A shocker…A failure of leadership…A body blow… An embarrassment to France…A repudiation…
Those are adjectives that some are using in the wake of France’s rejection of the European Union’s first constitution. And they’re popping up in news stories not just about the vote outcome but about French President Jacques Chirac and France’s political establishment. The news reports, editorial reaction, and weblog comments are as devastating as the VOTE. The bottom line: Chirac put his reputation and clout on the line — and lost, bigtime:
Chirac, who had urged voters to approve the charter, announced the result in a brief, televised address. He said the process of ratifying the treaty would continue in other EU countries.
“It is your sovereign decision, and I take note,” Chirac said. “Make no mistake, France’s decision inevitably creates a difficult context for the defense of our interests in Europe.”
With nearly 96 percent of votes counted, “no” had 55.5 percent, with only 44.5 percent for “yes,” the Interior Ministry said.
The treaty’s rejection in a bitterly contested referendum in France — the architect of the European project — could set the continent’s plans back by years and amounts to a personal humiliation for the veteran French leader.
Although Chirac argued that the constitution would streamline EU decision-making and make the bloc more accessible to its 450 million citizens, opponents feared it would strip France of its sovereignty and generous social system and trigger an influx of cheap labor.
European leaders have vowed not to give up on the constitution. The problem is that ALL 25 EU members have to approve it for it to go into effect by Nov. 1, 2006.
So was this a personal defeat for Chirac, a defeat for France, or a defeat for the EU…or a combination of any of the above?
Chirac took a hit, according to the Herald Sun
THE overwhelming ‘non’ vote against the EU constitution was a body blow for French President Jacques Chirac and the political establishment, the French press agreed today.
“Chiracism is now an obsolete doctrine,” was the message from one Brest newspaper, echoing editorials across the country after yesterday’s referendum.
“Clearly this vote is an earthquake,” wrote a commentator in the economic daily La Tribune, adding that Mr Chirac was paying the price for not listening to the people.
The Liberation spoke of a “masochist masterpiece” and “a political class with its head in the sand, accustomed to lying over many years, notoriously incompetent and at the bidding of the president…”
But the bigger issue seemed to be how France perceives itself, its role in Europe, and the European Union’s role in Europe. Another issue: how viable is the European Union, in practical terms?
The Washington Post’s David Ignatius further sketches Chirac’s political bungling on this issue:
Chirac will be a chief victim of Sunday’s vote, and he richly deserves the scorn that will be shoveled his way. His mistake was far larger than what commentators were citing Sunday night: his decision to put the constitution to a vote even though that wasn’t technically necessary. Chirac’s real failure was his inability over two terms as president to level with the French people about the changes that are needed to protect the way of life they cherish. He played games with economic reform — tiptoeing up to the edge and then pulling back at any sign of public displeasure…..
Whatever their class, age or political orientation, French people want to conserve what they’ve got. They want to maintain inflexible management and labor unions, six-week vacations, a 35-hour workweek — and also to be a growing, dynamic, entrepreneurial economy. Chirac never had the guts to tell the French they couldn’t have it both ways. He never explained that rigid labor rules had led to a high unemployment rate, currently 10.2 percent.
The French could use a Bill Clinton, whose most powerful theme as president was his 1996 campaign slogan of building “a bridge to the 21st century.” Clinton assured American workers that he felt their pain about outsourcing and global competition — and so would provide the training and other help for people to find jobs in the new economy. He never pretended that workers could opt out of competition. Chirac was never able to sound that positive theme in his “yes” campaign.
But the New York Times notes factors that indicate brushing this off as mostly a defeat for France’s president is a mistake — and that the constitution faces a bumpy ride elsewhere, as well:
The debate had been colored by fear of the mythical “Polish plumber,” the worker from recent European Union members from the East who is increasingly free to move West and willing to work for lower pay than Frenchmen.
Proponents of the “no” fueled voters with fear of a more powerful European Union where France no longer has influence, and of an increasingly “Anglo-Saxon” and “ultraliberal” Europe where free-market capitalism runs wild.
