So the French and Dutch have more or less voted against their established elites and "intellectuals" who would lead them on the path of secular righteousness. I wonder how a referendum in Germany would have come out. Recent Lander elections suggest a similar phenomenon might have been observed, but to what extent one can only guess.
After all this sinks in, we might see some revisionist or reactionary sentiment among some of the new EU members who may find reason to resent the nascent protectionist sentiment among the wealthier nations of Western Europe. All of this suggests it will be tough going for politicians who chose to tackle the growing bad economic effects of aging populations, expensive social welfare systems, low economic growth, and increasing competition in the global market. Real leadership will be required and I hope some emerges.
The other factor, of course is the length and complexity of the constitutional document itself. The drafters clearly chose to codify and (probably) simplify the several treaties that have taken the Union to where it is, rather than to start with a clean sheet and define just the structure and powers of the new EU in a shorter, clearer document. Perhaps they judged that restating the treaty provisions in the Constitution was necessary to get agreement, particularly from the founding members who likely dominated the process. That can be interpreted as a somewhat elitist view at work in that these issues could as well have been dealt with by the legislative organs of the EU in a process that might have (emphasis on might) accelerated the political development of the EU government.
Interesting to speculate on the relative impact of these two factors in the election results and any others that might have played a major part.
Thanks for this excellent analysis, nimh!
I do think - now - that we'll get a Merkelism here similar to what Thatcher did in the UK.
So there's great hope for time afterwards.
(Although we don't have capital punishment we are allowed to use gallows humour.:wink: )
Thankee, Walter. I made the above post into a thread of its own by the way, Steve-like:
France + Holland say NO - signal of a political Zeitwende?
Replies welcome. English equivalents of "Zeitwende" too. :wink:
Result is in for Rotterdam, second largest city of the Netherlands. Harbour town, relatively small university. The Labour Party ruled here for decades - until Pim Fortuyn scored a landslide victory in the local elections of March 2002, sweeping all other parties aside.
Result:
YES 32,4%
NO 67,6%
Utrecht, however - the country's fourth city and the town I lived in the past decade and a half or so - bucked the trend and voted YES:
YES 51,1%
NO 48,9%
Utrecht is a university town, in which Labour was long dominant but always had to contend with strong showings by the Christian-Democrats, the liberal Democrats'66 and on its left, the Pacifist Socialists (later the Green Left). (The Communists, on the other hand, never did well here).
Utrecht was the first large city to vote in a "Livable" party, "Livable Utrecht", a model which was to spawn "Livable Rotterdam", Pim Fortuyn's party, and "Livable Netherlands", the national party that chose Pim Fortuyn as its leader and then dumped him again ahead of the elections. The Utrecht variety was headed by former rock-singer and pub-owner Henk Westbroek - think Jesse Ventura - but lacked most of the anti-immigrant profile that characterised its counterparts.
There - you'll learn more about local Dutch politics tonight than you ever wanted to know. ;-)
Reactions from the different parties online.
(Now this was an exercise that did NOT lift up my spirits. What incredibly, mindblogglingly depressing inanity. I have NOT made any of the below up. Just picked whatever the top paragraphs on the front page were.)
www.sp.nl, Socialist Party:
Quote:63% says NO!
Wake-up call for Brussels and The Hague
"If we say yes, we again transfer power to Brussels. Power that we will probably never get back. If we say no, there can finally be an open debate about the role of Europe in the Netherlands. We will then get the freedom to agree on a better European co-operation for the future." - Jan Marijnissen
<Poster that couples slogan "KNOW WHAT YOU SAY YES TO" with a map of Europe, in which The Netherlands are neatly photoshopped away, replaced by the blue of the North Sea.>
www.groenlinks.nl, Green Left:
Quote:Improve Europe, start with a "yes"!
Today the referendum about the European Constitution takes place - on the initiative of the Green Left. The Green Left is for the Constitution, because it is good for the environment, strengthens democracy [in the EU], and empowers Europe to give more counterforce to America.
<Cartoon, showing a voter in the voting booth telling people standing in line outside, "one minute please, I'm just reading the Constution again!">
www.pvda.nl, Labour Party:
Quote:First reaction PvdA to result EU-referendum
According to Labour-chairman Wouter Bos the high turnout proves the rightness of the decision to hold a referendum about the European Constitution. Bos: "As (co)initiator of the referendum the Labour Party is extraordinary glad that the population has been able to pronounce itself about the European Constitution. The Labour Party in the House of Commons will self-evidently meet its promise to accept the 'no' of the population and has asked for a special debate tomorrow in which it will ask Parliament to adopt the result of the referendum."
