UPDATED: So the French say “Mais non”– Time for a Greater NAFTA
The French vote’s in and the break is (according to the AP) 56 percent against the EU constitution, 44 percent for the rambling, anti-democratic text. (Here’s a link to a later Reuters report, which may be a more permanent link.)
I know, the vote wasn’t against Big Brother Brussels per se, as this comment from a British commenter noted on an earlier post:
If they vote “Non” it hardly means the EU is kaput. It probably does mean the proposed treaty is kaput though.
The irony is that if they vote no it’ll be for all the wrong reasons. Social democrats, liberals and mainstream conservatives are all in favour of it. The main people pushing against it are the far right who love foreigner bashing (especially on the matter of the supposed potential threat of Turks swarming in an pinching all the jobs) and the hard left and Commies who reckon it’s all part of an Anglo plot to take over the EU and bring our ghastly capitalistic ways with us.
The AP report says:
The rejection could kill any hopes Chirac may have had for a third term. His approval ratings have plunged to 39 percent in recent weeks, and there was widespread speculation a “no” vote would prompt him to fire unpopular Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin.
There’s also this juicy remark from Britain’s Jack Straw:
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw called for a “period of reflection” after the vote.
“The result raises profound questions for all of us about the future direction of Europe,” Straw said in London.
We’ll get back to Jack in a moment.
It’s clear that a disgruntled and discombobulated French electorate expressed various types of outrage and enrage (an odd construction but given France’s constant straddling act, strikes me as appropirate). However, if the Communist Redshirts and Le Pen’s fascist Brownshirts are politically determinative in France –and that’s an argument one can make based on this plebiscite– then let’s recognize France as the politically sick society it truly is. If “sick” is a push word and too therapeutic for the pragmatic set, then call it the “lost” society. In some ways the news that the Cold War really is over has finally reached Paris. Granted– the EU’s founders had reason to be wary of rabid nationalism, given the 20th century slaughters of WWI and WWII, but the EU was as much a creature of Cold War collective threat as it was a child of economic rationalism. The economic “super market” component made fundamental sense. Free trade makes sense, particularly when your neighborhood is one of the planet’s nicest pieces of real estate — well-heeled, well-educated, and intellectually-creative Western Europe.
But political unification, beyond a loose confederation of democratic states? That pitch was always suspect, something of a canard. Well hello French duck. The French electorate has damned the intellectual product of D’Estaing and his cohorts, and stung The Crook In Chief, Jacques Chirac. At one level this is a deserved domestic slap at M. Chirac. Good deal. God smiles on drunks and the United States of America. So garcon, while you’re up, bring me the head of Jacques Chirac and I’ll give your the ten franc note and the five-mark piece I’ve stashed in my dresser drawer as curios. And if you can’t bring me his head, tell’im us cowboys are gettin’ ourselves a posse. We’re going have fun and games and some damn long yucks at the expense of Chirac and the Euro-elites for, say, the next ten, twelve, fifteen years?
As Reuters says:
France overwhelmingly rejected the European Union constitution on Sunday, pitching the EU into crisis and dealing a potentially fatal blow to a charter designed to make the enlarged bloc run smoothly.
Canada’s CTV says:
The result is a slap in the face for the French political establishment, which pioneered the idea of Europe’s integration…
…Philipped de Villiers, a leading French ‘No’ campaigner, declared: “There is no more constitution.
“The people have massively said ‘No.’ It is necessary to reconstruct Europe on other foundations that don’t currently exist.”
The charter was designed to pull European nations together, but it has left people divided. Backers say it would strengthen the EU economically and allow the continent to speak with one voice politically, while opponents say it will strip nations of national identity and trigger an influx of cheap labour.
The anti-constitution vote may have an impact on Chirac’s political future.
In recent weeks, his popularity ratings have plunged to 39 percent, and there is widespread speculation that a ‘No’ vote would force him to fire unpopular Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin.
Chirac has warned that ‘No’ would mean “Europe would be broken down, searching for an impossible consensus.”
The Dutch vote on Wednesday, with polls indicating 60 percent of Dutch voters intending to vote “No.”
For years the French elites have said “There is no Plan B” — meaning there is no fall back position to a Euro-super state.
But on reflection (per Jack Straw) there is a Plan B, and that’s a Euro-zone free market — independent nations sharing a currency and benefiting from free trade and the free flow of labor. Hold the comments– I’ll amend that to read “freer flow of labor.” It’s far tougher for a Spaniard to move to Poland than it is for an Arizonan to move to Maine.
But Mr. Straw said the French vote raises questions about the future direction of Europe.