France’s no vote is the first rejection of the European Union constitution by one of its members and follows ratification by nine members. The rejection also makes it more likely that the Netherlands, where polls show that 60 percent of voters plan to reject the constitution, will vote no in the referendum there on Wednesday.
Meanwhile, reaction poured in from all over Europe. Such as:
- A Polish Foreign Ministry official called it a defeat for France.
- A Latvian official sait politicos need to carefully study the message voters are sending their way.
- German politicians called it a setback to Germany’s attempts to unify Europe but did not feel it is the end of the political road.
An analyst said this:
According to Gerd Langguth, a political scientist at the University of Bonn in Germany, the vote in France was a vote against Jacques Chirac, but also against an EU that was going too fast for many.
“For a few years the EU will be in a crisis situation,” he said. “There will be an attempt to build things up again, but France is one of the founding members of the European Union and so this “no” is a challenge that will not easily be overcome.”
In the meantime, though, Jacques Chirac seems more politically vulnerable than ever.
A SAMPLING OF WEBLOG VOICES ON THIS ISSUE:
—Glenn Reynolds, aka InstaPundit has a meaty roundup. He writes:”It’s possible that this is a mere bump in the road, although it’s a big one. On the other hand, it’s possible that this is the beginning of a significant political shift in Europe, which I suspect will be a good thing if it happens.”
—Jeff Jarvis:”It’s about trying to turn Europe in to a faux nation. It’s about protectionism. It’s about Europe thinking it is a world player when it is no longer. And it’s about a bad constitution that made up for in bureaucracy what it lacked in vision.”
—Paterico:”The latest news? France has rejected the EU Constitution, effectively terminating that gigantic mistake for the foreseeable future. Unless, as when Ireland rejected an EU “proposalâ€? a few years back, the EU angrily makes the French vote again and again until it obtains the desired result.”
—Matt Welch:”What this means for the continuing redefinition of “Europe” is hard to read, since parts of the French right and the French left opposed the constitution for quite different reasons. But the Dutch seemed poised to vote “no” as well, and it remains to be seen if the Brits bother to have their scheduled vote at all.”
—Daniel Drezner has a slew of great links and info. One comment re Chirac:” Yeah, good luck with that, Monsieur Chirac — it’s not that the French don’t want to act in their national interest — it’s just that the French are quite split about defining that national interest.”
—Pejman Yousefzadeh:” If the French rejected the EU constitution simply because they didn’t understand what was so pressing about integration, then that is one issue. But if anti-capitalists and fascists are the main forces behind this rejection, then the ramifications of this vote will be quite worrisome. And those ramifications will cause us to rightfully worry anew about the state of Old Europe.”
—James Joyner:””Europe” may be a reality one day but not anytime soon, it seems. Even the French won’t surrender their sovereignty this easily.’
–Spain’s Barcepundit (a GREAT blog that you can read in several languages) quotes George Will:”The European Union, which has a flag no one salutes and an anthem no one knows, now seeks ratification of a constitution few have read.”
—QandO:”Chirac is toast, Britain will drop its referrendum and it’s back to the drawing board for the Unionists in Europe.”
—Vox Popoli:”They’ll be back. Like Michael Meyers, they’ll be back. Here’s hoping that they’re less successful with the constitution gambit than they were with the Nice con.”
—Polipundit:”Does anyone know how to say good riddance in French?”
—John Kay at Centerfield has an extensive post. A small taste 4 U:
I thought that despite its length, it didn’t do what a constitution should do. Its authors didn’t aim to create a skeleton for the generations, that would allow economic, defense, foreign policy, infrastructure, etc. etc. problems to be addressed in the long term. It was more a combination of wishful-thinking political cookie jar and lots and lots and lots of tweaking to try and keep from scaring people. Except that if you do that, people look at the huge mound of paper and get scared wondering what it does.
