Talk with Tom
Get the dispatches from the new world of work
EU: Why The French Said "Non!"
It's not easy for Americans to keep on top of all European Union news, but the French voting down the referendum on the European Constitution is an important event and I thought I'd try to put it in some perspective. I know all our European readers will comment and correct me if I slip up, so feel free.
The new Constitution for Europe would have created a much stronger Europe and perhaps taken power away from countries like France and Germany for starters. A "Strong Europe" is a catch-phrase that suggests a Europe which may be able to counterbalance U.S. power. The people in these countries are not at all convinced they need a European Union telling them how to live their lives and they're sending a message with a "yes" or "no" to a stronger Europe proponents.
It was as if we had re-written our Constitution and asked our 50 states to vote a more powerful national government, sucking power away from the states. And then imagine California saying a resounding "No!" because it had a lot to lose.
For instance, what if a new American constitution had a border policy that allowed a lot of immigrants into California who took Californians jobs? This is exactly how a lot of the French felt about their new Constitution (and therefore voted it down) which might have allowed globalization (think Polish and Turkish low-paid workers instead of Mexicans and Canadians) to make a very bad unemployment situation much worse.
This is just one part of why Chirac is not a very popular person in France these days. Many believe Chirac is over as a politician.
The New York Times has a piece here and getting a free pass to The Economist is a good idea, even though I hate content behind cost walls myself.
The Dutch vote on Wednesday, although many say the Constitution is dead anyway now that the French said "Non!" Still, it's worth reading about the issues of globalization and unemployment the Dutch are suffering from and their feelings on the future of Europe. Very interesting stuff here from a comment on Adam Curry's blog.
Read Andrew Sullivan on the topic if you haven't already. As I write this, his new blogging for the day hasn't gone up yet. Read his thoughts on a potential French "no" from last week. He was, as usual, prescient.
ARCHIVES
Before blogging became all the rage, Tom was posting book reviews and Observations (essentially early blog posts) to this site. You can find the archives below.
What Tom's Reading Archives
OBSERVATIONS ARCHIVES
right now
What we're talking about
on the front page.
Comments
Halley
The issues are complex and there are different issues in different countries of Europe.
Here in Britain there is much suspicion about joining a big organisation and losing our own identity as a nation.
My personal view is that need not necessarily happen and Britain will always be unique -retaining its own very precious and special place in world order. Relating this to a business setting I always believe big is ugly so I have mixed feelings.
I guess one of the joys of living in a democracy – with all its warts and wrinkles - is the ability to hold more than one position - none of them can be said to be right or wrong - isn’t life a wonderful and rich tapestry???!!
Britain will probably not have to hold a referendum after the French result and the anticipated Dutch 'no' vote the constitution will probably be dead and buried anyway.
There are some rather silly practices that we could easily get rid of like changing our money in most countries of Europe as we cross the border simply because we all like to ‘keep’ our own name!!!
The wider political issues are far more complex I imagine and I look forward to the debate here from our friends worldwide.
Posted by Trevor Gay at May 31, 2005 11:42 AM
Halley,
I fear you've read the propaganda and not the document. The constitution does not create a more powerful, centralized European Union. It doesn't open the borders to Polish plumbers (those borders are open -- that's part of what Europe means already). What it does is tidy up a lot of the messiness that has arisen as Europe has grown to 25 member states.
If the constitution had been what you suggest, I think it might have stood a chance in France. Unlike in Britain, the notion of a strong Europe as a counter balance to the US is very popular.
To anyone familiar with the US constitution, reading the now-dead European constitution is a depressing experience. Not because what it does is wrong. But because it's a wordy, bureaucratic, thoroughly uninspiring kludge.
The French vote is above all a demonstration against an out-of-touch political class. For some people it was a vote against Turkey (which is not what the constitution is about). For some people it was a vote against globalization and "Anglo-Saxon" economics (also not what the constitution is about). That's what happens in a referendum, when people feel they have very few ways of expressing their frustration with their leaders.
If you needed evidence of how right the French electorate was about their leaders, the appointment of an unelected aristocrat as prime minister today clinches the argument.
