Rotten in the Heart of Europe

In theory, the European Union should not be all that shaken by France's rejection of its constitution last Sunday night. After all, the EU is used to slow progress. It's dealt with paralysis, having enlarged to 25 members in 2004. With previous ‘no’ votes on other issues by Ireland and Denmark, it's used to rejection. It can even carry on without an official constitution, as it currently operates on the basis of the various treaties that hold it together, like Nice and Maastricht.

But this time it’s different. France is not a recent member, or one whose protection of its national sovereignty renders it suspicious of EU power. Instead, it lies at the heart of the European Union as one of its co-founders, having established the original European Coal and Steel Community with Germany in 1951.

And the constitution is not just any treaty. It pulls together and confirms all the EU treaties to date, as well as streamlining its institutions to cope with enlargement and creating the permanent roles of President and Foreign Minister. The constitution is therefore the single political definition of the EU, and a vote against it is a vote against the EU in its current form.

With a rebellion at its core, then, Europe has every right to be shaken. France had its own reasons for voting ‘non’, including dissatisfaction with its current government and desire to protect its labour force from free market competition. However, many of its objections are echoed throughout Europe.

Enlargement is a prime example. With 25 members, the EU machinery would be unworkable without a rejigging of procedures. The constitution would have done this in several ways. First of all, commissioners would sit on a rotational basis. Their numbers would eventually be cut to 18 so larger countries like France would no longer have two representatives, and sometimes none at all. Secondly, the number of issues requiring unanimous voting would be reduced, and other legislation would be decided by majority – countries would no longer have a certain number of votes each.

As the traditional mover and shaker in Europe, France sees its power being lost. The Eurosceptics of Britain see the erosion of national sovereignty. With a reorganization of the voting system, Poland will lose its influence. Many member states are increasingly wary of an EU that is manoeuvring beyond their control.

Another issue is the economy. Recent economic performance has been weak in the Eurozone countries of France, Italy and Germany. While Italy and Germany have overlooked this to ratify the constitution, it is one of France’s major reasons for rejecting it. The Dutch, due to hold their own referendum on June 1, blame inflation on the Euro, and also resent France and Germany’s flouting of EU budget rules. This has given impetus to the Netherlands’ ‘No’ camp, which now has a lead of at least 10 per cent.

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block, however, is Turkey. France’s opposition to Turkish membership of the EU is less anti-Islamic than it is anti-enlargement. The general fear is that Turkey will flood the EU with cheap labour and attract investment with its low taxes. The Netherlands’ opposition is more to do with increasing suspicion towards Islamic influence and immigration, and a distrust of its government’s ability to control either.

With all of these objections, a common theme is very clear: EU progress has become too fast for the populations of many of its member states. The fact that opposition is so strong in two of the founder members, France and the Netherlands, shows that the constitution serves to increase confusion and suspicion instead of eradicating it.

So what’s next? It is unlikely that France will agree to a re-vote, as happened in the cases of Ireland and Denmark when they opposed the Nice Treaty. But the EU will have to deal with its concerns, and those of the Netherlands, and think up some form of compromise to bring them back into the fold.

In the meantime, the ratification process goes on. Although the constitution is now officially dead, as it has to be ratified by all member states - and the chance of that happening is looking more unlikely by the day.

Photos courtesy of AFP Images, math.umn.edu, BBC.co.uk