Kopiere es hier rein, da der Artikel kostenpflichtig ist - vielleicht interessiert es ja jemanden
A big, loud French u201Cnonu201D
May 29th 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda
French voters have rejected the proposed European Union constitution by a decisive margin. The flawed constitution is now probably dead, though the EU will get by without it. For President Jacques Chirac, however, it is a crushing defeat
CELEBRATIONS burst out among the non campaigners gathered in Parisu2019s Place de la Bastille at 10pm on Sunday May 29th, when the last polling booths closed and Franceu2019s television networks broadcast exit polls predicting that voters had decisively rejected the proposed new constitution for the European Union. And the official result, announced in the early hours of Monday, closely matched those exit polls: some 54.9% had said non, with just 45.1% voting oui.
Just as impressive as the ten-percentage-point margin of victory for the constitutionu2019s opponents was the scale of the turnoutu2014almost 70%. This is far higher than might have been expected when the referendum was first called, though perhaps unsurprising given how fiercely the debate over the constitution had been raging across France in the final weeks of the campaign. The atmosphere in French homes, bars, campuses and television studios has been electric, as supporters, opponents and the confused and undecided argued furiously over the 191-page document.
Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg, who currently holds the EUu2019s rotating presidency, insisted on Sunday night that the constitution was not dead, but admitted that u201Cit didnu2019t gain in force tonightu201Du2014an understatement perhaps on a par with the Japanese emperoru2019s announcement to his people in 1945 that the war had u201Cdeveloped not necessarily to Japanu2019s advantageu201D. To come into force, the constitutionu2014strictly speaking, a constitutional treatyu2014must be ratified by all 25 EU member countries, though not necessarily through a referendum. In theory, the French might be given an u201Copportunityu201D to reconsider, by means of a second referendum, as happened in Ireland and Denmark when voters initially rejected past EU treaties. However, the strength of the non vote makes this seem unlikely.
The chances of reviving the constitution will be even slimmer if, as the polls suggest, the Dutch reject it in their referendum on June 1st. Their prime minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, urged them to vote ja despite the outcome of the French ballot. But the result in France seems likely if anything to strengthen Dutch resolve to vote nee.
Though expectations of a French non had been growing in the final days before the referendum, the strength of the constitutionu2019s rejection will send shockwaves across Europe, especially in France itself. For the document to be rejected by Franceu2014one of the EUu2019s six founding members and traditionally the Unionu2019s driving forceu2014is quite spectacular. An altogether different result had been expected until March, when the hitherto solid vote in favour of the constitution suddenly collapsed.
President Jacques Chirac and many other political leaders, left and right, had urged voters to approve the constitution, arguing that it would make Europe more efficient, dynamic and democratic. To avoid continual stalemates in a Union recently expanded from 15 to 25 countries, the constitution would abolish national governmentsu2019 vetoes in many policy areas. To increase Europeu2019s global influence, it would give the EU a full-time president and foreign minister. The European Commissionu2014the EUu2019s central bureaucracy in Brusselsu2014would be slimmed, while more powers would be given to the European Parliament, which is elected by a direct vote of EU citizens.
However, the more they debated the constitution, the more the French came to see it as a means for the EUu2019s bureaucrats and other member countries to impose u201CAnglo-Saxonu201D free-market policies on France. So, voting non supposedly came to mean voting to protect French jobs, employment rights and social benefits against competition from low-cost, low-tax, deregulated countries, including the EUu2019s new eastern members. Some told pollsters they were voting non out of fear that the constitution would pave the way for Turkey to join the EU. Some imagined that if they rejected the document now, it could be renegotiated to address their concerns.
Last but not least, many Frenchmen rejected the constitution simply because they have had enough of Mr Chirac, and of his governmentu2019s failure to revive the economy and cut Franceu2019s high unemploymentu2014and wanted to slap him in the face. The result is certainly a crushing blow to the president. He said before the vote that he would not resign if the result was non, but the defeat has almost certainly wrecked his chances of running for a third term in 2007. His internal rivals, most notably Nicolas Sarkozy, the ambitious head of Mr Chiracu2019s conservative governing party, the Union for a Popular Majority (UMP), are already sharpening their knives.
In a televised address after the close of voting, Mr Chirac acknowledged the votersu2019 dissatisfaction and promised to respond by giving u201Ca new and strong impetus to the action of the governmentu201D. The easy part of this will be sacking his unpopular prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarinu2014he will probably be out of his job within days. The hard part will be choosing a replacement. Since the voters have expressed a clear demand for change, the obvious candidate for prime minister would be Mr Sarkozy. He has been calling (and called again after Sundayu2019s vote) for the French political elite to abandon their pensée unique (group-think) and look at how other countries have overcome high unemployment through tough reforms. However, Mr Sarkozy would insist on having a free hand to do things his way. This might be an unbearable prospect for Mr Chirac, who cannot stand his hyperactive, upstart rival.
Mr Chirac could seek an easy life by choosing a high-profile loyalist, such as his interior minister, Dominique de Villepin, or his defence minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie. But this risks enraging the voters, who might feel that the president hasnu2019t listened to their demands for change.
The referendum outcome will not just cause pandemonium in the UMP but among the opposition Socialists too. The vote has dented the presidential hopes of François Hollande, their leader, who urged a oui vote, while it boosts the fortunes of one of his main internal rivals, Laurent Fabius, who disobeyed the party line and called for a non. Though Mr Hollande now looks like damaged goods, many Socialists are furious at Mr Fabius for splitting the party, so it will be difficult for him to snatch its nomination for the presidency.
Crisisu2014or opportunity?
What of those predictions that the EU would be plunged into a terrible crisis if the French or the Dutch voted against the constitution? In fact, while Europeu2019s financial markets, and especially the euro, have wobbled, the chances are that the EU will weather this particular row the way it has survived past crises. There will be some stormy summits, as member countriesu2019 leaders argue over what to do next. Their current rowsu2014over such things as liberalising trade in services and the EUu2019s budgetu2014will probably get nastier. And Turkeyu2019s entry talks, due to start in October, risk being postponed.
But a collapse of the Union is unlikely. The EU will stumble on somehow, under its present arrangements. France, having given voice to its dissatisfaction at the EUu2019s creeping free-marketry, may replace Britain as the Unionu2019s main spoiler and dissident. The British prime minister, Tony Blair, who takes over the EUu2019s presidency in July, is likely now to seek a consensus among his fellow leaders that the constitution should be buried and, perhaps, its best parts enacted piecemeal instead. If so, he will be the French referendumu2019s big winner, since he will be spared the embarrassment of holding a British referendum on the constitution, which he would almost certainly have lost.
