Saturday Morning in Bédarieux (1)

I thought I might write a short story about my Saturday morning in Bédarieux. It is relevant to the Euro constitution. I forgot there was a demo Saturday, but happened to be in town to join up with the marching, well…. slowly walking, neighbors for the last fifteen minutes. I left before the speeches. There is a factory in town, called Paul Boyé. Second largest employer. They have been there for a century. They make clothes, originally leather and normal cloth, but now they do police uniforms, military uniforms, chemical, nuclear and biological protection uniforms and loads of less questionable garb. I have mixed feelings about what they make, but in the end, I recognize that closing the factory, leaving over 100 people unemployed in Bédarieux will have a huge effect on the town. So I went along on the march, as it happened to go by just as I went into town. Talked to a couple of neighbors who found it horrible, “pas normale” and were really worried. Paul Boyé was recently bought by Sagem, a huge company, who have found that it is cheaper to train up Moroccans or Tunisians, I forget which, to do the work. So they are moving operations there. Normal. Happening all over the rich world. “Delocalization”. The folks I talk to claim that is it is just not normale to do that. Even the boss, M. Boyé is not happy about it. But of course it is normal, and predictable. And mostly likely their struggle will be a loser. Still it felt good to be along on the march, and my local Attac branch has sent a message of support and several people in the group are quite supportive, especially our LCR guy.

But what was also interesting is that after the march, I went to chat with the cyclists, who were, as usual, in the same café, at the same time. But this time, instead of talking about cycling, as they always do, they were discussing politics. On account of the march that went by. They were aware of the Bolkestein Directive, and thought it was hideous. They were aware of what was happening at Paul Boyé, being local, and thought it was awful. They showed a remarkable understanding of how they were being done over by the ruling politicians and by globalization, none of them had a good word to say about Chirac, Hollande or any of the politicians. They were resentful that they pay more for less in the way of public services. They were critical of globalization and its effects. They know that it is cheaper to hire people from poor countries to work, and that that meant French people would lose their jobs. Three were retired, one was working. The guy working was really pissed off with his work, which is changing rapidly and he sees nothing good in it, especially since a huge corporation bought out the smaller local group he worked for. He regaled us with the tale of his first interview with the human resources director of the big firm.

But the real message of my two hours in Bédarieux was realizing the deep resentment, the serious sense of being ripped off, the bitterness even, of the feelings and experience of these four guys. They were passionate. How can they express this politically? Well, none of them are going to be altermondialistes in the next few weeks, although their arguments were pretty much along those lines. And the parties and party leaders have all betrayed them. My guess, the Euro constitution. They all know it is based on carrying on the penetration of market logic, commodity relations and the free and undistorted market model into their lives. They all know this is going to do them no good at all. None of them are poor, they can pay their bills. But they are the “normal French working class”. I would never have been in touch with this deep bitterness if I had not been a cycling buddy. So I say watch the vote on this constitution. “The people” are pissed off. And the only thing the French political system allows them to do is say NON. In spite of all the publicity, all the fear mongering, all the distortions, all the money backing the OUI, if the NON wins, then maybe, just maybe (I doubt it though), the ruling classes might re-think a bit. Ok I am a dreamer. OK, it will pass. But I tell you, I think there is something ready to erupt, although I have no idea in what form.

Saturday Morning in Bédarieux (2)

I was a bit flummoxed the other Saturday. The cyclists were talking about politics again when I rolled up to the café at the usual time. Davide had just left, and a couple of the others didn’t show up, as it was raining. We (residents in the South of France) really don’t know where to put ourselves when it rains around here. But we were outside the cafe again, pretending the weather was better than it was. It really was a bit cool to be outside. Anyway, one of the guys (the ex-primary school teacher) had bought a copy of Marianne, and the cover story was the “NON bombe” that has hit France in the last few weeks. This explosion of public opinion about the constitution is really upsetting the main ruling elite, who are all for the OUI.. In about three weeks the NON has gone from 42 percent or something like that up to 55 %. Polls can change, but nearly everyone agrees that this is very abnormal. The smart commentators recognize that it could change back just as fast, public opinion is often based on almost nothing. I, for example, am very critical about treating “public opinion” very seriously. The big guns are starting to get serious now and will try to get the NON vote to diminish and the OUI to augment. They are scared. I reckon they will succeed, and that the OUI will win out in the end. If they (most of the editorial staff of nearly every paper or journal, all the parties of the centre, well practically all the “powers that be”) fail to get a OUI vote, it will truly be a surprising event.