A divided, liberal Europe doesn't need to be a fact! with each other; becoming economically stronger so we can say proudly: when in bad fortune, in Europe you will not fall into poverty, as we can pay [unemployment etc] benefits for you! That is the answer to the assertion that the Constitution stands only for harsh competition in a liberal market and threatens our social security,' says Wouter Bos on Monday night, 30 May, in the Two Today debate at the Erasmus Universiteit in Rotterdam.
www.d66.nl, Democrats 66
Quote:D66 is bummed about results Constitution-referendum [alternative translation: "think results referendum suck" - its quite colloquial]
D66 is bummed about the result of today's referendum about the constitutional treaty. D66 Chairman of the House of Commons Party Boris Dittrich reacted: "The result is clear, that's good. But I am bummed that it's a no. I assume that the no-voters know what they've done. So we shall definitely take the no-voters seriously and ask the government to withdraw the proposal for the European constitution."
www.cda.nl, Christian-Democrats
Quote:Balkenende, Verhagen, Van Bijsterveldt: Vote YES! on 1 June
<photo of Balkenende and a woman (Van Bijsterveldt?) at a voting place>
Dear Christian-Democrat friends, Wednesday 1 June it's the day: The Netherlands goes to the voting booth to vote on the European Constitution. <link to more>
Eurlings: A peaceful experiment
After two strong arguments for the European constitutional treaty from abroad - Joschka Fischer in 'Buitenhof' and Jean Luc Dehaene on the Christian-Democratic congress and in the News this weekend - Geert Mak now also offers such an insistent vision from our own country. <link to more>
www.vvd.nl, People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (right-wing liberal)
Quote:The VVD is for the European Constitution!
In the interest of The Netherlands!
- More democracy
- More grip on European decision-making
- More jobs
- Financial stability
- More safety
- A stern immigration policy
A down-to-earth yes!
www.christenunie.nl, Christian Union:
Quote:Europe OK, this Constitution: No!
[this rhymes in Dutch]
10 motives of André Rouvoet to vote against <link to more>
Today you can for the first time cast your vote about the future of Europe. The Constitution bundles earlier European treaties. But with this Constitution "Brussels" will at the same time get more to say [about us] than before. The Christian Union advises: "vote against".
(This is the time on Sprockets when I get to the far-right parties in parliament. Bewilderingly however,
www.wilders.nl turns out to be for sale, while
www.lpf.nl is owned by Lekkere Porno Films - Tasty Porn Movies dot nl. Revert to Google ...)
www.geertwilders.nl, Group Wilders:
Quote:<big photo of Mr. Wilders>
Tuesday, 31 May 2005
I couldnt help myself. It's true that the bustourNO was completed last Saturday but campaigning just gets into your blood, its that much fun to do. So today to the market in Leidschendam. I had made a new leaflet especially, a fake banknote of 180 EURO.
Government should go when we vote NO / Saturday 28 May - Rotterdam
Today the last day of the bustourNO against the European Constitution. And just like I wanted to start the bustourNO in my native town of Venlo, I wanted to end it in Rotterdam. The city of Pim Fortuyn, the city of Livable Rotterdam!
www.pimfortuyn.nl, List Pim Fortuyn:
Quote:New rounds, new chances
The List Pim Fortuyn is happy about the irrefutable result of the referendum, which also in terms of turnout can be called very succesful. LPF-leader Gerard van As compliments the Dutch population with the fact that it did not give in to the scaremongering of the government of Jan Peter Berlusconi [sic] who - in violation of all agreements - has spared costs nor efforts to convince the voter after all with propaganda.
<photo of glass of champagne>
Vive la France, Long live the Netherlands!
Vive la France, vive la République, Long live the Netherlands, Long live the Kingdom!
LPF-parliamentary leader Gerard van As is happy about the French no: "The French citizen is right to want the preservation of the own identity and sovereignty, just like the Dutchman. Co-operation yes, superstate no.
Walter, What's ahead for the Euro? It seems with such a high unemployment, there isn't much to support the Euro in Europe or throughout the world economies - especially if it means inflation for all the Euro countries.
I'm not an economist at all and don't understand, why all are pointing now at the falling Euro while before they were regretting its high value.
Seems, especially in Germany some try to re-start the discussion of leaving it now
From the NYT:
June 2, 2005
'No' Votes in Europe Reflect Anger at National Leaders
By RICHARD BERNSTEIN
BERLIN, June 1 - Some are calling it a divorce; others, a disenchantment. Whatever you call it, the French "non" on Sunday and the Dutch "nee" on Wednesday have clearly left the European Union's proposed constitution a dead letter for now, frustrating the efforts of Europe's leaders to move to the next stage of integration.
