FOUNDING CHARTER
POPULAR REPUBLICAN UNION
People’s Union to Reestablish Democracy
Approved in the Founding Congress
of the Popular Republican Union, on March 25th, 2007.
UPR, 15 rue Érard, 75012 PARIS, FRANCE — www.upr.fr
Droits réservés — All rights reserved
United in congress on March 25th, 2007, on the day of the fiftieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, Frenchmen and women of all ages and social statuses have decided to create the Popular
Republican Union (UPR) in order to restore France’s independence, to return to the French people
its freedom, and to bring our country back to its historical role as representative of peoples and
nations’ freedom throughout the world.
The founding members have decided to create the present Charter, which describes the specificities of the UPR’s program and analyses. All UPR’s members are presumed to have read this document, to share its analyses and conclusions, and to put its policies in practice.
1. The analysis of France’s situation : Europe is the problem, not the solution
The Popular Republican Union distinguishes itself from all existent political movements on two essential points:
− On the one hand, on the analysis of France’s situation
− On the other hand, on the means to bring our country out of the severe political, economic, social
and moral crisis in which it does not stop sinking.
Even though it is not the sole cause of our country’s problems, the process of European construction is, nevertheless, the main one. Far from being a solution, as we have been told to believe for half a century, the process of European integration is, on the contrary, their origin. This is due to the fact that it places the French people under a foreign tutorship which renders their democratic choices pointless, which unduly locks their future, arbitrarily defines their field of interests, and brings them, indefinitely and without reason, into self-hatred and a certain form of despair.
The UPR is a party of the 21st century, aware of what is truly taking place in France and in the world
Due to the diversity of origins, ages, education and professions of its leaders and militants, the UPR is not a party of ignorant nor of nostalgic people. It is, on the contrary, a party born in the 21st
century, perfectly familiar with the technology of its era, extremely mindful to what is happening elsewhere in the world, conscious of the complexity of international problems, aware of the weight of economic constraints, of the general evolution of mentalities, as well as of the multi-secular
tradition of openness and influence of our country.
Most political parties elaborate upon that France’s problems arise from the country’s tardiness in adopting “indispensable reforms” due to the French’s reluctance to fall in line with the other countries in the world.
However, this trend to put the burden of guilt on our fellow citizens is maintained by all political parties, without any serious, exhaustive and unbiased studies on the true reasons of the successes and failures of the other countries in the world.
The UPR’s approach is very different, as it bases its analyses on a careful and uncompromising study of what is taking place elsewhere on the planet – and not just in a few European countries or in the United States.
Some analyses which challenge common preconceptions.
The UPR is, for instance, the only French political party which:
− Notes that the process of constructing a continental polity with a supranational government, like the European Commission, is not copied, anywhere else in the world, where the principle of the nation-state prevails;
− Notices that, according to all available global statistics, there is no correlation between the size of a state and the living standards of its population ; but, rather, that there seems to be a link between patriotism and economic growth;
− Stresses the fact that European companies are increasingly making alliance with other companies across the world, particularly Asia, in order to better compete with the companies from other European countries.
This strong tendency in the world of business proves the falsehood of the argument according to which European integration is an economic and industrial necessity allowing us to build “European champions”(1);
− Carefully clarifies the circuit of decision-making in European institutions, the marginalization of France, as well as the considerable influence exerted by American pressure groups;
− Informs our fellow citizens on the increasingly burdensome net cost of the process of European
integration on French economy and public finance;
- Proves, based on comparative statistics, that France is not in the disastrous financial situation that we are told;
− Reveals that many countries in the world, including Japan and the United States, do not respect the Maastricht criteria which are, nevertheless, presented to us as a necessity for good economic and financial governance;
− Explains that if there is a country at risk of bankruptcy, it is the United States of America, where all economic actors (federal state, federated states, businesses and households) are far more indebted than their French counterparts2;
Well aware of economic and social problems, the UPR subscribes to the necessity of competitiveness and industrial, scientific and commercial dynamism, as as well as to the French’s legitimate determination to keep their social system and their conception of life in society.
Nevertheless, the UPR maintains that there can be no long-lasting solution to any of France's serious problems unless French people clearly and massively back the policies carried out. And yet, this consent cannot be obtained from our fellow citizens as long as the power which is truly being exerted upon them does not emanate from the freely consented nation’s will, within a context of true democratic choices. It is, on the long term, impossible to lead France against its own people.
The deadlock of the French situation stems from the shameful and untold submission of French people to foreign control
Based upon what one thousand and five hundreds years of history teach us, the UPR notes that the French people has never consented for long to be governed by a foreign power, or by any power they don't consider legitimate.