If the Dutch reject the EU constitution, I see a potential Plan C. It’s more than an ultimate revenge for the dirty anti-American games Chirac and his pal, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, have played during the War on Terror– for Great Britain and Holland it may make a great deal of economic and political sense.
Several years ago Conrad Black suggested that Great Britain join NAFTA– the North American Free Trade Association. He thought Britain’s liberal economic tradition was a better fit with the US and Canada than with French and German statist economies. (Black wasn’t the first to make the suggestion, but he did so with more of a public splash than earlier advocates.)
The Dutch have an Anglophilic streak and a pro-US bent. (The Dutch put a battalion in Iraq. I met with Dutch officers in Baghdad several times– and was impressed.)
So let’s offer NAFTA membership to Holland and the United Kingdom. If you’re Dutch or British, why be stuck in the floundering lost cause of a Franco-centric Greater Europe? We’ll call it the North Atlantic Free Trade Association. Heck, we don’t even have to change the acronym.
UPDATE: Comments 8 and 9: Great comments. “Counter-democratic” is a very descriptive term and the analysis of how it ultimately dovetails with “anti-democratic” is on point. Thanks.
The London Times says Chirac may blame Tony Blair. (Read the entire Times article.)
And here’s The Guardian’s intial take on the French rejection. It’s a long article, but I think these are the key points:
It is too early to say whether Europe’s leaders will be going back to the drawing board after France’s stunning rejection of the EU constitutional treaty. But it is already clear that Sunday’s resounding “non” by 55% of voters plunges the union into a grave and unprecedented crisis.
No one is suggesting that the EU is about to fall apart. Denmark, Sweden and Ireland have said “no” in previous European referendums and life went on pretty much as before, in some cases after a second vote. But these were all small countries and relatively late arrivals on the scene. If a large founder member of the club, such as France, is so deeply disenchanted, pretty much everyone else has to sit up and listen - whether they like it or not.
Indeed– there will be Euro-denial, followed by Euro-therapy; there will be Euro-accusations, there will be endless Eur-opinions, until, at some point, America will be blamed– for capitalism, hyper-puissance, etc.
The Guardian indirectly addresses a commenter’s point that the EU is “counter-democratic”:
The burning question for now is whether the process of ratifying the treaty will, or indeed should, continue. Under EU law, it has to be approved by every one of the 25 member states in order to come into force. Nine countries, including Germany, Italy and Spain, have already ratified it by the simple procedure of parliamentary vote - no risk there of an outpouring of popular opinion. Should the views of close to 200 million people be ignored?
Or should member states which say “no” - like Denmark and Ireland in the past - be asked to vote again until they come up with the “right” answer. “What part of ‘no’ don’t you understand?” enraged Irish sceptics asked when they threw out the Nice treaty. They were asked to repeat the exercise anyway, losing to a better-organised yes campaign next time round.
There is an obvious tension between the formal position and what makes political sense. Formally, the ratification should go on, and may well do so. But politically, many argue, it is pointless…
Here’s a cut and splice of various other key quotes from the article:
…And asking people to vote a second time seems both wrong and pointless. Why would French voters change their minds if an identical text were re-submitted for their approval in a few months’ time? A different treaty might be a different matter, but most governments recognise that re-negotiation is out of the question. Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the former French president who chaired the convention that drew up the constitutional text, has insisted that it simply cannot be done. …
….Still, as in any negotiation, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. And reopening the whole package would almost certainly lead to total collapse -”detricotage”, as the French say. So the most likely option may be to consign the whole 448-page text to the filing cabinet, or the dustbin, depending on your view. Either would be an ignominious end to a project that began with such high hopes and concluded to the triumphant strains of Beethoven’s Ode to Joy, Europe’s anthem…
…All in all, surveying the European scene the morning after France’s extraordinary vote, the view is bleak and prospects uncertain - and may remain so for months, and perhaps years, to come.
It’s a good read — remarkably sober for the Guardian, and indicative of the the rejection’s heavy political punch.
Why not offer NAFTA membership to all of Europe? Let the French and Germans decline (if they wish), but I would not do anything to foster the impression that we are trying to divide Europe. This might be the one step that actually assists the French and Gernmans in reducing the statism that currently burdens their economies (assuming that they agreed to join — something which I would strongly doubt!).
Comment by RAZ — 5/29/2005 @ 10:09 pm
What about Ireland? Perhaps they’re too Anglo-phobic, but they’re low-tax policies have been a thorn in the EUs side for years. And then, what about the old Hanseatic League? Free trade histories run deep.
Comment by equitus — 5/29/2005 @ 11:08 pm
The great Robert Conquest proposed a similar idea–an anglophone alliance–in his book on the history of the 20th century, published in 2000. I forget the name right now, but one of the final chapters covered this topic in some detail, along with his criticism of the “European idea”.
