John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Well, it would appear that the French exit polls are indicating a No by 55%. Let us all pray this marks the beggining of the Thousand Year Reign of Sarkozy and the eventual demarxification of France.
But what does this mean for the EU? Is this a good thing French President Jacques Chirac has conceded that voters have rejected the EU constitution in Sunday's referendum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4592243.stm
But what does this mean for the EU? Is this a good thing French President Jacques Chirac has conceded that voters have rejected the EU constitution in Sunday's referendum.
Exit polls published just after voting ended give the "No" side a resounding victory at 55%.
Mr Chirac, who had campaigned for a "Yes", said he accepted voters' "sovereign decision" - but said France would honour its European commitments.
The vote could deal a fatal blow to the constitution, which needed to be ratified by all 25 members states.
So far nine countries have done so. French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said the vote was a "real disappointment".
He added that other EU countries should go ahead with their own votes regardless.
Eight other national referendums are still to come, including one in the Netherlands on Wednesday, where the "No" side is also leading in the polls.
There were cheers from supporters of the "No" campaign when the exit polls results were announced just after voting ended at 2100 GMT.
Those who rejected the treaty included Communists, various left-wing groups, dissident socialists and far-right parties.
Referendum season
The constitution was finalised last year after long and difficult negotiations among EU governments.
The treaty includes the union's Charter of Fundamental Rights and establishes a foreign minister.
Member states can ratify the document through a referendum or by parliamentary vote. Germany ratified it on Friday. or a bad thing for all Europe?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4592243.stm
Preparing to say non and nee
May 27th 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda
Despite warnings that Europe will descend into crisis if the proposed European Union constitution is not approved, French and Dutch voters look set to reject it in their upcoming referendums
THEY have been warned that Europe will be plunged into crisis. They have been told that there is no “Plan B” and no chance of renegotiation. There has even been talk, from the Dutch justice minister, that the continent could erupt in Balkan-style wars. But the latest polls suggest that French and Dutch voters are unmoved by such histrionics, and will say non and nee in their referendums on the proposed European Union constitution.
Thirteen opinion polls in a row have now predicted that the French will reject the constitution in their referendum on Sunday May 29th. The latest, from CSA, found that of those who had made up their mind, 52% intended to vote non, against 48% planning to vote oui—other recent polls have put the non vote as high as 55%. However, even after months of intense and emotional debate over the constitution, around a fifth of Frenchmen still respond to pollsters with a Gallic shrug.
In a last-ditch attempt to persuade these undecideds to vote oui, President Jacques Chirac addressed the nation on television and radio on Thursday night. “It is about your future and that of your children, the future of France and of Europe,” he said. But his solemn and somewhat ponderous speech lacked vigour and may not be enough to turn things round.
In the Netherlands, the chances of persuading voters to accept the constitution look even slimmer. The latest poll this week, from Maurice de Hond, puts the nee vote at 57% of those who have made up their minds, against only 43% intending to vote ja. The gap has narrowed in the past week but still seems big enough to guarantee rejection of the constitution on June 1st.
In both countries, there is a big gap between what the electors are supposed to be voting on and the issues they say they are voting on. They are supposed to be voting for a constitutional treaty to make the EU more efficient, dynamic and democratic. To avoid continual stalemates in a Union that now has 25 member countries and will eventually have more than 30, the constitution would abolish national governments’ vetoes over many policy areas. It is also intended to increase Europe’s influence in the world by giving the EU a full-time president and foreign minister. The European Commission—the EU’s central bureaucracy in Brussels—would be slimmed down, while more powers would be given to the European Parliament, the EU’s legislature, which is elected by a direct vote of all EU citizens.
However, many French voters fear that the constitution would make it easier for the EU to impose “Anglo-Saxon” free-market policies on them. For them, voting non means voting to protect French jobs, employment rights and social benefits against competition from low-cost, low-tax, deregulated countries, including the EU’s new, eastern members.
Paradoxically, many Britons reject the constitution for exactly the opposite reason: they fear it will give Brussels more powers to impose French-style high taxes and heavy-handed labour laws on them. Both the French and British fears have some justification: in as much as it is possible to make sense of the long, rambling document, Britain sees the constitution's “charter of rights” section as threatening its deregulated jobs market; while the French fret over the clause committing EU members to a market economy—though this has long been EU policy, many in France want to see such liberalisme rolled back, not set in stone. In any case, the row over the constitution has revealed sharply differing policy preferences among member states that would be hard to reconcile in a single document.
Some French voters also oppose the constitution for fear that it will pave the way for Turkey to join the EU. They worry about the effects of letting such a huge and poor country into the Union. In fact, Turkey’s entry talks are likely to proceed (and drag on for years) whether or not the constitution is adopted. Though their leaders insist otherwise, many French voters are also convinced that if they reject the constitution now, it can be renegotiated to address their concerns. Last but not least, some French voters intend to vote no simply because they have had enough of Mr Chirac, and of his government’s failure to revive the economy, and wish to give him a slap in the face. In his speech on Thursday night, the president sought to appease these disgruntled voters by hinting he was about to sack his prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin.
Many Dutch voters also intend to use their referendum to punish their political leaders. The Dutch have increasingly come to share Britons’ worries that their country is being turned into a mere province of a European superstate—and fear that the constitution will only reinforce this. The Dutch are getting fed up of being the biggest net contributors to the EU’s budget on a per-head basis, despite being far from its richest citizens. They also think the scrapping of their national currency in favour of the euro has increased the cost of living. The nee campaign points out that the same political elite that signed up to the euro and allowed mass immigration—another rising Dutch worry—is now lining up behind the constitution.
Yes could still mean no, and no yes
If the polls are wrong, and France votes oui and the Dutch ja, attention would turn to Britain, whose prime minister, Tony Blair, has been forced by public opinion to hold a referendum next year. Britons seem almost certain to reject the constitution and, since it has to be approved by all 25 EU countries (though not necessarily by referendum), in theory this would kill it. In practice, if the only country rejecting the constitution were Britain—traditionally one of the most “difficult” EU members—there would likely be calls for the rest to push ahead, forcing Britain to choose between eventually accepting the constitution or becoming, at best, a semi-detached EU member.
If it is oui in France but nee in the Netherlands, it may depend on the turnout in the Dutch vote. Strictly speaking, the Dutch referendum is “consultative” and the country’s parliament may ignore its outcome. The main parties have said they will honour the popular vote as long as the turnout is above 30%. In practice, whatever the turnout, if the Dutch voters reject the constitution in spite of a French approval, they might be given an “opportunity” to reconsider, by means of a second referendum, as happened in Ireland and Denmark when voters initially rejected past EU treaties.
However, if France, a founding member of the EU and traditionally its driving force, says non, the constitution in its present form would probably be dead—regardless of whether the Dutch (also a founder member but less pivotal) say nee or ja. A second French referendum seems quite unlikely.
If angry French and Dutch voters do kill the constitution, expect a period of turbulence in Europe, especially on its financial markets (see our Buttonwood column)—and some stormy summits, as the EU’s leaders argue over what to do next. Debate would rage over which bits of the constitution could be implemented under existing treaties—some say much of it, some barely any. The leaders’ current rows—over such things as liberalising trade in services, the EU’s budget and the rebate Britain enjoys on its contributions—would get nastier. The process of admitting new member countries could slow a bit. But a collapse of the Union, as the doomsters warn? Highly unlikely. The EU would stumble on, under its present arrangements, until its leaders came up with a more convincing constitution, one whose vision of Europe’s future could win over its frustrated and suspicious voters.