However in trying to cut into the NON vote, they are making some big mistakes. One thing the OUI are doing is saying the NON people are dummies, uninformed, not having read the constitution, misunderstanding nearly everything or just plain stupid. Both the cyclists agreed this was a big mistake. They were both NON, but they are not stupid, they are not ignorant, and frankly are insulted to be reduced to this. No one likes to be called stupid and ignorant, even if they are. They both admitted they might be wrong to vote for the NON. They both admitted to not having read the entire constitution, in fact not much of it at all. They both agreed they really didn’t know what would happen if the NON won, or even if the OUI won. They are modest guys, well aware of their limits in terms of reading a 4-500 page document in legal language. In fact, I agree with them. I have no idea what is going o happen either. And have not read the whole constitution. But we are in total agreement that the big bosses are being totally insulting, and are not going to win the campaign that way. We did mention the quick assembly of “big personalities” for the OUI that Jack Lang made a week or two ago. And we all had the same opinion of this gesture. Backfired! They were all pretty much comfortably off, middle class, famous people, and have little to do with the problems of daily life that we face. Parisian wankers they would be called if we were in England.

Today we also went into the nature of capitalism a bit, and about profit going to shareholders not workers, and how the whole thing was dishonest and how there are too many rich people. And how the phone companies, and “the whole thing” just slowly demoralizes you by ripping you off just a bit here and bit there. By the way, I am mostly listening here, its them that talk, fast. With heavy Midi accents. I try to get a word in, but the conversation is so passionate and so fast that I just can’t do it. I heard long stories about how the company portable, limited to 4 hours a month, is managed. And how hard it is to avoid spending money on communications. When you are on holiday or far away, maybe with the signal going through another country, and someone from work rings. You pay and they pay. And it’s a lot. You can’t get deals for these “unforeseen exceptions”, but you also can’t avoid them. You have to ring back. And all that can cost 10 or more euros. Millions of times each day, this is good money, and for nothing much. I was pretty impressed. These guys have not read that many books about capitalism (I asked, in a short break), but they know perfectly well that they are being diddled, bit by bit. One guy said why doesn’t your union at work deal with this. And we heard how the modern trade union is one that is paid for by the boss. The budget of the union some from the enterprise. Well…actually I think I was not so aware of this myself. These guys thought that the problems they were discussing had something to do with the constitution, but they had not read it so weren’t able to quote the exact article.

Anyway we also discussed how illogical it was to vote for the NON just because you are “fed up”. Obviously there is no real intellectual connection between being fed up in general with life, and voting NON. We all agreed. I didn’t tell them I thought there was a connection, and a perfectly logical one, because I agreed with their sentiment. It was not “logique” to vote no, merely because life was not what you wanted it to be. And then we all agreed that this was one of the biggest reasons why we were all voting NON. In fact, the very Marianne that one guy had showed that 22% of respondents gave this as one of their NON reasons. I suspect many more are embarrassed to admit it. We are just fed up with the prices going up, the rich getting richer, the profits being too vast, the modest being squeezed, the pressures to consume more stuff and have to earn more money, the untrustworthy politicians, the way the shareholders interest will take more and more priority over the social interest, how profitability is the criteria that matters, hard hared it is to just be happy with a modest lifestyle and a modest amount of work…and so forth.

Anyway, sorry to be late with this bulletin. It might be the last one anyway. This week, yesterday, there was only two guys there, and we didn’t talk about cycling. Although we did have a long diatribe about insurance companies and how they rip you off, and another on the problems of having tenants, from one of the guys running the property of his parents. Not much directly related to the constitution and the campaign for the OUI or NON. But the big guns are firing now. They have loads more money and power. I suspect if they don’t make a dent in the figures within a week or two, its going to be a disaster for the OUI.

Saturday Morning in Bédarieux (3)

Actually, this little story is about more than Saturday morning. And it is a bit longer than the first two snippets. I had a very busy week last week, and can’t hope to write it all up separately. Monday night I went to a yes meeting. Wednesday night it was the no meeting (Plus Attac on Tuesday night). What with Saturday morning at the café with the cyclists, I didn’t get around to writing anything until now. In addition there was much passionate talk at the market on Monday morning. The short story is that there are loads of people out here in the sticks, who are talking politics, if not always directly quoting a particular article of the constitution. At the moment, its really quite fascinating, politically, to live here. However, I have always claimed that the power relations in Europe will remain almost exactly as they now are, whatever happens with the vote.

