Through the Looking Glass
Following the referendum on the EU Constition in France, Dutch voters went to the polls on June 1, 2005, to express their views about political union in Europe. Like the French, 55 percent of whom voted non, the Dutch let their voices be heard in no uncertain terms. Nee was the verdict of a whopping 63 percent of eligible Dutch voters.
Something is clearly wrong in paradise. After all, the Netherlands was a pioneer of European integration, starting with its membership in the original Benelux agreement. French politicians have been at the forefront of designing the current and future European Union. The Constitution itself came largely from the watchful eye of a political giant in French politics, Giscard d’Estaing.
Interestingly, opposition to the Constitution did not follow party lines. The Socialist Party in France supported it; the Socialist Party in the Netherlands did not. Most mainstream political parties supported, as did most labor unions and business groups. Nevertheless, the referendums in France and the Netherlands revealed a huge gap between the views of elected politicians, special-interest groups and the attitudes of the voters.
When we look at some of the reasons that people were against the Constitution, we find that many of them were unfounded, even contradictory. In an article entitled Stop the Superstate Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan wrote:
A Dutch political scientist expressed his opposition in this way:
There were those who resented the fact that God and Christianity were not specifically mentioned: God kept out of Constitution
Others, like Jean-Marie Le Pen, head of the far-right National Front, faulted Chirac for threatening the French with "chaos" if they voted no, adding, "He isn't qualified, it seems to me, to remain as the head of the country.
Even a politically-correct American had something to say about it, in an e-mail to Radio Netherlands:
Perhaps the most definitive nee came from former Dutch labor politician and television personality, Marcel van Dam. Writing in the Dutch-language newspaper, Volkskrant, he fumed about the government’s publicity campaign to get the public to vote ja, labelling it “manipulation”, particularly the 3 million euro of tax money spent to promote the government’s viewpoint.
Van Dam explained his reasons for voting “no” on the referendum. He sees European integration developing in the wrong direction, with too little democratic control and too much “pseudo” democratic control being handed over to private-sector companies to do the government’s work. The metaphor he uses to describe this trend towards public-private collaboration is that of a pacifier. Although the taste is improving, according to Van Dam, it still remains a pacifier that has little to do with democracy. He also worries that “more than half” of all the laws and legislation that affect the Netherlands originate in Brussels.
Although he says that he is really in favor of European unity, not only does he decry the lack of democracy that creates a wedge between politics and the people, he identifies politics in the Netherlands as being out of touch with the “little guy”. One example he offers is the imposition of the euro to replace the Dutch guilder. The people had nothing to say about what he considers to be an important decision. He also has his intuitive moments, for example, when he states flatly (apparently with a prescience that few politicians ever attain), “Europeans still consider the euro a foreign currency.”
The rest of his article – and most of his arguments against the EU Constitution – mainly refer to what he characterises as “grievances” of the Dutch people towards the gradual disintegration of the pension and healthcare schemes in the Netherlands.
This is of course all very interesting and, no doubt, reflective of the attitudes of many people in the Netherlands. What it is not is an argument against the Constitution. On the contrary, one could argue that the very problems that Van Dam identifies and the improvements he would like to see in Europe could only come about once the Constitution has been ratified. After all, without a constitutional framework that spells out the rights and obligations of European citizens and the democratic process for political union, it seems meaningless to talk about democratic reforms. Without a viable EU Constitution, member states are simply back to nation-state status, before they became member states, before they dreamed of economic and political union.
Like its distant model, the U.S. Constitution, the European constitutional treaty, as it’s also called, strives to create an objective set of principles and commitments to defend intellectual, political and economic freedom. It endeavors to provide a rational frame of reference to enable current and future member states to live together, work together and prosper together in a peaceful, socially-cohesive Europe.
Like the U.S. Constitution, the debate about its European counterpart is also a debate between “Federalist” and “Anti-Federalist” ideologies. It is about strong central government versus fragmented local governments, whose uncoordinated actions could compromise European foreign policy and interests, as it has by taking sides in the American invasion of Iraq. Like the U.S. Constitution – a subtle point that many of the “anti’s” seemed to have missed – ratification no longer requires the unanimous approval of all member states.
