Tweet
Financial Times
FT.com
May 30 2005
France's No is not all bad
The clear French No vote to the European Union's constitutional treaty is a
grave blow both to President Jacques Chirac and to the EU as a whole. Not
for the first time, the French president has made a huge political
miscalculation, by calling a referendum at a moment of deep unpopularity for
his own government, and then by failing to fight it in a whole-hearted and
positive way. But the price will be paid not only by the French government.
It will also cause confusion and possibly a political stalemate in the wider
EU.
The reasons for the French No are diffuse. There is no simple answer to the
voters' revolt. Part is clearly a backlash against Mr Chirac from the left,
combining frustration at the failure of his government to reduce
unemployment, and a powerful anti-globalisation movement blaming
international competition for France's plight. But that fear of competition
has been confused with anxiety about the effect of EU enlargement, with
France losing influence in a 25-member union and losing jobs to cheaper
labour in the east. On the right, there is strong opposition to launching
membership talks with Turkey later this year.
There was never an instant Plan B on how to respond to the French decision.
All 25 members have signed the treaty, and all are committed to debating and
ratifying it by November 2006. Several more may say No, including the
Netherlands where a referendum is to be held on Wednesday. But that is not a
good reason to stop the process. Nine states have already said Yes,
including two of the largest, Germany and Spain. Their views should not
simply be dismissed because France has voted No. Nor should those of the
countries yet to decide.
What the debates in France and the Netherlands have demonstrated is a great
desire among ordinary voters to have a real say on the future of the EU.
They have not been properly consulted for far too long. The wrong reaction
would be for EU leaders to retreat once more behind closed doors, call off
the political process and try to save the parts of the treaty they like best
in a constitutional fudge.
They must avoid the other danger lurking in the French No vote: that Mr
Chirac will seek to revive his political popularity in ever more defensive
positions, encouraging others to do exactly the same. That is the way
towards prolonged political stalemate on economic reform, the Doha round of
trade liberalisation, negotiations on the long-term EU budget, and the
future enlargement process. Hence the need not to over- react and to seek
more time for a level-headed debate.
On balance, it would seem most sensible to allow the ratification process to
continue, even if it does mean that others may vote No, including the UK.
Only when it is clear where all the members stand can a sensible effort be
made to rework the treaty. The French No is a shock. It is also an
opportunity: for a fundamental debate to be held on the shape of the future
EU.
FT.com
May 30 2005
France's No is not all bad
The clear French No vote to the European Union's constitutional treaty is a
grave blow both to President Jacques Chirac and to the EU as a whole. Not
for the first time, the French president has made a huge political
miscalculation, by calling a referendum at a moment of deep unpopularity for
his own government, and then by failing to fight it in a whole-hearted and
positive way. But the price will be paid not only by the French government.
It will also cause confusion and possibly a political stalemate in the wider
EU.
The reasons for the French No are diffuse. There is no simple answer to the
voters' revolt. Part is clearly a backlash against Mr Chirac from the left,
combining frustration at the failure of his government to reduce
unemployment, and a powerful anti-globalisation movement blaming
international competition for France's plight. But that fear of competition
has been confused with anxiety about the effect of EU enlargement, with
France losing influence in a 25-member union and losing jobs to cheaper
labour in the east. On the right, there is strong opposition to launching
membership talks with Turkey later this year.
There was never an instant Plan B on how to respond to the French decision.
All 25 members have signed the treaty, and all are committed to debating and
ratifying it by November 2006. Several more may say No, including the
Netherlands where a referendum is to be held on Wednesday. But that is not a
good reason to stop the process. Nine states have already said Yes,
including two of the largest, Germany and Spain. Their views should not
simply be dismissed because France has voted No. Nor should those of the
countries yet to decide.
What the debates in France and the Netherlands have demonstrated is a great
desire among ordinary voters to have a real say on the future of the EU.
They have not been properly consulted for far too long. The wrong reaction
would be for EU leaders to retreat once more behind closed doors, call off
the political process and try to save the parts of the treaty they like best
in a constitutional fudge.
They must avoid the other danger lurking in the French No vote: that Mr
Chirac will seek to revive his political popularity in ever more defensive
positions, encouraging others to do exactly the same. That is the way
towards prolonged political stalemate on economic reform, the Doha round of
trade liberalisation, negotiations on the long-term EU budget, and the
future enlargement process. Hence the need not to over- react and to seek
more time for a level-headed debate.
On balance, it would seem most sensible to allow the ratification process to
continue, even if it does mean that others may vote No, including the UK.
Only when it is clear where all the members stand can a sensible effort be
made to rework the treaty. The French No is a shock. It is also an
opportunity: for a fundamental debate to be held on the shape of the future
EU.