The structure of the two referendum meetings was intriguing, for those who like fine details. The yes meeting had the head of the regional party, the head of the regional government, a couple of mayors, and a star from far away, Catherine Trautman, whom everyone knows apparently. She was a good speaker, but the other two party hacks were truly boring. They sat at a table in front facing the ranks, including a bus load of 50 Parti Socialiste members from Montpellier, who were the insurance against an empty looking room. It was full. No questions. No discussion. Never once a mention of any specific article. A flyer was distributed which was a fear story about waking up on 30 May with NON victorious. It was written by Bernard Poignant, Député, and President of the French Socialist Delegation to the European Parliament. One sample line, “The breakdown (la panne) is totale”. The same guy also puts in bold, “There is no socialist chief of government, no socialist party, no unions except the French ones, who have appealed for the NON”. If were French, I would not find that a persuasive argument. If I were French, and therefore entitled to act like a French person, then being told I was acting in a peculiar French way would not really be an argument. C’est normale. Apparently nearly everything will collapse if the NON wins. France will instantly lose its power and status in Europe and the world. Maybe become like, oh, Belgium or Greece. Maybe I will mention a few other arguments, as I saved the leaflet. OK, quick summary. What would the socialists do with this treaty approved. They would try to make a more democratic Europe, and more social Europe, and stronger Europe and a new step forward for Europe. They give mostly valid examples of how, compared to what we have now at the European level, there are “improvements” with this constitution. And there undoubtedly are. Eventually Europe has to elect a President who can duke it out with other big Presidents. Someday the President might be elected by the people, but for now the best we can do is the legislature, party hacks, voting for a party hack. And Europe has to have a foreign minister so Europe can offer to bring peace to some troubled area, as a collective, with a bigger Rapid Peace Bringing Force with some decent equipment. That might cost a bit more, and the constitution urges us to increase our expenditure on arms and armies. Oh, and everyone seems to like that a million signatures can mean that a petition must be read by the Commission, even if they are required to do nothing with it. The Charter is cited often. And its not that bad, reads well, but is really long. But no one knows what the last couple of articles mean (Articles II. 111-113). Check them out. The ones about whether, and when, and where the Charter actually applies. I just can’t figure out what they mean. There are good things in the Charter and in the constitution. The yes vote is not a stupid vote, not by any means. The meeting was pretty boring though, and very straightforward.

The no meeting was is in a circle. Can you believe it, in a circle, for a regular political meeting in France. Organised by regular politicos. This is practically revolutionary. I am not exaggerating, for those of you unfamiliar with the details of French political meetings. It was also really local. I think they invited a hotshot law professor from Montpellier, Dominique Rousseau, but they got a less famous substitute instead. There were little raps by all kinds of people. Attac, CGT, LCR, Paysans et Terroir, Confederation Paysannes, CP, I can’t remember them all. A few Socialists did identify themselves (everyone knew anyway, it WAS local), and said they were active, but not as PS members. I liked that. And the most startling thing of all. The local committee for the NON, of which there are over 500 in France apparently, had invited a woman to speak “as a feminist”. This is not so normal. This is interesting. She actually talked entirely about what might be called the “feminist” concerns in this constitution. She was pretty good, but the important thing is that they thought to invite her. Anyway there were questions at various points in the meeting. No one talked more than a few minutes, except the not so famous guy from Montpellier. And even he was brief, and passionate and informed. There was buying of badges (which ran out, not enough ordered, since paying for them is always a problem) and a plea for more people to join the committee and keep up the pressure. There will be more meetings is Graissesac, St. Gervais, and other metropolitan centres in the region. This group is financed by itself. And by selling badges. Attac has to pay for one fifth of the cost of printing 6,000 leaflets for this event. We can barely do it, as our treasury had 95 euros in it last time we got a report. This NON campaign really does not have much money at all. Did I forget to say that at the end of the yes meeting, which is what I was waiting for, there were no questions, no discussion? I thought that was strange.

