AFTER THE FRENCH ‘NON’: IS THERE LIFE BEYOND THE EU CONSTITUTION?

By IPS Correspondents and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

MIAMI, Jun 1 2005 (IPS) - The European Constitution is dead; long live the European Union, writes, Joaquin Roy, \’Jean Monnet\’ Professor and Director of the European Union Center at the University of Miami. In this article for IPS, the author writes that there is still a future for the EU. Among other reasons, the EU enjoys a solid legacy, and its present lasts at least as long as the current stage of ratification of the Constitution. In France, the process of ratifying the EU constitution was considered as plebiscite on the incumbent government. To consider the French or Dutch vote as a general EU plebiscite would be comparable to accepting that some citizens are more equal than others and thus can vote in Marseille or Rotterdam on behalf of the people of Warsaw or Prague. In an EU that is on its way to reducing the number of decisions subject to unanimous approval, it is contradictory that today\’s electoral decisions cannot be made on a Europe-wide basis with no regard to state borders. In a EU-wide majority vote, the Europeans would easily approve the Constitution.

The European Constitution is dead; long live the European Union. The EU was neither founded nor died this past Sunday with the French referendum (nor will it with the Dutch decision this Wednesday). There is still a future for the EU. Among other reasons, the EU enjoys a solid legacy, and its present lasts as long as the current stage of ratification of the Constitution.

Moreover, neither France nor the Netherlands has a monopoly on European integration.

The EU is the most ambitious and successful experiment in state cooperation in the history of mankind and deserves respect and hope. Accordingly, it must be analyzed with great care at many levels: legal, political, and sociological.

In the first place, the EU is, since birth, a community of laws. As such, it has to obey its current juridical framework, which requires completion of the process of ratification through referendums or parliamentary approval in each of the EU member states.

Freezing this on-going process, denying the right of a dozen countries to express themselves, would be an act of brazen arrogance that only certain British leaders or populist opportunists are capable of.

The constitutional project, already approved by all of the democratically-elected governments, is crystal clear: the process of ratification will not end until October 2006, by which time all of the citizens or their representatives in EU countries will have had a chance to express themselves.

To do otherwise –i.e., to consider the French or Dutch vote as a general plebiscite– is comparable to accepting, in an Orwellian manner, that some citizens are more equal than others and thus can vote in Marseille or Rotterdam on behalf of the people of Warsaw or Prague.

This juridical detail simply cannot be avoided, unless one chooses to violate the current law or to stage the equivalent of a coup d’etat disguised as a decision of the European Council, the only body capable of slamming on the brakes on the rest of referendum or parliamentary ratification process.

In any event, as a community of laws, the EU still can operate under the Nice Treaty and previous agreements. In fact, many of the previous provisions of the EU would remain in effect until 2009, and even beyond, even with an approved Constitution.

In sum, there is still life after the death of the EU Constitution.

However, the political earthquake caused by the French rejection, and the possible negative outcome of the Dutch process, will have important consequences with notable legal repercussions. It will also affect the process of European integration in general, especially as regards the redefinition of the nature of the EU.

In itself, a negative vote in the Netherlands, a small country but the most important of its class, and a founding member of the EU, has remedies and possible exceptional justification.

But the French ”non” to the Constitution is very difficult to accept.

It is possible to argue that a bit over half of the almost 70 percent of the French electorate that went to the polls does not have the right to stop the process.

However, strictly speaking, the 54.87 percent of French voters that voted ”non”, around 15 million people, (plus, possibly, a few million Dutch) can overturn the decision of more than 220 million Europeans who have already approved the text. In essence, this French(/Dutch) minority will hold hostage more than 400 million Europeans. It is absurd and unfair, but that is the law.

Though it is too late to change anything, it should be noted that in an EU that is on its way to reducing the number of decisions subject to unanimous approval, it is contradictory that today’s electoral decisions cannot be made on a Europe-wide basis with no regard for state borders. In a EU-wide majority vote, the Europeans would easily approve the Constitution.

This consideration is closely linked with the debate on the nature of the EU. It is a debate between the deepening of a supranational mission and widening based on free trade under the logic of an inter-governmentally structured organisation.

From a sociological point of view, the result of the French referendum can be understood in the light of the observation that the problem with democracy is the people. Citizens have not read the EU constitution, are not interested in it, and they are not prepared to understand it. So let’s be honest: the masses do not read op-ed pieces or philosophical treatises. They have not read the constitutions of their own countries, their penal or commercial codes, and have to go to lawyers and bankers to decipher them. This is what has happened and will happen in the countries where the EU constitution was or is going to be ratified in parliament.

Why, then, did the French process have to be different? Because irresponsible politicians in some emblematic cases –Chirac should resign– played with fire, took a demagogic path, and left in the hands of the electorate, as if it were a normal presidential or congressional election, a decision that was conceived and perceived differently than originally intended. In other words, the process of ratifying the EU constitution was considered as plebiscite on the incumbent government. The same is often true in elections for the European Parliament, treated as judgements of national parties.

For the moment, one has to wait to the end of the process in November 2006. If then at least 20 (80 percent of the 25 members) countries have ratified the constitution, the European Council (by Declaration 30 annexed to the treaty) will decide what alternatives there are.

Among them, besides continuing the implementation of the existing treaties, is the rescue of certain aspects of the project ( a stable presidency, simplified voting system, a minister of foreign affairs, autonomous defense), and the option of ”reinforced cooperation” (as exemplified by the euro) among some countries that serve as an engine for future deeper integration.

Above all, what is recommended now is calm. But even this is going to be difficult. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)