So the French voted “Non” to the European Constitution. Two thoughts:
The “Oui” camp been saying that the result represents “the French answering the wrong question”, or is caused by “a reaction to an unpopular government”, implying that if people had really voted on the constitution and nothing else, they would obviously have approved it by a massive majority. Why can’t they accept that people voted against it because they didn’t like what it said?
Constitution supporters were and are warning of all sorts of dire consequences of a No vote. How can this be? We’ve just had following conversation:
Politicians: We’ve had a think, and here’s our idea of where Europe should be going.
Europeans: Actually, we don’t like that idea.
The next line should be:
Politicians: OK, we’ll go away and think again. If we can’t come up with anything we all agree on, that’s fine. We just won’t have any further integration in Europe, as it’s clear we don’t all want to go in the same direction.
Some people find it hard to believe that every voter in the referendum actually read the 250-page constitution, which is one reason to suspect that there was more at issue than simply the specifics of that constitution. (Though it’s certainly possible that they’ve discussed and studied good summaries; I’m more interested in snarking on the length of the oh-so-Brussels document than maligning the depth of the French people’s research.)
Were I a Frenchman, though, I would certainly not have been voting solely on the basis of my belief in the specific rules of the constitution, but also about what the nature of further integration should be, and to what extent I could depend on my own government, let alone the other member nations’, to represent my interests in Brussels. This is a rare opportunity to express opinions on a government mid-term, and on the operation of the EU in anything approaching a direct manner; I’d be hard-pressed to keep those related, but not directly on-point, issues from affecting my vote, at least.
The Economist, perhaps unsurprisingly, had a pair of good articles about this in their May 28-June 3 issue, which I will freely confess have shaped my thinking on this somewhat.
Mike
I wonder will the French be bullied as much as the Irish and Danes to “go again” as in Maastricht and Nice? “Pas du tout, monsieur” I’d say.
I don’t know anything about the european politics, but as an american liberal I would kill to have some of the stuff in that constitution over here.
Things like, no death penalty, right to privacy, no discrimination of gays, protection against unjustified firings, guaranteed paid vacations, guaranteed health care and housing, every citizen can vote including fellons.
>>>
I don’t know anything about the european politics, but as an american liberal I would kill to have some of the stuff in that constitution over here.
Things like, no death penalty, right to privacy, no discrimination of gays, protection against unjustified firings, guaranteed paid vacations, guaranteed health care and housing, every citizen can vote including fellons.
@Miguel We already have all those protections in the French law. The european protections where on a lower level.
@Mark depends on how many other countries will say no. If we end up with 5 or more saying “no” then they’ll have to recraft the text which already was a compromise between 25 countries. This is where leaving the choice to the people and not their representant might change things. I’m wondering how the UK will aprove/reject the text.
FYI : I was strongly for the “NO” but I ended voting Yes at the last second. I did vote yes ta take tyhe little protection that was in it thinking better would come later – most people rejected that poor level of protection.
Not having read the proposed constitution, summaries, or even studied the key points of it (although some of the ones I heard mentioned seemed ridiculous as part of a constitution), I’m not particularly qualified to say much here. As a Republican more often than not leaning toward Libertarian, tho, I’d have voted against it simply for its absurd length. The less government there is, the better, and 250 pages is not “less”.
The main problem is that in France, they promote it as a Constitution, but it’s not : it’s a Constitutive Treaty for a new European Union. So everybody was lost : why talking in a constitution about public service, about atomic energy or regional politics ?
In fact, even being fervent European, i was “Non”, until my little sister, who is studying law and constitution, showed me that in fact, it’s the SIMPLIFICATION of the whole European treaties : Maastrich, Versailles, Nice, CECA, CEE, etc etc etc…
I watch carefully all tv debates on public, senate, news channels, but NO ONE explained that, it was completely confuse.
The other problem was the unpopularity of Jean-Pierre Raffarin, French PM being too long in action with very bad popularity and Jacques Chirac saying three monthes ago that he’ll change him after the vote. So what do you think happening ? It became a sanction vote, with more than 70% participation, instead of being only 30% as usual European PMs election