I came away from these meetings no more enlightened as to the “correct perfect analysis”, although I took notes at the meetings, and could no doubt say more. But I have a lucid emotional attachment to the NON people, rather than the yes people. In general. This is not really a vote about power, or influence in the modern world, in Europe. There is no vote on that, ever. But accidentally, perhaps stupidly, certainly ignorantly, the ruling elites might have made a mistake. There has been a “no” wanting to be expressed in France for some time. They (the NON types) tried in the last presidential election, but the outcome was not so good. The French NEED to say no now and again, or it eats them up. This referendum, although ostensibly about a constitution of 478 articles, is actually about more than that. No matter how the elite try to limit the people to focusing entirely on the 478 articles, they will fail. I still think the yes is almost certainly going to win the vote. Nearly everyone who “matters” is for the yes. The big powers. But if for some reason the little powers manage to mobilize the urge to say NON, then they will win. It should be crystal clear that I think saying no is fine and healthy, and that it is far more complicated no than the press is reporting. It is a deeply thoughtful no that might not have all that much to do with specific articles in the constitution. Right now, even though the no is in the majority, I reckon in the end they will get about 45% of the vote. I have probably backed a loser again. But if the NON wins, it will be a very interesting political blip in some story that has yet to unfold. That is, it will inject a degree of uncertainty and unpredictability into the Euro story. Sadly, I can’t figure out exactly what the uncertainties will be and if they will cause a global currency or financial crisis or what. If the no wins, someone is going to have to figure out what to do next in a number of specific “European” ways. That could be interesting. I am hoping it will extend the period of political activity in France or elsewhere at least until the Tour de France. A yes victory will mean everything reverts to normal. And Saturday mornings we will discuss gear ratios and various internal cycling club matters again.

So on Saturday morning, there were still only two cyclists at the café. The weather really has not been that kind the last three Saturdays. On the road to Villemagne, just before the village, on the left, there is new, big, orange graffiti adorning a well-chosen, high retaining wall for a house. It says “Anglais Dehors Go Home.” Somehow we got to talking about that. We got very quickly to the point where it we declared that it was a simplistic graffiti. It should have said, Parisians, Dutch, Danish, German, Belgians out. And all of them to Go Home. Except for a few who are really part of local life, of course. It certainly is true that the English who come from the Southeast do have loads of money to buy houses. They happily pay the “market price”. So we got around to how expensive it was to buy a terrain and build a house, or buy a house already built. For local working folks that is. The younger guy who works (and consequently is always there on Saturday morning) is having real trouble buying a house. And then we went on to figure out that it was not really “the foreigners”, but “the market” (free and undistorted). Poor people get diddled and don’t have enough money to buy what they need or want, rich people buy whatever they like. Local people here are not that rich, in fact it’s the poorest area in France, huge unemployment. Then we realized (I told them) the difference between the various regions of another country, as well. Like us selling a house in Lancaster is not the same as selling the same house in London. There are big differences within countries. I have to insert here, that I am merely remembering what they said, although I sometimes say a few things myself. Then the young guy leaned over to speak in my ear so I could understand, “How could the English be in Europe and not be in the euro. How can that be?” Made no sense to anyone really. I mean you are on the boat or off. And then the American connection came up. Well…. The poor English took a bit of beating then. In it for what they can get and not what they can give. More hooked up to the Americans than “the Europeans”. Anyway, without going into all the details, I just can say that there are lots of subjects around at present, mobilized by the referendum, that can easily turn into a bit of grumble, or even a bit of anger toward “them”. The French are apparently famous for grumbling, and grumbling with passion. I admit that it is always possible that all this passion about politics is just that, a safety valve that in the end it means little. We shall see.

“Them” is never clearly defined, although I have to admit that defining the “them” is actually quite hard. But it does include guys like Bolkestein complaining on TV that he was glad there would be Polish plumbers coming over to France, since he has such trouble finding a plumber to do good work on his second home in the north of France. Not cool. Lost a few punters on that one. “They” keep making mistakes in the yes campaign, it really is a series of blunders so far. And today in the newspaper Midi Libre I read the president of European Parliament quoted as saying (my translation), “Basic political pedagogy orders you to respond to the questions that we ask you, and not to the people who ask you the questions.” I don’t know how people will take that, but I don’t take it well. What do you think it means?

The other thing I have noticed is that in the papers, and in the foreign papers, there are “leaders” of the NON. I forget sometimes how desperately the media need to simplify and presume there must be leaders that they can interview and quote and ask onto TV shows. Names like Melanchon, de Villiers, Le Pen, Emmanuelli, Laguillier, Buffet, Fabius are mentioned as “the leaders” of the NON. The funny thing is that none of the people I have ever talked to sees any of them as leaders. That is, the parties and the normal political leaders are pretty much out of this strange NON coalition. Obviously the faithful of all parties will follow the party line. The NON vote really has little to do with parties, it is a proper postmodern referendum. Full of uncertainty and not predictable along normal lines. What is odd is that very few people I have read n the media even talk about this. The complexity of the yes and the no campaign. They just pick out bad guys and leaders and miss the actual grass roots complexity, the strangeness and the meaning of the NON.

