Posted on 06/01/2005 12:05:12 PM PDT by .cnI redruM
French President Jacques Chirac forgot the first rule of European Union politics: “Don’t consult the voters (it will only encourage them).” For that, he suffered a crushing defeat on Sunday, when 55 percent of French voters delivered a stirring “non” to the proposed new EU constitution, potentially ending the EU project as we have known it. See what mischief comes from allowing pesky public opinion to have too large a say in EU affairs?
To this point, the EU has become steadily more powerful on the basis of bureaucratic aggrandizement and elite bullying. After the French vote, EU worthies lined up to dismiss it. Josep Borrell, president of the EU parliament, said, “France decides only for France.” But the constitution is supposed to be approved by all 25 EU member nations. Martin Schulz, a member of the parliament, agreed: “We respect the result of this democratic vote. But [there’s always a ‘but’] French voters voted against the opportunity to create a better Europe.” And so the implication hangs in the air that the vote is illegitimate and cannot stand.
This is the EU way. It was practically built on reversing inconvenient popular votes. In 1992, Denmark rejected the Maastricht Treaty, the agreement to change the European Community — a common market — into the more ambitious European Union. Since this result was considered unacceptable, a revote was held shortly afterward, and the treaty passed. Ireland rejected the Nice Treaty, which would have expanded the EU from 15 to 25 nations in 2001, and then accepted it in a revote in October 2002. Revotes are never deemed necessary when a pro-EU measure passes.
Such a “do over” is already being discussed in France, the heart of the EU. Sunday’s vote was a little like Texas voting against President George W. Bush. French attitudes have been implanted into the very DNA of the EU, including the bureaucratic centralization and anti-Americanism. Chirac could plausibly argue that France would fulfill its national destiny by ratifying the constitution, the drafting of which was led by — of course — a former French president.
The voters had different ideas. They rejected the ungainly document, which is as thick as a trashy summer novel, for a dog’s breakfast of right-wing and left-wing reasons. Many “non” voters opposed the “Anglo-Saxon” free-market economic policies that would accompany further EU integration. But even an Anglo-Saxon can find the French public’s verdict exhilarating, a thumb-in-the-eye revolt against their betters, who didn’t realize the mistake in allowing them to vote until it was too late.
The EU is meant to smother just such populist outbursts. Only the unelected European Commission — a collection of bureaucrats from each of the member states — can propose legislation, giving it a preemptive veto over the work of the European parliament. The parliament itself has limited powers, and can only pass advisory opinions on many issues. The parliament’s claim to represent anyone in the first place is tenuous since its elections routinely draw a pathetic turnout.
The crisis brought on by the French vote represents an opportunity. The EU vision has always been to unify the 25 members into one European super-state with common foreign and defense policies and to make it a geopolitical rival to America. Now, U.S. policymakers should encourage a two-tiered EU. The center — France, Germany and Belgium — should be tightly united in a federation. The rest should be loosely affiliated in a glorified free-trade area, thus preserving the ability of Britain and countries in Eastern Europe to maintain their distinct (and markedly more sympathetic to the U.S.) foreign policies.
The German playwright Bertolt Brecht once wrote a poem mocking the Soviets for complaining about the skepticism with which East Germans regarded them: “Would it not be easier for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?” Surely that is the option that the EU masters would prefer in the wake of the French vote. Democracy will take some getting used to.
GNP in France and Germany is down 20% over ten years and unemployment is 10%. Is it any wonder that people would question the duo that dominates the EU?
How luck are we?
Puts in perspective the monumental accomplishment the United States Constitution is. Plus, our guys wrote Japan's Constitution. Some props go out to the Magna Carta.
"Overripe dog's breakfast" good imagery!
Very lucky. I've never seen a brief, but complete, document that wasn't well thought out. I've read lots of long ones that made me feel sorrow over the poor lost trees.
Sounds yummy, doesn't it?
And the Founding Fathers didn't need nearly 500 pages for our Constitution either.
Chirac could have submitted the Constitution vote to the Parliament instead of a referendum, in which case it would have been overwhelmingly approved. Since the EU constitution can be ratified by either representative body or referendum, why didn't Chirac go for the sure thing?
These crackpots have too much time on their hands.
Because he was shamed into asking the French people for their opinion by Tony Blair's announcing a referendum in the UK.
Chirac could still just let the French legislature decide and ignore the referendum. Most European countries ratified the EU constitution by legislative fiat. France and Denmark may decide to go that route. Just ignore the electorate becasue they are not enlightened. It is after all, only 400 pages written in the universal language of Beaurocese, a recent addition to the various European dialects understood by all beaurocrats everywhere.
They may very well do so...Give it six months.
Oh, God. I remember that. It cost the Cowboys dearly.
You're thinking of the infamous touched ball during the Thanksgiving Day game. That was funny as well.
Just goes to show that brilliance is timeless...but so too is utter incompetence.
Because you cannot make such a fundamental change in French sovereignty without consulting the French.
Had Chirac attempted to simply press the issue through Parliament, the opposition would have still been as opposed, and as vocal. And once Parliament voted "yes", the unions would have voted "no" with a general strike, which would have endured until the government capitulated.
Since the Fifth Republic was founded, no French government has ever withstood a general strike. Once things come to a general strike, the strikers invariably win, because there is nothing to trump them.
Pushing this through Parliament would have invoked a general strike. Chirac knew this. The issue was too big to attempt to implement without broad public approval.
The public did not approve because of immigration and emigration anxieties: the immigration of workers, and the emigration of jobs to the East.
America has nothing by way of general strikes, but it does have the same immigration/emigration anxieties right now, and with good reason. The politician who siezes on these immigration anxieties in America will surge to the fore in the next US election.
Because you cannot make such a fundamental change in French sovereignty without consulting the French.
Had Chirac attempted to simply press the issue through Parliament, the opposition would have still been as opposed, and as vocal. And once Parliament voted "yes", the unions would have voted "no" with a general strike, which would have endured until the government capitulated.
Since the Fifth Republic was founded, no French government has ever withstood a general strike. Once things come to a general strike, the strikers invariably win, because there is nothing to trump them.
Pushing this through Parliament would have invoked a general strike. Chirac knew this. The issue was too big to attempt to implement without broad public approval.
The public did not approve because of immigration and emigration anxieties: the immigration of workers, and the emigration of jobs to the East.
America has nothing by way of general strikes, but it does have the same immigration/emigration anxieties right now, and with good reason. The politician who siezes on these immigration anxieties in America will surge to the fore in the next US election.
Ah, yes. You're right. In the snow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.