Appearently the French have decided that they don’t want any part of the new constitution. With nearly 70% of the people in France voting the ‘no’ votes carry the day by 55%. Interestingly enough this should have come as no surprise to anyone considering who the ‘no’ people were and why they voted that way. Appearently the ‘no’ voters were from the left wing (European left) who don’t want anything to do with a free market Europe (such as it is) and who also don’t want to be flooded by ‘cheap labor’.
So, the question is…what does this mean? For Europe, for the constitution and for France. According to the article many think this means the constitution is completely dead, and Jean-Pierre Raffarin will most likely resign…even Chirac appearently may resign. I’d like to hear the views of the various Euro-dopers on what they think this will mean for their own countries, what it will mean short term and long for the future of this effort, and speculation on what it will mean for France.
Hopefully it will mean that they re-draft the constitution as something less like a political manifesto and something much shorter, more like the American or Iraqi constitutions.
Not quite. Dissolving parliament simply means that there will be new elections, and the new parliament will form a new government. Normally the current government will remain in power until its term has finished, but the president can dissolve parliament and call for new elections. This might actualy happen, because the no vote was quite a blow to the current government and Raffarin is very unpopular anyway.
I think Chirac will just end up accepting Raffarin’s resignation and asking for the government to choose a new prime-minister.
This result also means that the Netherlands will probably end up voting “NO” as well. However, some parties in the Netherlands have already said they might just ignore the result, since officially it is nothing more than an opinion poll. There is no obligation to vote the same way the populace does.
Problem here is that 80% of parliament is in favor (as most people who know what they’re voting about should be), but upto 60% of the populace hasn’t a clue and are naturally inclined to dislike change and blame things they don’t know about, such as the Euro, which is blamed for inflation when it has in fact curtailed it, which has prevented fuel prices from getting much much higher (the strong euro mitigates the rising price of crude oil, which is sold on the world market in dollars), and so on.
A “No” will make the Netherlands look stupid, because a “No” is a stupid choice. It’s that simple. I do think that we can blame some politicians for not selling Europe well enough, but it’s partly up to the voters to know what they are voting about. This latter thing is a problem, and I think a referendum can help interest people for politics, but I’m not altogether sure it does really, or if the effect is positive.
Oddly enough, the vote could also be read as a victory of national & cultural sovereignty against bureaucratic uber-government (a 4-fricken-hundred page Constitution!?)-not exclusively a left-wing sentiment.
I’m sorry, but such decisions have nothing to do with Europe, and everything with the NATIONAL government. Europe does NOT call for a Referendum, just for a ratification by the NATIONAL government, whichever the way that NATIONAL government chooses to, IF they choose to.
The NATIONAL government of many countries doesn’t even bother to call for a Referendum, because they (rightly) assume that people voted for these politicians because they want them to think about what the best choice is, so they can continue to watch Temptation Island in peace.
It’s not a constitution in the US sense. It is mostly just a agreement that ties all the other previous treaties together in one document. Maastricht, Rome, Nice treaties etc. are all in there so that’s why it so long.
Although their are people who have real problems with the constitution the French vote is much more about French internal politics than it is about the EU. I’d guess that if Chirac had of said that if they was a YES vote he’d resign it would have passed with an easy majority.
It will be interesting to see what happens if other countries continue with their refs. The Irish now will almost certainly vote NO. The government here can’t just push it though without a mandate as our constitution doesn’t allow that. We did vote NO against the Nice treaty but the government just went on a media rampage and held another one and got it passed.
:dubious: So basically, people who disagree with you must be stupid ignoramouses blindly voting their fears, whom you can safely ignore because the masses have no legitimate say?
Arwin, your legal arguments aren’t exactly going to convnce anyone. Comments like this:
Are exactly why ordinary people don’t want the EU. This statement manages to focus every ounce of blind arrogance into one soundbite!
More to the point, I haven’t yet seen one actual argument proposed by anyone at the EU on exactly why anyone, at all, should go with it. Frankly, I’ve seen better arguments made on behalf of the EU by its dead-set opponents than its supporters. And if you can’t actually convince anyone to follow you, you may want to think about what effect this will have on the EU even if it gets put into place. You’re basically proposing that from the outset, the government shouldn’t care what anyone thinks. The bureacrats know what’s best for people, aso they should shut up and be good little slaves. You may not mean to send that message, but you are sending it and setting a bad precedent.
A smart French guy had an article in the Times a few days ago about why when Europeans say “constitution” they don’t have the same images of Mom, apple pie, baseball, and all that is right and good in world as Americans usually do.
Funny how it’s always the Germans who are serious when it comes to politics.
I personally think they should scrap the current draft, and come up with a real constitution and not a 500 page piece of bureaucracy that tries to appease as many as possible and offend as few as possible. 25 cooks do not necessarily make for a good stew.
“But opponents feared it would strip France of its sovereignty and generous social system and trigger an influx of cheap labor.”
I found the above quote telling.
As has been demonstrated all over Europe, socialism doesn’t work unless taxes are cripplingly high and the public agrees to buy into the illusion. When people tire of the taxes and become tax exiles or too many people decide to take advantage of the “generous social system”, the economy starts to crap out.
Then they should call it a Comprehensive Treaty and not a “Constitution”. By now in many languages “constitution” has taken on the connotation of the Basic Chearter of a unified state. This worries people, specially if you enshrine as part of the constitution items that may be better handled on-the-run as mere policy decisions.
Which may have led many French and Dutch to feel, what’s the rush to tack on yet another “constitution”, and a bloody complicated one at that, when they have a perfectly good one going on already.
And yes, “modern” constitutions do tend to be overloaded with policy and regulatory items anyway.
The reason why the Europeans might want to be part of the EU has to do with economics, power and influence in the global economy. It is an attempt to create an economy that rivals the US by bringing together multiple separate smaller economies.
Personally I’d want EU to be a super-NAFTA, an economic union that has the ability to enforce trade issues but all other forms of political decision making would be unalterably left to the member states.