And, despite any advantageous, futuristic, utopian or sweetened presentation which may be given of it, it is undeniable that, due to the inexistence of a European people, the European Union has precisely the effect of submitting the French to a foreign, essentially oligarchic, non-elected power, whose legitimacy the French, deep inside, do not recognize. All of France’s history invites us, thus, to understand that this submission can only be transitory. It is unsustainable on the long term.
Whereas the French have, at times, given the impression to agree to European integration, in particular with the referendum on the Maastricht treaty, adopted by an extremely narrow margin, this apparent agreement was only obtained in ambiguous conditions, through intense psychological pressure, threatening our fellow citizens with the worst consequences in case of refusal.
The French were never warned, frankly and honestly, on the concrete negative consequences which would stem from the massive transfers of sovereignty which they were expected to consent to, in haste and with lack of precision, as if it were hardly worth considering. Never have our compatriots been, for instance, warned, in the explicit and solemn fashion which would have been appropriate, on the fact that, from then onwards, the great strategic choices on the future of France, in matters of foreign policy and national defense, in social, economic, monetary, or environmental domains, would no longer depend on their votes. And that, even if they turned out to be disastrous (as is obvious today), these decisive choices would be continuously imposed to them from the outside by the drivers of an absurd convoy, soon to be composed by about thirty countries, where France’s influence is marginal whereas while that of the United States of America, via their lobbies and pressure groups, is henceforth overwhelming.
Harassed by incessant propaganda asking them to admit that “European construction” is a peace-maker, a historical fatality, a political necessity, an economic urgency, a social progress, a moral requirement, etc., the French have come to believe that it is impossible to have a closer look at it, to find evidence of the opposite, and to oppose it.
Yet, at the same time, the French have never figured out that their elected representatives would no longer make the strategic choices for France. Just as they ’can't imagine that the 26 other states to which they have been married, for most of them without their consent, could form majorities able to force on them decisions that it they refuse.
The result of these contradictions is a vast state of confusion, worsening, as facts are leading the French to conclusions, opposite to the stupendous promises made to them for so many years:
− They were told that “Europe is peace”? And yet they see that Europe wants to push France into
warfare coalitions alongside the United States in order to fight in illegal wars, such as in Iraq.
− “The Euro means more growth and jobs”? And yet the Eurozone is lagging behind the rest of the world in terms of growth and jobs.
− “Europe means prosperity”? And yet our purchasing power is stagnating or in regression, and the outlook of our future is bleaker than ever.
− “Europe will allow us to create industrial champions against the United States and China”? And yet the European Commission prevents all protectionist measures comparable to those commonly applied by the United States or China, it favors the purchase of the steel industry by Indian companies, it tolerates or even favors the delocalization and destruction of entire sectors of our industry, such as textiles, furniture, toys, optics, etc.
− “Europe means more social guarantees”? And yet the European Commission favors delocalization towards countries with low wage costs and rejects all social and fiscal harmonization within the European Union, thus openly promoting the most shameless social and fiscal dumping.
− “Europe means more control over migration flows”? And yet the Schengen Agreement has, on the contrary, abolished all border control and turned our country into a sieve in which people and goods enter without control.
− “Europe favors our agriculture”? And yet Brussels has planned the quasi-disappearance of our
traditional agriculture.
− Etc.
(1) Any attempts at merging European companies is often blocked by the European Commission under the pretense of fighting monopolies.
(2) The American people, to which we owe our gratitude and friendship, is also a victim of this situation.
A great misunderstanding is at the heart of the political crisis in France.
To sum up, incessant propaganda prevents any critical approach to European integration and, a fortiori, turns any questioning into a sacrilege; and yet, its increasingly disastrous results in all areas, can ‘t give any reason for satisfaction.
Thus, throughout decades, a formidable misunderstanding has developed. From the extreme right to the extreme left, not one single politician would dare to claim he is against the very principle of European integration. Yet, within the whole political range class, no politician is in favor of Europe in its current form. This was particularly obvious during the campaign for the May 2005 referendum on the European constitution. As was hardly ever mentioned, whereas those campaigning for a No vote explicitly rejected Europe as it exists, those in favor of a Yes vote implicitly manifested the same rejection, as their argument was that this Constitution would finally bring the necessary changes (“Vote Yes for a Europe that works”, “Yes to a social Europe”, etc.).
In other words, all French politicians declare themselves in favor of the European construction but
against the way it is taking place.
In an attempt to solve this contradiction, they all invariably proclaim themselves in favor of “another Europe”, and offer their increasingly skeptical voters the tantalizing vision that this “other Europe” would be some sort of a bigger France.
But none of them admit that this seductive view is nothing more than wishful thinking with no impact whatsoever. Europe is not the way it is by mere luck: it is the result of 27 antagonistic national interests, and France, with one Commissioner out of 27 (thus, 3.7%) is henceforth, simply not more able to impose its own point of view, its values and its interests in a club with a majority of countries aligned with the United States.
