French Voters
Reject Proposed EU Constitution
June
10, 2005
By rejecting the proposed Constitution
of the European Union in a referendum on May 29,
2005, French voters have given vent to their fears
over the shape of things to come as perceived by
them. The 56 to 44 vote against ratification of
the constitution for the 25-member Union has thrown
Europe into a very serious turmoil and perhaps a
contagious crisis.
For the constitution to take effect, it has to be
ratified by all 25 member states. Ratification could
be through referendum or by parliamentary vote.
Nine members have already ratified it. Eight more
referendums are to follow. Immediate to follow was
that in the Netherlands where also voters have overwhelmingly
rejected ratification.
President Jacques Chirac and his colleagues had
evidently failed to convince French voters that
Europe was headed in the right direction and the
constitution would buttress further their interests
and would not sacrifice their much-cherished way
of life.
There was obviously a stunning disconnect between
the ordinary people and the ruling elite.
The opponents played successfully on people’s
fears and painted a catastrophic scenario if the
448-clause constitution with its suffocating legalese,
numerous protocols and annexes was enforced. Although
a large number of copies of the document were distributed
to the public, few might have bothered to go through
the formidable volume. Their opinions were based
generally on hearsay and on personal perceptions
and piques.
As the AP correspondent in Paris has aptly commented:
“The debate morphed into a raucous and occasionally
xenophobic venting of French spleen that at times
seemed to have little to do with the constitution
itself.”
The voters were perhaps swayed by the following
facts and fears.
• The stagnant economy of France has given
rise to an aura of depression and disenchantment
with the government;
• Unemployment that has touched the high rate
of ten per cent.
• Worry, triggered by rumors, that the constitution
would move the EU in an ‘Anglo-Saxon’
direction, socially and economically, dictated by
market forces;
• The social security provided by the French
system to every individual from cradle to grave,
would be abridged to accommodate financially the
less fortunate members of the Union;
• A perceived reduction of French identity
and influence in the enlarged Union, particularly
at the hands of faceless technocrats at the EU headquarters
in Brussels;
• Concerns at possible future membership of
Turkey in the EU.
Whatever the combination or mixture of reasons,
the French voter’s ‘No’ has meant,
for the first time, that a significant founding-member
of the Union has now opted against the process of
integration of Europe.
It is noteworthy that the formation of the European
Union was, for the French in particular, a vindication
of its belief in a multi-polar world. The EU was
visualized as a sort of counter-weight to the American
emergence as the sole super power after the collapse
of the Soviet Union. It was, however, not meant
to cause a rift in the solidarity and integrity
of the West and its domination over the rest of
the world. It was calculated to be a shield against
the overwhelming influence of the United States
and its material values.
With the recent addition of ten East European states
to the Union, its population exceeds that of the
United States and its Gross Domestic Product has
neared that of the North American giant.
Whatever the apprehensions of the French voters,
there is no denying the fact that the European Union
has delivered half a century of stability in Europe
- the arena of the last two world wars. It has helped
to raise generally the living standards, built a
single Europe-wide market, launched on January 1,
2000 the single European currency, the Euro, and
strengthened European voice in the world.
Following the concept of unity in diversity, it
has managed to avoid friction and internecine conflict.
And, France has been, in this particular respect,
in the forefront in forging unity in a separate
European identity.
The negative vote in the referendum therefore reflects
a terrible failure of the administration of President
Chirac. No outsider need be blamed for the outcome
of its incompetence. He cannot escape the blame
by sacking his Prime Minister and other senior officials.
The high rate of unemployment and the stagnation
of the economy are not peculiar to France only.
The dynamism triggered by the globalization of world
economy has set in motion certain unavoidable trends.
The replacement of centrally-planned, socialist
economy by a market economy which admits of the
competent replacing the incompetent, has after centuries
enabled the economies of China, India, South East
Asia and other eastern countries to come out of
their shells and confinements and commence intensive
efforts to regain their place under the sun.
There has been an exodus of jobs from the US also
to China and India. China has become the manufacturing
floor of the world; India has become its software
capital. Several industrially advanced countries
of the world have accepted the reality of this situation
and have fast adjusted their economies to cope with
the challenges. So should France, instead of remaining
riveted to its past glory.
The negative vote in the French referendum has caused
a setback to the progress of the EU in integration
and in cooperative ventures. Also, it has created
difficulty in the expansion of the Union membership.
That will add further to the hurdles that Turkey
has yet to cross to get into the Union.
Unfortunately, a major hurdle has been Vatican’s
opposition to Turkey’s membership as it regards
the EU to be a Christian club. For instance, Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger, the principal theologian of the
Catholic church, said in mid-August, 2004 that it
would be a mistake to link Turkey to Europe. The
NY Times reacted editorially on August 15: “Like
the meddlesome clerics the world over, Cardinal
Ratzinger is influencing an important political
debate. He is elevating religious differences over
political process and personal beliefs over values
that are universal…”
The Turks are extremely honest, decent and hard
working people. I am saying this from personal experience
of 3 ½ years that I spent in that country.
It would be in the interest of the European Union
to commence the scheduled talks next October and
admit this great nation to their fold, the same
way that they admitted ten East European states.
The addition of this industrious nation of 70 million
would strengthen further the principal objectives
of the formation of the Union.
But, first the EU will have to sort out the problem
created by the negative vote in the French referendum.
Human ingenuity should provide a way out of the
quagmire and put the Union once more on the path
of unity and consensus.
In a globalized economy, the French can no longer
have their powerful labor unions, six weeks’
vacation, 35-hour a week work schedule. In the highly
competitive world economy of today, they will have
to adopt the ethic of intense labor to be able to
live well. It is Alice’s wonderland where
one has to keep running to be able to remain at
the same place.
Arifhussaini@hotmail.com
June 1, 2005