Posted by Lance Knobel at May 31, 2005 12:27 PM
Three thoughts. Firstly, a referendum is not the best way to decide on an international treaty. Many people vote by answering a different question to the one that is being asked. In can be seen just as much as an anti-Chirac vote, as an anti-treaty vote. Lance Knobel's comment about "having read the propaganda and not the document" is spot on. It is a long and complex document and I would bet that the vast majority of people voting haven't read it. Most of the 'dangers' highlighted by the no campaigns are in fact myths.
Secondly, this is not the end. So far 10 countries have said yes and only one has said no. When Denmark initially said no to the Maastricht treaty other countries proceeded and the Danes eventually followed.
Thirdly, the French no is not necessarily about being against closer European integration. In fact, it could well mean the opposite. The treaty on offer watered down some of the closer social policies that many on the French left wanted.
Incidentally a good friend of mine is Richard Corbett, a Member of the European Parliament. Richard has a blog (http://www.corbett-euro.demon.co.uk/blog/) where I am sure he has commented (link is down at the moment, so I can't check).
Posted by Stuart Bruce at May 31, 2005 12:37 PM
Halley, i tried to answer to a similar post in your blog but it asked me to have an account at blogger. Finnally gave up.
Anyway, I think the European Union needs a huge effort of branding and branding from the inside out.
I have also written about the french NO! in my blog. See my article "The european brand" at www.felixgerena.com
Posted by felix gerena at May 31, 2005 12:58 PM
"The French vote is above all a demonstration against an out-of-touch political class." you write lance, and this to my concern nails it - not only in the case of france.
german federal president koehler said, the french NON showed a clear deficit in communicating the european idea to the individuals.
where national identity is being replaced by an airy brainchild dressed in politicians' burocratic speak, it is not much of a surprise that simple extremist phrases can capture more emotions here...
if the french voters would have spent more time in the usa to enjoy their strong currency in the outlet malls - the referendum would have had a different outcome. (!!!!)
but as it is "europe" still is a threat to many europeans - zero identity and a currency that has almost doubled the felt cost of living in many countries. in germany the euro enjoys the popular name teuro - form the german word teuer=expensive. enough real-life irritation to open the discussion for extremist argumentation.
the idea behind having a referendum (ft said the national parliaments could have decided on the specific topic) was possibly to engage the public... have some grass-root credibility for the europe project.
but: just involving everybody in decision making processes is simply not enough, to also engage them. it obviously takes much more to make sure that everybody is on the same page...
andrew sullivan says in his blog:
"The E.U. will survive a no-vote. European democracy will be deeply strengthened by a no."
if it results in rethinking our political culture i can only agree.
Posted by jens at May 31, 2005 1:05 PM
There are many issues here. Perhaps two behind the French rejection were a normal reaction to realizing their social welfare net must inevitably disappear as well as a fear of cheap labor.
Personally, I like the idea of a safety net, especially free medical, which I understand is even better in France than it is in the UK, but I suspect many of the benefits European citizens currently enjoy are not sustainable in a competitive global marketplace.
As for cheap labor ... it is an inevitable consequence of European integration having expanded Europe to the East. Turkey coming on board will obviously increase this pressure.
I'm expecting the Dutch to shoot it down too. I suppose the biggest effect these rejections will have is on the Euro. It's set to fall further against the dollar which will be good news for European companies selling abroad, but the medium term future for the currency cannot be good. The markets don't like this uncertainty and will punish the Euro. If there isn't a political union, it is a fair bet that there will be no Euro.
Posted by Noel Guinane at May 31, 2005 2:18 PM
P.S. Thanks Halley for an interesting topic!
Posted by Noel Guinane at May 31, 2005 2:35 PM
My French son-in-law and most of his siblings voted "non" for a mixture of the following reasons. They support different parties normally.
I'm not suggesting all these were in the Constitution they voted against, merely that these were the reasons for their votes.
They all support the idea of a European Constitution & the wielding of a combined power that can dominate the world. None supported this Constitution, and none were convinced by the argument that they should take this one and try to fix it later once enshrined.
Small, but interesting, sample.
Posted by jeff angus at May 31, 2005 5:26 PM
Thanks you guys for giving us all this background. I know the best resource around here is YOU ALL! Keep us up to date. Thanks!
Posted by Halley at June 1, 2005 7:38 AM
Unfortunately we here in CA like to have our borders open…
Posted by Phillip at June 7, 2005 1:40 PM