When I was walking home for the yes meeting, there were three older-than-me people walking along talking. The line in the yes meeting had been that if you vote for the NON then you are voting with Le Pen and the Communists. As a good Socialist, it was obvious that it must be wrong to vote with those people. However, just as I passed them, someone said “But they didn’t mention that if we vote yes, we are voting with Raffarin and Chirac.” Its true, although perhaps not surprisingly, that in an hour and half of speeches, no one mentioned this. I think people are not as dumb as the media make them out to be. Villepin (who I think has the best Presidential “look”), said, according to Mid Libre “If Europe does not give itself the means to be European, she will submit to common law, carried by the great anonymous winds of globalization. If she does not take charge of her own destiny, her destiny will be taken in hand. It is to this question that we ought to respond yes or no.” What I think is that loads of people actually think that they WOULD like to resist the anonymous winds of globalization, but there is no chance that the lot who wrote the constitution, and who are also “in power”, are going to resist any such globalization. They just won’t, in the end. For example, there seems little chance that any legislature will even have much of a debate on the issue. They will all vote yes, probably by a huge majority. Its only when they ask “the people” directly that they find out about the heavily rooted and widespread urge to say NON. Maybe in more than France, from what I hear. Its is getting more and more dangerous to ask people what they want. This burst of direct democracy is becoming a problem, or at least the French people are.

Another thing that I also noticed is that like so many politicians or rulers these days they have no connection with what is actually going on. As the growth in the NON sentiment/opinion developed, they just didn’t know. It has grown, according to a chart in Marianne, quite steadily from 31% to 55% NON over the months since 2 December 2004. A little dip just after the Spanish yes vote. But basically a steady climb. When it suddenly made a bit of a quantum jump, in the March results, they freaked out. They had no idea. I like to think that in a “modern” democracy there should have been focus groups and polls that would have caught this. Everyone pretty much knows that most politicians are not at all connected to the grass roots anyway. And in France they don’t have focus groups yet, at least I think not. These guys were freaked. They just are not connected, and I think they are slowly realizing this. And as they begin to peg back the gap, and eventually win, they will still be sounding very disconnected. Keep your eye out. They will keep making mistakes. Problems with a plumber for a second home! Indeed.

The yes camp is not very well organised, even though they have the media and the money. It goes without saying that the NON are poorly financed and very grass rootsy. The yes men need to figure out the best themes and hammer them. If they keep waffling and using different arguments, the people will catch on. I figure one of the most mediocre arguments is…It’s a good constitution and improves on the last Treaty of Nice. Not much passion in that though, and one could easily find out the constitution is flawed in many ways (they all are), even though it IS better than what we have now. The most powerful arguments will be fear of insecurity, mixed skillfully with the sense that there is no alternative (TINA, as we called in the Thatcher years). Its hard to beat both those arguments. No one on earth knows what will happen if the French say NON. No one. That IS uncertainty, so it’s a sure thing that a NON vote will up the uncertainty ratio. But hey, life is uncertain anyway for most people nowadays. They don’t know if they will have a job next year. They don’t know whether their kids will get jobs, or be able to buy a house. They don’t know what it means to be “really European”, although they like being French quite a bit. Most importantly, it seems clear that most people know there IS an alternative. Not just “the alternative” of what we are now living through, which is one alternative. That is, conserve the present system, change nothing for the moment. But I reckon that most people know that there is something that makes Europe different than America. And they like the difference, they want to keep it. People do make global connections. My cyclist buddy talk about “the European model”. Mind you, many people think being like America is really good, and that they would like more of that USA stuff, thank you. However, the people I talk to often have some objection to this “American” path or sometimes they call it the “market” path. This idea is framed carefully or sloppily, but it is there. When pressed, they might also say that they don’t want to follow anyone’s path, but to go along the French path. Its not always exactly clear what “the French path” is, as each group frames it a bit differently. However differently it is framed by various groups in the motley coalitions for the NON, it is a better path that the one taken by the people who wrote the constitution and the constitution itself even. The people I talk to actually do not want to compete with American by becoming a better version of it, or a bigger version.

Just so you know things are not getting out of hand, the cyclists, on Monday morning, were doing an in depth analysis of the Paris-Roubaix race. But we did talk about politics too.

I have to say that I don’t quite remember so many interesting political conversations as in the last few weeks. Maybe its just that my French is getting better. Maybe not. In this referendum, people get to vote not for a member of party (which lots of people do out of habit), but to vote for something substantive, however narrowly framed by the ruling powers. The odd thing, is that people are actually discussing real issues. They are having a whale of a time. And I think this passionate discussion of the issues outside the normal constraints of party and voting, is what is panicking the ruling classes the most. Obviously there are those who are as bored with the referendum as I was with the Pope (although I know he was a great guy, and Pole to boot). But there is a surge of grass roots thought and actions that I think the ruling elites are really quite out of touch with. Still, they will win.

I also think this is the only time there will be any kind of serious genuinely public, grass roots debate during the whole ratification process. I don’t think any other referendum vote will be as hotly contested. If there are any others. So in some sense, this is the first “real debate” (Spain never really discussed it at all), and maybe the only one, in Europe. It is “the” European Debate. It happens, by accident of local conditions and history, to be French. If it were a debate that was going on now in Britain, and everyone was watching, it would be a very different debate.

As one of my colleagues said this morning, “it’s the debate that is important”. And there is a heck of debate. More later.

Saturday Morning in Bédarieux (4)

I met Michel in the Marché de Provence, buying fruit and veg like everyone else. I asked if he was going for a coffee, and he said he would drop in to say bonjour, but, looking meaningfully at his watch, he said he was too busy to stay. Davide, Michel and George were there already when I arrived. I was a bit late, as I had to buy a new battery for our doorbell and we had run out of potatoes. The three of them were already talking about politics. Surely this must end soon, and we will revert to our usual discussion of minute aspects of cycling in our region. When I arrived, they were reviewing the performance of Chirac on the box this week, facing 80 selected young people between 18-25. It was, for those of you outside The Republic, the first official intervention in the campaign by The President. “Yes people” have been hassling him to get involved for ages, hoping that he might be able to turn the tide. The students apparently asked pretty good questions, although apparently the member of Attac and the member of the LCR who somehow got into the audience were asked to not turn up. Chirac performed well, according to the reviews in the café. But what they were talking about was how irrelevant he was, how out of touch with the concerns of anyone normal. So although he did well, he was not connected. Not having seen the show, I won’t comment.

The conversations then led in the general direction of how out of touch all politicians were. How they made loads of money, and really lived a life quite different to what we lived. It was mentioned that many of them (in France this is normal) have two or three paid jobs at the same time. So our local mayor is also a delegate to the regional council, both paid. And maybe other things as well, there is always a rumor circulating about corruption at the local and national level in French politics. The mayor of the next largish town down the valley has at least ten jobs, although I don’t know how many are paid. This is quite normal in France. Any one of the jobs pay enough to live on, and could well be full time. Anyway this might not be the reason entirely, but the lads were not feeling very kindly to any politicians just at the moment. They seem to agree with my own assessment, that the yes people are definitely making mistakes in their campaign because they don’t know how to reach out to normal people (by which my pals always mean people like themselves and people they know). Except during elections, and even then….

We can already see signs of confusion setting in. While all the lads are vaguely turned toward the no, some of them are getting more confused as the debate goes on. George said it bothers him how two different politicians, both experts and professionals, can have such different interpretations of the constitution and what it means. It is, to him, unfathomable. I tend to agree. It is confusing to me that two guys, who purport to know what they are talking about, disagree on the meaning of the exact same words. This does not bother the politicians, as they just say what they say, and it might be what they think or not. But normal people like to think that words mean something, that carefully written words must be clear. Especially a constitution. It is perfectly obvious to me that the words are not clear at all. For example I am still looking for a good interpretation of what articles 111-113 at the end of the Charter of Rights actually mean about where, when, and how the Charter applies to Europe and to specific countries in Europe. Everyone agreed that there was no way they were ever going to read the constitution, since they couldn’t make sense of it. Davide mentioned that his wife reads a book every week, but she can’t read the constitution. They feel a bit odd that it is not written so they can read it. They all read. I have seen Michel and Davide with newspapers and magazines every day.

One thing that seems to be a puzzle to the lads, and actually to me too, is the growing cry from all over Europe to “think of Europe”, not just of France. I have no idea what this means. Its like French people are supposed to forget they are French, forget they have a particular French way of seeing things and particular French way of doing many things, including voting. I myself find this French way a bit bizarre at times, but I am rather glad they have kept at it. The Euro elite seem to want them to suddenly think of the Poles and the Italians and not mess things up. One of the guys on Saturday said that he didn’t understand why they were so panicky about France voting NON. If they only wanted people to vote yes, then why give them a choice. And if they have no “plan B” for a NON vote, then did they really intend people to actually choose freely between the yes and the no. I think it’s a good question. Seems like they only wanted a yes vote, full stop.