Article 76* of the proposed EU Constitution states:
So far, nine member states have ratified the Constitution, representing 49 percent of the EU's population. The majority of EU member states have not yet voted. This could be bad news for the “nays”. What the people of France and (perhaps) the Netherlands (since referendums in that country are not constitutionally binding) may have to face in the future is not a new debate about a revised European Constitution, but a downgrading to “associate-member status”.
As the French newspaper, Le Figaro put it:
Among the admixture of reasons, emotional and rational, there was a large measure of euro skepticism, perhaps even europhobia, behind the rejection of the EU Constitution. Considering predictions that most other member states will ratify the new Constitution, the citizens of France and the Netherlands could wake up one day soon and, rather than seeing their political views reflected in a strong European Union, like Alice, they could find themselves on the wrong side of the European looking glass.
_______________
* At the time of writing, I referred to what I thought was an official version of the proposed EU Constitution, found at this site. However, when I compared the format to the Constitution as shown in the Official Journal of the European Union (at this site), the two versions did not match. It looks as though the first version is either a re-write of the original or an attempt to make the document easier to read. In either case, I could not find the equivalent of Article 76 in the original EU Constitution. Therefore, the information given in this commentary may not be accurate. Further checking is required.
Something is clearly wrong in paradise. After all, the Netherlands was a pioneer of European integration, starting with its membership in the original Benelux agreement. French politicians have been at the forefront of designing the current and future European Union. The Constitution itself came largely from the watchful eye of a political giant in French politics, Giscard d’Estaing.
Interestingly, opposition to the Constitution did not follow party lines. The Socialist Party in France supported it; the Socialist Party in the Netherlands did not. Most mainstream political parties supported, as did most labor unions and business groups. Nevertheless, the referendums in France and the Netherlands revealed a huge gap between the views of elected politicians, special-interest groups and the attitudes of the voters.
When we look at some of the reasons that people were against the Constitution, we find that many of them were unfounded, even contradictory. In an article entitled Stop the Superstate Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan wrote:
The European Constitutional convention is making life safer for federalist fat cats… The Convention is meant to be all about ‘the people’. Its supporters like to compare it to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, which drafted the US Constitution. The trouble is that, while it is theoretically democratic, the Convention is not representative. As well as commissioners and MEPs, it comprises three representatives from each EU member and applicant state. Two are appointed by the national parliaments, the third by the governments (the Italians, deliciously, are called Signor Dini, Signor Fini and Signor Spini).
A Dutch political scientist expressed his opposition in this way:
"I have basically two objections to the Constitution. One is related to the technicalities of the Constitution - 90 percent of the Constitution actually already exists and there you see on the one hand advantages when it comes to democracy but on the other there's a serious problem when it comes to foreign affairs."
"I think the referendum on the Constitution is also a referendum on the current state in which Europe now finds itself in. And I think there are also serious problems - especially with the neo-liberal integration policy which prefers the economic to the social. There is also a severe democratic deficit."
There were those who resented the fact that God and Christianity were not specifically mentioned: God kept out of Constitution
Others, like Jean-Marie Le Pen, head of the far-right National Front, faulted Chirac for threatening the French with "chaos" if they voted no, adding, "He isn't qualified, it seems to me, to remain as the head of the country.
Even a politically-correct American had something to say about it, in an e-mail to Radio Netherlands:
William Bushey , Wilmington, Delaware, USA:"I want to preface my comments with the proviso that I am not Dutch, I am not European and I certainly believe that Europeans definitely don't need outsiders how to vote. I am perfectly willing to live with whatever the outcome is because it is NOT my decision to make.
"Having said that, I would just like to say how one American likes living in a mega-nation. Briefly, it ain't that good. The advantages - a common market (which you have without union), excellent defence, and ease of travel must be balanced against the disadvantages of enforced homogenisation. In the USA, the red states are not the same as the blue states but we are bound together whether we like it or not. It is beyond my comprehension why someone in Europe would look at the USA and say 'Hey, let's be like them!' I say, Europe, rejoice in your diversity and keep it up."
Perhaps the most definitive nee came from former Dutch labor politician and television personality, Marcel van Dam. Writing in the Dutch-language newspaper, Volkskrant, he fumed about the government’s publicity campaign to get the public to vote ja, labelling it “manipulation”, particularly the 3 million euro of tax money spent to promote the government’s viewpoint.