The impasse could stall efforts to develop common foreign policies and push the euro, a potent symbol of unification, into a downward spiral.
But there is something at stake here far broader than the constitution itself, which the Dutch rejected emphatically on Wednesday, 61.6 percent to 38.4 percent, according to unofficial results.
There is a disaffection, perhaps even a rebellion, against the political elites in France, Germany and Italy.
The governing parties of the left and the right are saying the same things to their people: that painful, free-market economic reforms are the only path toward rejuvenation, more jobs, better futures. And the people, who have come to equate the idea of an expanded Europe with a challenge to cradle-to-grave social protections, are giving the same answer: We don't believe you.
A French lawyer and commentator, Nicolas Baverez, who once wrote a book titled "The Fall of France," called the French vote "an insurrection, a democratic intifada," that reflected the "despair and fears of the French in front of the decline of their country and the inability of their leaders to cope with the crisis."
The repercussions of this uprising will be felt widely.
"I think there's a revolt against the establishment that leaves governments from Great Britain to France to Germany to Italy singularly weak," said Charles Kupchan, an associate professor of international relations at Georgetown University and a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, "and that spells trouble for Europe and it spells trouble for an America that will be looking to Europe for help on many different fronts."
The public disaffection is different in each country, and more than economic matters are involved. Europeans are worried, among other things, that the rapid enlargement of the European Union, especially the prospect of Turkey's membership, will leave them more vulnerable to uncontrolled immigration, especially by Muslims. There is a sense, palpable in the Netherlands, that the whole European enterprise is controlled by unresponsive, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels who have it in their power to rob countries of their national identities.
But in France, Germany and Italy, already beset by high unemployment, the worry that free-market reforms will only make matters worse predominates. A week before the French rejected the constitution, Germany's chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, called early elections, after local defeats had left him essentially without the authority to govern. Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, has promised reforms but failed to deliver them, out of concern for mass discontent.
The paradox here is that if the political elites and most economists are right in saying that free-market reforms and more competition are essential for these nations to match their economic competition, then the "democratic intifada" could rob the faltering core of Europe of the very means it needs to rejuvenate itself.
"Old Europe lacks confidence and is therefore defensive, trying to freeze things rather than look forward, feeling that any change is bad," Mark Leonard, a specialist on European Union affairs at the Center for European Reform, said in a telephone interview. "It's a toxic brew of failure to build support for reform, terrible economic circumstances and elites that are tarnished and shop-soiled."
It would make things a bit too simple to depict public distrust of politicians in Europe these days as purely resistance to economic reform. Indeed, in Germany most people seem to accept the idea of reform, at least theoretically. The nub is that Germans are more strongly attached to a countervailing idea - that even as a country enacts reforms, it has a responsibility to protect people against their effects.
"We do need more liberalism," said Janis M. Emmanouilidis of the Center for Applied Policy Research in Munich. He was speaking of economic liberalism in the European sense, meaning greater reliance on free markets, reduced benefits and less government protection for the work force.
"The problem is that you don't have that kind of tradition in France or Germany," he continued. "The intellectual elites in Germany argue in favor of economic liberalism in a couple of newspapers, like Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Süddeutsche Zeitung. But the rest of the elite looks at this from the standpoint of solidarity, of how you uphold solidarity in the face of reform."
This explains what might seem a paradox in the German situation: namely that in repudiating Mr. Schröder because they do not like his reform program, the Germans are turning to the conservatives' candidate for chancellor, Angela Merkel, who is likely to enact even tougher reforms than Mr. Schröder did. Of course, it does not help that unemployment keeps rising, to 12 percent now, just as Mr. Schröder's reforms have started to take a real bite out of the public welfare.
In the view of many analysts, Mrs. Merkel will have a grace period in which to enact her program, during which Germany will have a real chance to lift itself out of its stagnation. The risk is that if the conservatives' reforms do not show results fairly quickly, the political pendulum will swing against her just as it has swung against Mr. Schröder.
In France, too, those who favor liberal reforms say there is one figure who may have the convictions and the political skill to carry them out: Nicolas Sarkozy, who is expected to be reappointed interior minister and is a likely candidate for president in the next elections, in 2007.
But Mr. Chirac himself seems to have reacted to the crushing defeat he suffered on Sunday by reaffirming his attachment to what he called the "French model," which seemed a coded way of putting tough reforms on the back burner, as he has done at similar moments in the past.
"There is a gap between what reality demands and what the French people want," said the political philosopher Pierre Hassner. "The elites weren't courageous enough to explain things."