In practice, I expect life under it would be like life in Texas, where we have to amend the Constitution every two years (the last series included detailed legislation on selling wine; another allowed local fire departments to donate old vehicles to Mexico). Except it’d be worse, because the TX constitution is kept in bounds by the well-crafted Federal one.
—Americablog has a MUST READ from Chris in Paris. Read the post in it’s entirety. We’ll give you a few highlights here:
The 40,000-word mega mess and sad excuse for a constitution tanked last night and today or tomorrow we’re probably going to see Chirac do what all brave politicians do which is to sack his Prime Minister rather than step down himself….. Ultimately the problem with this constitution is that it has been trying to be all things to all people so every country reads into it what they want to read into it and perhaps everybody is right and everybody is wrong….
Chirac has so completely bungled this process I will be amazed if he can hold off until 2007 for the elections. He is so incredibly unpopular and he took for granted a “oui” vote and only reacted in the final weeks. His last minute brainstorm to bring in Gerhard Schroeder and other foreign leaders to promote the “oui” vote was even worse than Kerry’s talk of foreign leaders who supported him. Chirac actually brought in these foreign leaders to speak in front of crowds which had to hurt him in the final days of the campaign.
—Professor Bainbridge:”Look for Chirac to blame Blair and Bush. Look for French politicos to try finding a non-democratic way of preserving their dream of using the EU to restore France’s Napoleonic aspirations.”
—Daimnation:”Personally, I think they’re either going to hold another referendum, ratify the constitution regardless of the result, or try to sweeten the deal to make it more palatable to French communists and Front National supporters. Either way, it’s not going to be pretty.”
—John Hawkins:”While many Americans might think it’s amusing to sit back and watch the Europeans wrap themselves in a bureaucratic spiderweb of red tape, it would be bad news for America if the grubby, little Eu-acrats managed to get a death grip on European foreign policy….Any way you slice it, the European Union is bad news. Bad news for Europeans, bad news for Americans, bad news all around…?
—Robin Burk has an analysis in Winds of Change (and promises a more extensive one later today). Read it in full. A small part here:
For now, though, it’s worth keeping in mind that the motives for French rejection are mixed and don’t necessarily represent a rejection of the EU project or an embrace of transatlantic ties. Many French felt the document was overly favorable to free market competition and wanted a stronger socialist integration among EU members.
Still, coming on the heels of the latest electoral loss by Schroeder’s party in Germany, this vote suggests that the German-French attempt to create a tightly integrated, Continental EU is not going well at the moment.
—Scared Monkeys:”The French people showed the elitist fools of the Chirac Government that they still want to be French, not Europeans. So today, there will be no French jokes, nothing rude to say about them, and I may buy my first bottle of French wine since The War in Iraq.”
—Steven Taylor:”Can you say “great example of confederal government?â€? Yes, I bet you can. (Can you also say “not the United States of Europe”? I bet you can as well).”
—Kevin Drum was one of many who predicted this vote outcome. He had written:
The polls suggest the French will vote against the constitution, and I suspect that might not be such a bad thing. I don’t have a compelling argument for thinking this, just a vague sense that Europe needs a bit of a breather after a decade of nonstop expansion and consolidation. A single currency, the end of border controls, ten new members, and a relentless increase in new rulemaking from Brussels is a lot to swallow, especially when there are an awful lot of core differences between the EU’s member states that haven’t really gotten any closer to resolution during that time. A rethink and a slowdown might be in order right about now.
—Didsbury at Digital Dissent:
Some will interpret a “non” vote this weekend as a repudiation of the notion that a strong E.U. is an essential counter-balance to the American “hyperpower.” In a world where, for better or for worse, the U.S. is increasingly the world’s policeman, the French would do well to ask what purpose it serves to slash the tires on the squad car. Against this larger geo-political background, this weekend’s vote takes on increased importance.
Vive la France, or vive l’Europe? In an ideal world, no one would have to choose between the two. Soon we shall see if the French can have their cake and eat it, too.
—Austin Bay has a detailed analysis that MUST be read in full (giving you parts of it here will distort it).
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.