The UPR considers that it is precisely this generalized political schizophrenia which is the main cause of the deadlock in the French situation. Since they do not want to, or do not dare to, follow the full consequences of their diagnosis and the necessary rejection of all European integration, French political parties, as a whole, can only give to public opinion and the media a confused and democratically disastrous impression: that of criticizing Europe, but approving its principle, whilst lacking – in order to make its results more attractive for the French – any proposals which could obtain the consent of the 26 other member states.
Thus, the whole of French politics becomes incoherent and loses all ability to mobilize, leaving the way open to extremism. It is, therefore, vital to clarify the French political situation by creating a party whose essential goal is to solve this misunderstanding.
2. National recovery is necessarily linked to leaving the European Union
Far from being a promising project of prosperity, democracy and peace, the forced unification of the European continent, no matter under which form or which kind of promises, is, on the contrary, a noxious utopia which necessarily leads France and the other countries of Europe towards a politically dictatorial structure, economically inefficient, socially intolerable, diplomatically war-mongering, sociologically absurd and culturally inhumane.
Only France’s independence and the sovereignty of the French people can ensure the prosperity of our country and the good functioning of its democracy, its influence across the world, its actions for peace and friendship among peoples, regardless of their geographic location or religious beliefs.
The end of ambiguity
One of the main reasons for the UPR’s foundation lies in the fact that the programs of every political movement claiming to fight for national sovereignty are twice ambiguous:
− On the one hand, they make sovereignty one subject among many others. And yet, diluting the European question among other subjects is to remove the crucial, specific and decisive character of the necessary re-establishment of our national sovereignty.
− On the other, they endorse the myth of amendable European integration. They, too, declare themselves in favor of “another Europe”, such as a “Europe of nations”. They are, furthermore, incapable of explaining precisely what it would be and by which miracle we could rally the European Commission and the 26 other member states behind it (3).
The UPR, considering that these ambiguities are the main cause of the marginalization of a wide-spread public opinion in our country, adopts, as a line of conduct, to have a clear and precise program, and to submit it to the French people in an unbiased, democratic and direct fashion.
The objective of this program is to make France leave the so-called European “Union” and to reject all new projects of European integration, of dilution of European countries, or of alienation of the freedom of the French people, under whichever form.
In practice, the UPR is the only political movement proposing to inscribe into its statutes, that a
process of national recovery is possible only if based on three essential points:
1. To denounce all European treaties, including the Treaty of Rome (4),
2. To refuse the very concept of “European integration”, with its constant promises of
“another Europe” (5),
3. To inscribe in the French constitution the prohibition of all delegation of sovereignty which is not limited to concrete subjects, limited in time and scope, and ruled by international treaties based upon reciprocity and equality among states.
The UPR considers that the clarity of this program, and its great liberating scope, will allow us to break free from the ambiguities and the repeated failures of complacent “sovereignism” and to create this major political change that French people call for without fully realizing.
(3) To lay claim to “Gaullism” in order to maintain this fiction is an anachronism at best, and manipulation at worst. Continually criticized by the media, the MRP and the Atlanticist lobbies, Charles de Gaulle certainly had, half a century ago, accepted a semantic concession by evoking a “Europe of States”, whose definition he had, furthermore, attempted to give in vain. Nevertheless, that was in the altogether different context of the “Europe of Six,” in its first steps, in which France enjoyed a dominant position. Otherwise, whenever national sovereignty was at stake, Charles de Gaulle, obviously, ruled in its favor.
(4) Treaty to which we owe, among others, the principle of the country of origin which the Bolkenstein directive puts into practice; or the strategically calamitous absence of France at the WTO negotiations, where we are represented by a European Commissioner. It is dishonest to promise to the French that one will fight against delocalization or against dumping from countries with low wage costs while being absent from an institution where even microstates forcefully, and even successfully, defend their national interests.
(5) Half a century has now proved that all projects of “other Europe”, be it a “Europe of the Peoples”, “Europe of Nations”, “Social Europe”, “Independent Europe”, “European Europe”, “Europe this” and “Europe that” are little more than distractions meant to present as inevitable what is, in reality, a carefully conceived project for the vassalization of France, a process of continental political construction imposed by no historical fatality whatsoever.
Basing itself upon one thousand and five hundreds years of national history, the UPR affirms that it is first by addressing the issue of national sovereignty that it will be able to reestablish the authority of the state and to put into effect a program of economic, cultural and social development in agreement to the values of liberty, equality and fraternity of the French Republic.
A program for national liberation which sets aside the left-right cleavage
The UPR’s program is, in reality, nothing else but a program of national liberation. It therefore ignores, logically and deliberately, the traditional division between left and right.
