’s future role in a constitution-bound EU. Will the treaty make the ‘Anglo-Saxons’ and their ‘minions’ (the ‘new’ or eastern Europeans) more powerful? Or will rejecting it do so? Caught between two irreconciliable paradoxes, retreating behind barricades of Gallic bluster, pride and cut-off-your-nose-to-spite your face, the Asterix nation desperately tries to think of ways of outwitting its foes whilst not being sure exactly who they are. The Chirac Government’s desperate pleas and avalanche of ham-fisted, highhanded ‘Yes’ exhortations and lack of trust of its own toey population (there is practically no time given to the No case, and masses of info for the Yes case) look almost calculated to help push along the Nos. In vain do they trumpet the idea that in fact the treaty will give France much more power in the EU than it currently has; very few believe them. The French are fed up. They are bursting with the need to sally forth and really kick some Roman really hard where it hurts. Whether it will ping back to hurt them as well, or whether it’ll all end happily with a good banquet and sing-song is another matter.

(By the way, on a personal note: as a French national, I’m entitled to vote but as I can’t get down to Sydney(there is no provision for postal votes in this referendum, you have to vote at the Consulate in person), I can’t. But I’m fairly sure I’d vote No–not, I think–or hope!–because of an Asterix complex, but because I think that the EU as a political entity operating as one entity, under this constitution, is an unrealisable concept. This is a continent that has no shared language, for a start, and its shared history is, shall we say, rather dodgy. It seems to me to be also flying in the face of more recent history, which is for big supra-national entities to break up rather than form. It would be a mess. The EU is a great idea, but this mammoth avatar is not. Reading the huge treaty document, it’s hard to avoid the image of some enormous, useless, expensive Gulliver pinned down by millions of threads).

This entry was posted in Politics - international. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The Asterix complex..

  1. Thx for the post Sophie. Very interesting as usual.

    I have very little close up knowledge of the EU, but I’ve always watched on in a kind of fascinated disbelief as they seem to carry the adventure further and further. The Euro is an amazing experiment n’est pas? It might work out well, but there was little strong reason for it in economics. (That is its quite unlikely that the European area – sans most of Britain – is an ‘optimal currency area’ according to what I’ve read on it.)

    A huge upheaval for a pretty speculative outcome. Seems strange to me. Meanwhile the English have done well staying out (well falling out!) of the precursor to the euro.

    People say that all this integration is the Europeans’ way of avoiding the next world war – though I would have thought the Common Market might have been enough to achieve that. But if they really want to avoid the next war between themselves, shouldn’t they work towards a common European Military Force before a common currency. (A naive comment no doubt!)

  2. Jim Steel says:

    Yeah, its interesting about the referendum. As you say, there is so much more press for the Yes in the press, but walking through the streets there are a lot more posters for the No. I’m glad that you’ve read the document – I’ve been surprised by the debate I’ve seen and the discussions I’ve had that so little of the talking points are about the constitution itself or the merits of having one in any form. The issues being discussed are about larger economic trends, which I personally don’t see being effected that much by this vote.

    As a side note, the funniest moment in the debate thus far remains without doubt the lame duck Jean-Pierre Raffarin trying to campaign in English for the Yes: “To win, ze yes, needs ze no, to win, against ze no”. Les Guignols, the puppet satire show here, went to town.

  3. If the referendum isn’t carried, it won’t mean either French withdrawal from the EU or the end of the EU. All existing treaties remain in force. It’ll just mean that the EU will have to go back and draft another constitution – which is not a bad thing, as most people recognise that the current proposal is not a good one. Ironically, the head of the commission which drafted it was the former French President Valery Giscard D’Estaing.

  4. On Nicholas’ point, there are two things working against a common defence force (a permanent EU force is on the agenda at the moment):

    (a) The extreme difficulty that EU nations had in agreeing to a common approach on either Bosnia/Kosovo or the Iraq War – a common defence policy presupposes a common foreign policy;

    (b) The fact that like the Australian Army, there is pressure on various NATO militaries to maintain force capability with the US military. Hence strategic and capability decisions are made to mesh in with the yanks rather than to have compatibility with other EU nations.

    The Americans are vehemently opposed to a common EU defence force or foreign policy. You can see why. Hence Rumsfeld’s divide and conquer diplomacy with “Old” and “New” Europe.

  5. Nabakov says:

    You forgot Getafix and his magic potion, Soph.

    I think the EU is evolving into a much stranger, more subtle and whackier beast than even its shapers grasp.

    No countries with MacDonalds ever went to war with eachother. Well the cockpit of Europe, the Balkans, just proved that wrong over the past decade. However, will be interesting to see if any countries competing against eachother in the Eurovision Song Contest go to war with eachother in the future.

    Things are changing all over the world in ways that have no historical precendent.

    However I’m sure there will always be a few menhirs about the place.

  6. John Morhall says:

    Thanks for your post Sophie. It’s interesting that Anglo French relations have survived about 1500 years of war and peace, and still the tension remains. At least during the past two hundred years they have been more at peace than war.

    There are some linkages like Airobus which have enabled co-operation, and amazingly perhaps the Channel Tunnel exports cultural influences – the Poms send their soccer supporters, and bring back French wine.

    I was disappointed that my first reaction to l’esprit Gaulois was to think of cigarettes and Sarte. I am fortunately cured from both!

  7. Tim says:

    The EU is a cruel illusion for utopians – all you have to do is watch the World Cup to understand it will never work.

  8. Brian H says:

    What is “toey”?

    The 511-page monstrosity needs massive surgery. I wonder if Mark II will just be more of the same, or actually a statement of principles and priorities instead of a massive exercise in log-rolling.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *