European Union needs to pause, reflect its future

Gwynne Dyer, London

Some of the early reactions to the French and Dutch 'No' votes on the new European constitution on May 29 and June 1 were quite hysterical. "I may no longer practice medicine but I can tell a corpse when I see one," crowed Liam Fox, Conservative shadow foreign secretary, giving voice to the joy of the Europhobes in the British House of Commons. And the current occupant of the European Union presidency, Luxemburg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, said that the French "No" would be "a catastrophe for France, for (French president Jacques) Chirac, and for the entire world."

Really? The entire world? That's a bit extreme. Two of the EU's 25 countries have rejected a treaty that was meant to bring more efficiency, flexibility and democracy to a half-century-old organization that has recently expanded dramatically but still functions reasonably well. And although the shock of the two No's was considerable (because France and the Netherlands were among the original six founding members of the EU), as the dust settled it became clear that neither electorate was actually voting against the European enterprise as a whole.

They were both alienated by a sense that an out-of-touch transnational European elite was foisting this new constitution on them, and they both clearly felt that the EU was expanding too fast. They were particularly alarmed by the prospect of eventual Turkish membership. But mainly, they were just fed up with their own governments.

It is a fundamental rule of politics that you must only hold referendums when the economy is doing well and the voters are feeling generally contented. At any other time, a referendum is a golden opportunity to "send a message" to an unloved government by rejecting its proposals, whatever they might be -- and French and Dutch voters were feeling pretty disgruntled. In fact, the message French voters sent to President Chirac, as one Frenchwoman put it, was Et ta soeur.

You can see why a lot of European voters are cross. The British, Spanish and Scandinavian economies are doing just fine and the new members in eastern Europe are growing very fast, but almost all the countries in the old EU heartland have been stuck in low-growth mode for most of a decade. Unemployment is over 10 percent in both France and Germany, and would be the same in Italy if they were not better at hiding it. Then there are local factors like the widespread loathing in France for the sleazy and corrupt President Chirac and the recent surge in anti-Muslim feeling in the Netherlands.

So maybe the Dutch and French voters were a bit muddled in their motives, but a No is still a No. What has the EU lost as a result? Momentum, mainly. Almost all its projects for modernization and further expansion will now be stalled, at least for a time. Romania and Bulgaria, next in the queue to join, will probably make it in next year or in 2007, as they have already signed accession treaties, but Croatia will have to wait for a while. Turkey's accession talks will start as scheduled on Oct. 3, but their eventual outcome is now in considerable doubt.

What else? Well, there will be no new voting rules that let most proposals pass on "qualified majorities," with only defense, foreign affairs and budgetary issues subject to unanimity among the 25 members. It will be the old rules, where just one dissenting vote can veto almost any decision -- but the EU has survived this long with that system. It can struggle on that way a while longer. The euro, meanwhile, has plunged in value, falling below par with the US dollar -- but few exporters in Europe will feel sad about that.

The EU summit in Brussels on June 17-18 will mull all this over, but the likely outcome is a "pause for reflection." As Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski said, the 25 governments "may decide to give ourselves a few months and meet (again) when we are better prepared. A lack of a decision is also a decision."

Well, no, actually, it's not. In the long run, the EU will have to decide whether to push on with the attempt to ratify the constitution, modify it to placate disgruntled voters, or just drop the whole thing. But in the next year or so, the French, German and Italian governments are all likely to change, removing the leaders who have so greatly contributed to the current irritability of European electorates. And the actual rules say that if twenty countries have ratified the constitution by October, 2006 "and one or more member states have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter will be referred to the European Council."

Eight countries have already ratified the constitution, and a dozen others might easily do so in the next sixteen months if the process is resumed. Then there would have to be a prolonged haggling session in the European Council, but if the voters in key western European countries have cheered up by then, something resembling the current constitution could eventually emerge from the shambles. And if not, then the EU just trundles down the existing track until everybody does cheer up. This is a setback, not a disaster.

The writer is a London-based independent journalist.