The UPR does not claim that the left-right cleavage does not exist; but it affirms that, like each time France is in real danger, this division must temporarily disappear in front of the urgency of the situation. There are therefore, among the UPR’s members, Frenchmen and women from all political horizons, who probably disagree on economic or social questions, or even societal issues. But they all agree that it is pointless to debate on these subjects as long as the related strategic decisions have already been made without telling or warning the French. What is the point to endlessly debate, and even fight, about taxation, off-shoring, financing retirement pensions, immigration, environment, etc., since the important strategic decisions on the matter, have been stolen from the French people, and taken by the unelected leaders of the ECB and the equally unelected European Commissioners?
The UPR, furthermore, insists on the fact that the proliferation of minor subjects is, along with the myth of the “other Europe”, one of the main decoys used by the supporters of European integration in order to prevent the French from taking interest in the only subject that matters: who has the power to decide what?
Therefore, the UPR is the only party determined not to let itself be dragged into minor debates while essential matters are at stake. The UPR’s members are therefore free, if they so wish, to declare themselves -- outside of the movement – in favor of this or that economic, fiscal or social option, or on this or that philosophy on societal subjects. But, in order to remain coherent with the current Charter, they consider it is their a constant duty to research, explain and expose who are the French or foreign authorities who decide on the subjects that they discuss and which are, therefore, the real possibilities, for them and their interlocutors, to be influential. Furthermore, the UPR’s members admit, as an essential principle, that the UPR is not the place where to tackle these subsidiary issues unless it is to prove the impotence of national authorities. Therefore, they must be careful not to introduce, within the movement; reasons to divide, that are as noxious as they are pointless.
3. Conclusion: A fight for human dignity
The freedom of opinion left to the UPR’s members on very numerous subjects is nevertheless limited by the need for the movement to keep its dynamics and collegiality, and the ethical principle which orders not to attack anyone on the basis of religious beliefs, origins, etc.
The UPR makes the fundamental distinction between the nation and patriotism on the one hand, and nationalism on the other. Retaking Jean Jaurès’ famous phrase, “The homeland is the only possession of those who have nothing”, the UPR insists on the fact that the country and the nation are the only levels at which democracy and solidarity between generations and social classes can be truly exerted.
Retaking, furthermore, Charles de Gaulle’s own word explaining to Alain Peyrefitte that “we are not nationalists, we are nationals”, the UPR insists on the fact that most conflicts were not born from nations, but from the will of one of them to outgrow its national boundaries in order to become an empire and to force other nations to become its vassals and to adopt its values.
Proclaiming its love for the homeland, and its rejection of any nationalism, the UPR obviously condemns all extremism, all racism and all communitarianism, and proclaims its attachment to secularism and to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10th, 1948. This Declaration, as well as the first article of the United Nations Pact on civil and political rights of December 16th, 1966, which declares the inalienable right of peoples to self-determination, are the highest moral justification of the UPR’s program, which precisely intends to return to the French their inalienable right to self-determination, urging them to refuse all servitude, either voluntary or extorted.
Within this global perspective, the UPR solemnly affirms that, in this 21st century which sees the triumph of exchanges and communications from one end of the globe to another, the only legitimate international authority is, more than ever, the United Nations Organization, whose supreme ethical principle is to treat all peoples and nations on the basis of equality. The very idea of constructing, by choice or by force, a European – or Euro-Atlantic – empire, which would include some nations and exclude all others, is a tragic error and a major historical absurdity, whose consequences on world peace would be potentially terrible.
This is why the UPR intends to promote international cooperation of all kinds with all the states of the planet, without making any morally and ethically suspect distinctions based upon their belonging or not to the European continent. The UPR points out that the definitions of continents are simple geographic conventions, which do not reflect the affinities and exchanges between the states of the world.
The UPR, furthermore, intends to explore deeper and develop the francophony as a civilizational counterbalance, indispensable for the maintenance of the diversity of the world’s cultures. This is also why the UPR intends to include the principle of the inalienability of France’s seat as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, with right to veto, in the French constitution.
This will not only allow the preservation of France’s role as a world power, but beyond that, would ensure the French-speaking world an essential part in the concert of nations.
The UPR, finally, proclaims that progress is neither possible nor acceptable to the French unless it is in conformity with the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity of the Republic, and unless it is compatible with secularism, humanism, respect of cultural diversity, social justice, and the rejection of any communitarianism.
The UPR points out that this set of values makes France a global reference for all those who refuse the generalized marketization of the world and the reduction of human beings to simple economic variables. That is why, while advocating for the exit of France from the noxious European empire’s utopia, the UPR fights for a humanistic conception of social life, as well as for the freedom, emancipation and dignity of all human beings on Earth.
At the beginning of this third millennium, there is no subject more important than this.