Today we didn’t have time to talk for one second about cycling. And I left just before noon as we had guests for lunch. When I left, Michel (who was “just popping in say bonjour”) was still there, arguing and discussing with great passion, like the French do. I don’t know what will happen next week, surely back to cycling. Can’t be politics again. François popped by, asked if we were still talking politics, and left with a smile. Not all cyclists are taken up by this national political event.

I noticed in the paper today that Michel Barnier said it was not even possible to have a plan B. And yet we have a choice of yes or no. Is someone trying to tell us something? You have a choice, but if you choose one way it’s a disaster. We trust these guys? I also noticed that there is never, ever, a mention in the straight press of the more than 500 local committees for the no. Its always the Commies and Le Pen. And I am a bit hurt that in all I have read in the papers and seen on TV, Attac has been mentioned only once. I know we are not massive, but still. This is just plain naughty of both main parties, besides being a lie. They know their own people are working for the no. We have several prominent Socialists on the local committee, but not as Socialists, just as people. And they all act as if the no vote is purely an objection to Chirac and Raffarin. My ears hear that, but its much deeper. It’s a shame those elite opticians don’t get it. Maybe they are going to lose after all. They really are out of touch.

Its already Thursday, so I really must get this out, looking forward to Saturday again.

Saturday Morning in Bédarieux (5)

Some of you will have no idea whether I make this stuff up, or whether it happens just as I have said. Some of you maybe even doubt that I go every Saturday morning to the café, and that there are cyclists there. Well, I do go and there are. And I try to be accurate, but probably sometimes forget details. This Saturday the dynamics changed, and there was no talk of politics, except a bit between Jean-Louis and me (he was a temporary addition to the group). So this story is not going to be very Euro related. In fact, since this series began spontaneously, as a one off story that stunned me (cyclists talking about the constitution!), and then just carried on, you have had four stories mostly about politics. I feel like I should carry on for a week, hoping the politics comes back in. If not, maybe I should just stop. I never thought they would carry on talking about politics for so many weeks. Nor did I really think that my interest in the Euro process would really last this long, especially since I can’t vote here. So if you read this for the politics, stop now. If you have other reasons, carry on, its not that long.

I could tell you about the climb to Cirque de Navacelles, which has apparently a very steep bit, maybe 15%, at the end. Or perhaps about the Col d’Arboras, which is reached after a fair bit of riding and climbing from here, plus you have to do the ride back. First of May the club does Bédarieux, Carlencas, Clermont, Ceyrac, Jonquières, St. Saturnin, Col de L’Arboras, St. Pierre La Fage, Lodève, Lunas, Bédarieux. That last climb from Lodève is serious, and at the end of the ride. Needless to say I am not taking that route myself with my old guys’ group. Or I could tell you of the randonnées some of the lads are going on, all over the area. The cycling clubs, some 2,000 of them are an incredibly dense network of what one sociologist called “organised passions”. Knowing and understanding the density of that type of organised passion, in any country, is a very crucial way to understand how life, even political life, is more complicated than most people think. There are, for example 109 or 119 associations in Bédarieux, a town of 6,000. The passage of ideas and experience often has nothing to do with the “normal channels”, for example, schools and political parties. This is one reason why the mainstream politicos and bureaucrats are so frightened about the NON vote. They have no idea how it could have happened, how it works or what to say to change it back to a yes vote. If they have a clue, their organizational forms and content cannot work with that energy. They don’t know what to do. They keep making blunders.

I could say that the dynamics were slightly upset by Cyrille, Jean Louis and Fleming (Danish, the only other foreigner in the club), who are not normally Saturday morning regulars. I don’t think two of them have much interest in politics. Although If I asked, I would probably be surprised about what kind of politics they have. I have no idea. I can also tell you what gear ratio George used to climb Col de L’Arboras last year, 40-23.