Van Dam explained his reasons for voting “no” on the referendum. He sees European integration developing in the wrong direction, with too little democratic control and too much “pseudo” democratic control being handed over to private-sector companies to do the government’s work. The metaphor he uses to describe this trend towards public-private collaboration is that of a pacifier. Although the taste is improving, according to Van Dam, it still remains a pacifier that has little to do with democracy. He also worries that “more than half” of all the laws and legislation that affect the Netherlands originate in Brussels.
Although he says that he is really in favor of European unity, not only does he decry the lack of democracy that creates a wedge between politics and the people, he identifies politics in the Netherlands as being out of touch with the “little guy”. One example he offers is the imposition of the euro to replace the Dutch guilder. The people had nothing to say about what he considers to be an important decision. He also has his intuitive moments, for example, when he states flatly (apparently with a prescience that few politicians ever attain), “Europeans still consider the euro a foreign currency.”
The rest of his article – and most of his arguments against the EU Constitution – mainly refer to what he characterises as “grievances” of the Dutch people towards the gradual disintegration of the pension and healthcare schemes in the Netherlands.
This is of course all very interesting and, no doubt, reflective of the attitudes of many people in the Netherlands. What it is not is an argument against the Constitution. On the contrary, one could argue that the very problems that Van Dam identifies and the improvements he would like to see in Europe could only come about once the Constitution has been ratified. After all, without a constitutional framework that spells out the rights and obligations of European citizens and the democratic process for political union, it seems meaningless to talk about democratic reforms. Without a viable EU Constitution, member states are simply back to nation-state status, before they became member states, before they dreamed of economic and political union.
Like its distant model, the U.S. Constitution, the European constitutional treaty, as it’s also called, strives to create an objective set of principles and commitments to defend intellectual, political and economic freedom. It endeavors to provide a rational frame of reference to enable current and future member states to live together, work together and prosper together in a peaceful, socially-cohesive Europe.
Like the U.S. Constitution, the debate about its European counterpart is also a debate between “Federalist” and “Anti-Federalist” ideologies. It is about strong central government versus fragmented local governments, whose uncoordinated actions could compromise European foreign policy and interests, as it has by taking sides in the American invasion of Iraq. Like the U.S. Constitution – a subtle point that many of the “anti’s” seemed to have missed – ratification no longer requires the unanimous approval of all member states.
Article 76* of the proposed EU Constitution states:
Article 76: Entry into force of the Constitution
(1) This Constitution shall enter into force once it has been submitted for ratification by the European Council and if supported thereafter by three quarters of the Member States of the Union representing 75% of the population according to their own constitutional requirements.
(2) Any existing Member State of the Union deciding not to adopt this Constitution may seek associate membership.
(3) This Constitution shall enter into force at the start of the second month after the fullfillment of paragraph.
So far, nine member states have ratified the Constitution, representing 49 percent of the EU's population. The majority of EU member states have not yet voted. This could be bad news for the “nays”. What the people of France and (perhaps) the Netherlands (since referendums in that country are not constitutionally binding) may have to face in the future is not a new debate about a revised European Constitution, but a downgrading to “associate-member status”.
As the French newspaper, Le Figaro put it:
"There will be a before- and an after-May 29. The French [and by inference, the Dutch] take the risk that European history will proceed without them."
Among the admixture of reasons, emotional and rational, there was a large measure of euro skepticism, perhaps even europhobia, behind the rejection of the EU Constitution. Considering predictions that most other member states will ratify the new Constitution, the citizens of France and the Netherlands could wake up one day soon and, rather than seeing their political views reflected in a strong European Union, like Alice, they could find themselves on the wrong side of the European looking glass.
_______________
* At the time of writing, I referred to what I thought was an official version of the proposed EU Constitution, found at this site. However, when I compared the format to the Constitution as shown in the Official Journal of the European Union (at this site), the two versions did not match. It looks as though the first version is either a re-write of the original or an attempt to make the document easier to read. In either case, I could not find the equivalent of Article 76 in the original EU Constitution. Therefore, the information given in this commentary may not be accurate. Further checking is required.
posted by J. DeVincent at 11:45 AM
3 comments