Comment by Robert Solot — 5/29/2005 @ 11:19 pm
It’s time for Manifest Destiny Phase 2. First, offer NAFTA to England, Netherlands, Australia, and any other nations that might be interested. Second, for any nation with a seacost already in NAFTA , offer US statehood status to its component parts, subject to voter approval and political negotiations. For example, Canada with its 10 provinces and 3 territories might become 9 US states and 3 US territories, and the new nation of Quebec. Then, if Mexico is assimilated ( Borg?), illegal immigration from Mexico changes from an international problem to a domestic problem of US citizens moving from one state to another. Political leaders in the new states change from being big fish in little ponds to little fish in a big pond, but with the potential to become the biggest fish in the big pond. Military integration occurs somehow ( magic ? ).
Comment by Rick — 5/30/2005 @ 12:42 am
Monday Winds of War: May 30/05 Memorial Day Tribute; Zarqawi roundup; King Fahd; France, the EU, and ‘non’ mean ‘oui’?; Shift in war effort; NATO’s punch; Iran Reports; Lebanese politics; Palestinian prisoner release; Mexican antiterror commandos turn; AQ in Algeria; More probl…
Trackback by Winds of Change.NET — 5/30/2005 @ 12:51 am
Nice idea. Falls over under a super-sized version of the Logan Act. The UK and Holland can’t do things like that unless the EU says they can. They can withdraw from the EU and join NAFTA (or ASEAN or COMECON, for that matter) but competency in agreeing international trade treaties has been withdrawn from them whilst they are EU member states.
Comment by David Gillies — 5/30/2005 @ 1:52 am
French voters had legit concerns over a flood of cheap labor pricing them out of living wages. I agree that their economy is pathetic in terms of growth and anti-entrepeneurial structures, a tendency towards statism and crony/family capitalism (see: Mexico, Italy). However with Turkey’s admission into the EU there would be literally nothing to stop Turks from all moving to Paris and becoming rude Turkish waiters in rude French Restaurants. Or, seriously, undercutting all the skilled labor there with cheap labor. It isn’t funny when you worry about your job
Comment by Jim Rockford — 5/30/2005 @ 2:27 am
Mr Bay describes the proposed constitution as anti-democratic. As a citizen of one of its dominiums, I have always considered the EU (or Franco-German Co-prosperity Sphere as I prefer to describe it) to be counter-democratic rather than anti-democratic. The difference between counter- and anti-? China and Cuba suppress actively democratic activities and imprison proponents of democracy, that’s anti-democratic. On the other hand, the EU promotes democratic practices, elections, referenda, etc., but strives mightily and relatively successfully to ensure that “wrong” results are ignored or reversed, e.g., the repeat referenda in Ireland and Denmark. The EU administration has structured itself so that it is largely insulated from democracy and can proceed regardless of the outcome of democratic processes. That’s counter-democratic. Ultimately, the result is the same. Unrestrained state power and a powerless peasantry. Fortunately, the EU has a way to go before getting there and it can be stopped.
Comment by Michael Mac Guinness — 5/30/2005 @ 2:59 am
Why doesn’t the US join the British Commonwealth? It’s a former colony, and we can let bygones be bygones now, can’t we?
Comment by Colin — 5/30/2005 @ 3:51 am
France Votes “No” It’s being reported that France has rejected the EU Constitution, but I think most pundits and news outlets are a little off in their commentary as to why the frogs voted no. First, every leader since DeGaulle has held onto the belief that France i…
Trackback by Iowa Voice — 5/30/2005 @ 7:17 am
Why limit it to Britain and the Netherlands? Rumania, Poland and the Czech Republic have been staunch allies against Iraq. Include them, too — but only if they forswear the EU.
Comment by Mark L — 5/30/2005 @ 7:38 am
France Nixes EU Compact: Is Chirac French Toast? A shocker…A failure of leadership…A body blow… An embarrassment to France…A repudiation……
Trackback by The Moderate Voice — 5/30/2005 @ 10:20 am
The European Union was created by Jean Monnet and others for a stated purpose and for an unstated one. The first was to fulfill the trans-national spirit of the World War II resistance and to bury national hatchets after the war. The second was to enmesh nations in a structure that would greatly diminish the ability of national electorates to go crazy as some of them did in the interwar period. The first purpose was served but the second purpose may have backfired now if it is causing electorates to turn again toward extremists. The fundamental error of the EU founders was their belief that they could create a regional society without a democratically-accountable regional government to regulate it. As a result, the EU has accrued more and more regulatory power with no commensurate increase in democratic accountability. Europe has three options now. One is to muddle along with existing treaties and try another reform again in five years or so. The second is for the western members to form a closer sub-union in which French and German interests could be defended more strongly. The third is to devolve power back to nation-states but make the institutions of the remaining EU fully accountable to a regional electorate. My guess is that Europe will opt for the path of least resistance but in the long run the problem of accountability will have to be solved.