I could tell you about our usual passionate conversation about the individual and the collective, focusing on the difficulty of making satisfactory collective decision (and decision-making structure and rules) to concretely satisfying the differing needs and abilities of the individuals with the collective. I will skip the sub-discussion on “the nature of discipline” within the collective. These are fascinating and unending subjects for conversation. It is, if you have not guessed, in the context of our club and bike riding. Cycling, as we all know, is like life itself (like the euro constitution debate). We debated the very purpose of organizing a group, a collective, as contrasted to lone individuals, or spontaneous temporary groups of like minded people (two or three mates). If there is no advantage in the collective, no sense of accomplishment and solidarity in a club ride, if its too hard for the less fit, too slow for the more fit, if some people can’t ride with the group and need to constantly drop back or attack to the front, then why would anyone go in a club. What is the point? The first part of the club ride is always enjoyed by everyone. That’s when, warming up in a low gear, we spin (our pedals) quite quickly and easily for 15-20 minutes, at a speed anyone can keep up with. No problems. Its when the first challenge arises, the first hill. I should contextualize that all the riders are men, except Betty, who has not been along lately, for simple reasons. So off go the faster ones. Its like they can’t really help it, they are forced to go faster. There is some sense in this. Although it is totally impossible for a slower rider to keep up with faster one, it is logically possible for a fast one to ride slower. But for some small percentage of riders, they just can’t go slower. I have friends like this. They can wait at the top, but they don’t seem to be capable of going slow enough, AND being happy on their bike. I understand that. Its maybe ten percent of the riders. That tenth draws with them, the borderline 20% more. So a third like going a bit faster up a hill. What do the slower ones do? The fastest slow ones, can keep up with the faster third. Should they do it, as it will be hard work? Or stay with the slower ones? And what to the faster ones do (often, but not always also the younger ones)? And so on. And therein lies the problem of collective vs. individual. I tell you, the sophistication of the analysis, based on particular routes, people and weather is genuinely astounding. And of course since they are talking often about people and with people they have cycled with for decades, its really fun. But its not exactly the Euro constitution. I don’t know why that subject went off the boil. Maybe boredom with it is beginning to set in. Maybe its just the new guys disrupted the dynamic. Maybe the fact that we were indoors again, with badly arranged tables. On the other hand, you can see that that discussion is much like the Euro constitution issue. The collective, the individual, the weak and the strong.

I could mention the conversation with Jean Louis when I returned his Brassens CDs, and the booklet with the words. He is the most recent ex-president of the club, but moved to Sète to be with his girlfriend. Just retired, social science type teacher in high school. Member of Attac. He tried to help improve me a bit by lending me the Brassens CDs. I listened a bit, but actually that kind of music, where you have to listen to the words “with a guitar player” is not my favorite kind of music. I don’t like words in music that much. Rhythm, tunes, words, that’s my order of priority in music. Don’t be shocked, there are millions like me. Anyway we discussed how I am constantly realizing how little I know about the history and culture of my present home. I try to fill the holes, as I did with England, where I was missing the first 25 years of socialization. Here I missed the first 57 years of socialization. A whole lifetime! I just finished all the Asterix BDs, so I do try. Anyway, I said maybe in a year or so I might be ready for Brassens. There are just too many meanings I have to puzzle out to understand the words.

But really, I guess I have no news on the Euro front today. Sorry. Maybe next week. I noticed that , from my usual impeccable sources, the TV and the Midi Libre (I have no idea what they say in the quality dailies), that “the fear argument” has begun to be one of the principal ones. I am upset about this, and hope they manage to tone it down a little. While that argument works, or should work, it is a very scumbag approach. They are all saying that without a yes, then Europe will decay, might take 15 years to rebuild, France will become a black sheep and so forth. They all seem so sure, but they really can’t know, can they? We already have Europe, just a pale imitation of what it might be. Many no people are saying that this 2005 version of Europe is still a pale imitation, and should be made a bit more substantial before we say yes. And the yes people are saying that there is no way the 25 could ever come to a unanimous agreement about a new constitution. Well…that’s what the no people say too, as a criticism of the impossibility of amending the constitution. There is some real confusion going on here. Raffarin apparently said, in China, that this constitution was not a political document, but simply the “rules of the game”. Does he think that anyone believes him? Why does he say such things, as it’s is clearly a political document (human rights, legislative powers, free and undistorted market uber alles….)? And I heard that Bernadette Chirac says that we need to be strong to compete with the USA and China and vanquish them or at least not be third in the League. From my conversations with people it is not obvious that what they want is a Europe that competes with the USA, and beats them at their own game. They either want another game, or they want the USA to just go away and leave us alone. They actually don’t want to be strong and powerful and competitive. Is this irrational?

If no politics next time, this will be the end.

--- Tom Cahill
March 21 to April 25, 2005