As France Goes, So Goes Europe? : Sunday vote could derail vital unity movement

It could be that Margaret Thatcher--the grand inquisitress of European unity--will be proven to have been right. For many years the Iron Lady, as the strong-willed former British prime minister was known, expressed unrelenting skepticism about European unity.

But rightly, the Bush Administration and previous U.S. governments welcomed the slow but apparently unstoppable movement toward economic unity. Whatever competitive threat such a new giant would pose for the United States would be outweighed by the advantages of working with an economically streamlined and less divided--and thus less divisive--Europe.

But Thatcher continued to raise hard questions about union. Chief among her complaints was the proposed replacement of all European currencies--including the British pound, for centuries not only the national currency but to her mind also a venerable emblem of British sovereignty--with a single European Monetary Union currency.

On this issue Thatcher was often able to shake the rafters of British insecurity and provinciality. But the march of history seemed to be dead set against her. So many logical reasons militate against continuing the factionalism and poisonous nationalism of the past. Europe seemed destined for unity, rather than disunity; monetary coherence, rather than fragmentation; teamwork, rather than pettiness.

But now Europe’s future has been thrown into doubt. On Sunday the French hold a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty--the complex and controversial document that would usher in the new economic union--and no one is sure how they will vote. Although the government of Francois Mitterrand has campaigned hard for treaty approval, this week’s exchange-rate turmoil may have unnerved a lot of people. On Monday the Germans dropped their key interest rates, and that didn’t seem to calm the waters. Two days later the British government of John Major intervened massively to stop the hemorrhaging of the British pound sterling and, when that didn’t work, unlinked the pound from Europe’s pegged exchange rate system.

All this occurred amid the continuing aftershocks of the Danish vote in June that disapproved the treaty. It was then that the seemingly inexorable march of history halted in its tracks. On Sunday France, with either its oui or its non , will have a say. A non will certainly derail Maastricht, and even a oui might not settle the issue. In Britain it’s possible that Prime Minister Major will be forced to hold a referendum--a vote that Thatcher, his predecessor, has long insisted on.

No doubt European economic unity, on the whole, would be good for Europe. But history suggests that Europe does not always act in ways that are good for itself.