Comment by David Billington — 5/30/2005 @ 3:53 pm
It is possible that if the United Kingdom leaves the EU it might look for some closer association with North America. But I think a North Atlantic Free Trade Area would be problematical for two reasons: First, the existing NAFTA treaty replicates EU-style institutions (eg. regional courts). If the trade area becomes more integrated, new regulatory problems will arise as they have in Europe, creating pressure for government to government agreements that erode national sovereignty piecemeal. The result would be the kinds of tensions that have been tearing Europe apart. Second, a further division of the North Atlantic community would undermine NATO. The Anglosphere concept envisions a new military as well as economic bloc but a military bloc that leaves out Germany and France would make the position of eastern Europe indefensible and could destabilize all of Europe. An Anglosphere bloc could also have trouble holding itself together: the United Kingdom and Australia may not be willing to support the United States in everything that America wants to do (the UK has already signaled that it won’t join a preemptive strike on Iran). America is really the nucleus of a world state and if it has a larger future it is gradually to draw the world into itself, not to group or regroup itself with some part of the world that excludes others. The great danger in the middle decades of the twenty-first century is a new multipolarity on earth and in outer space that coincides with critical resource scarcities. Every international grouping that exists today is a hindrance if it is not a means to the end of mitigating this future.
Comment by David Billington — 5/30/2005 @ 4:09 pm
Poland a more likely first partner, role up the Warsaw Pact nations. Then go for Norway, Then current EU members
Comment by Richard Heddleson — 5/30/2005 @ 5:29 pm
Norway? Why would we take on that socialist mess? I’m even hesitant about Holland. However I would really like to see the US nix NAFTA —mostly to screw over the corrupt, resentful parasites that are Mexico and Canada, and sign multi-lateral trade agreements with the UK, Easter Europe, and Australia.
Comment by Jason — 5/30/2005 @ 8:11 pm
Eastern Europe that is.
Comment by Jason — 5/30/2005 @ 8:12 pm
Creating a North Atlantic NAFTA with Britain and Ireland and the Netherlands would work fine. It would be a lot less tough to sell than free trade with a third world country like Mexico. Mr. Billington’s comment about Britain not necessarily joining the USA in a military venture in the future favors rather than disfavors a UK-in-NAFTA position. Unlike the EU, which expressly seeks “ever closer union” the US-UK military alliance is voluntary and case-by-case. Britain sat out Vietnam, too. We were allies through all that. By keeping the military alliance and trade arrangements in separate stovepipes, we can get an optimal arrangement with Britain, and potentially with other countries. We don’t want to create a unitary state with Britain in it. We want Britain to be an independent country, ally and trading partner. An Anglosphere trade pact would serve all parties well, and need not exclude non-anglophones like the Dutch. Also, while Ireland might not like to get too close to Britain, it would probably happily get closer to the USA, even if Britain was along for the ride. As Sile de Valera put it, Dublin is closer to Boston than to Berlin.
Comment by Lexington Green — 5/30/2005 @ 8:45 pm
Lexington Green, Thank you for your points. The problem I see is this: As David Gillies points out, Britain, Ireland, and Holland would have to withdraw from the EU in order to sign trade deals with us. All would have a lot to lose if they did that, Holland in particular. If North America merged with Europe, the EU might lose its rationale, and there is a good case for creating an economic area coextensive with NATO (as an enlarged NAFTA). But if North America and Europe remain separate economic zones, I’m afraid it will be difficult for parts of Europe to join us. I agree that security and trade are separable and that if the partners to a North Atlantic Free Trade Area are willing to disagree in security they could still be partners in trade. But Britain’s decision to sit out the Vietnam War did not undermine the Anglo-American alliance because the alliance existed primarily to contain Soviet expansion in Europe. It is less easy for me to see what larger common interest would hold the Anglo-American alliance together today, if America and Britain disagree over what to do about nuclear proliferation in the event diplomacy and economic incentives fail to halt it. There really isn’t an issue more important than this.
Comment by David Billington — 5/31/2005 @ 3:46 pm
Why not offer NAFTA membership to all of Europe? What has all of Europe done for us lately? The governments that assisted us in Iraq, yes. The rest, no. Reward our friends. Ignore the rest.
Comment by rosignol — 6/1/2005 @ 6:42 am