In this sense a great part of the problem, many here say, is that French leaders themselves seem to be uncertain about the need for reform, or at least are inconsistent. "Chirac is a victim of his own contradictions," said Guy Sorman, a French commentator and a rare proponent of free-market liberalism in France. "He said, 'I am for Europe but against liberalism,' but this is completely absurd because people understand that Europe is a liberal construction."
I think the French "No" vote was more a negative reaction to Chirac and his government than a real statement of French opinion regarding the future of the EU. The Dutch "No" vote, on the other hand, can be seen as nothing other than a rejection of the preposterous "Constitution". Regardless, two founding, core members of the EU have rejected it - decisively. The two votes, coming days apart, signal that the dream of a unified Europe is just that; a dream. June 1 2005 marks a significant turning point in European History. I don't pretend to know what will come of this, but I suspect the Euro will be a fairly volatile currency over the near to mid term. Rumblings coming out of Germany's financial camp - while merely grumbles and grousing at the moment - are bound to negatively impact the Euro, and might even be the start of a domino-effect wave of reconsiderations across a broad spectrum of concerns and issues among the 25 partners. Europe is going to be more interesting to watch than it has been since the fall of The Berlin Wall.
I think the fall of the Berlin wall was just a matter of time. The effect on the 25 members of the EU is a much more serious matter - when several of the originating members vote no on a unifying consititution. The majority of the other members are going to feel 'lost' without a rudder.
The fall of the Berlin Wall certainly was a kind of starting signal re the democratic development in other (now formerly) communistic countries.
The actual economic, social, cultural etc impact wasn't and still isn't to be noticed in more or less just one country, Germany itself, directly.
(Howver, it's nice that Europe is again more interesting to watch, timber: we'll do our best to keep this interest high
)
timberlandko wrote:I think the French "No" vote was more a negative reaction to Chirac and his government than a real statement of French opinion regarding the future of the EU. The Dutch "No" vote, on the other hand, can be seen as nothing other than a rejection of the preposterous "Constitution".
I disagree that this is a meaningful distinction. The Dutch were no more informed about the Constitution than the French, and they dislike their current government at least as fiercely.
A report from a working-class district in the city of Rotterdam, where two-thirds voted against:
"The voters here are without exception white, and dissatisfied about The Hague [the Dutch government], Brussels, the elite, the euro and foreigners, the Polish in particular. And everybody is against."
Walter Hinteler wrote:I'm not an economist at all and don't understand, why all are pointing now at the falling Euro while before they were regretting its high value.
I believe one reason is because we're talking about different "they"s. From a foreigner's point of view, other things equal, a falling Euro makes Europe a more attractive place to buy goods from and a less attractive place to invest in. (That's because prices and profits both fall in the foreigner's native currency.) Therefore, European exporters complain when the Euro rises, and investors in European stock complain when it falls. You always hear
someone complaining, and rarely hear anyone credit favorable exchange rates when business is good. (Somehow, when business is good, the reason is always the management's genius, never favorable interest rates.)
On top of that, I guess quite a lot of politicians are looking for evidence to show that the rejection of the constitution is a bad thing for Europe. There is no good evidence, so they settle for the current fall in the Euro. That's not evidence for anything, but it's what they can get.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Seems, especially in Germany some try to re-start the discussion of leaving it now
In my view, the Euro is one of those problems that aren't worth fixing, given the cost of fixing them. According to the standard economic analysis of optimal currency areas, introducing the Euro never was a sensible choice from a strictly macroeconomic point of view would. But in the process of introducing it, it got loaded with an awful lot of political symbolism. And now that it's there the political fallout from its demise would likely be much more trouble than the modest economic gains would be worth. I agree this debate shouldn't be restarted now, but hey -- it's campaigning time, so I guess one could make an insanity defense for the people re-debating the Euro right now.
The parliament of Latvia today ratified the European Constitution. Of the 100 members of parliament, 71 voted in favour. That meant the required two-thirds majority was met. Five MPs voted against the constitution and six abstained. The other parliamentarians were absent.
Latvian Minister of Foreign Affairs Pabriks said that his country has sent out a clear signal to the founding member states of the EU. "I would like to say that with our vote, we [show that] we believe in Europe", said Pabriks.
(It sucks when you're finally invited to a party and when you arrive suddenly everybody's leaving...)
Perhaps then the real challenge for Western Europe is to find political leadership with the persuasive power, foresight and endurance required to tackle the fundamental causes of the economic sclerosis that I believe is at the heart of these events. The threats to their continued social and economic security don't come from new competition from the rising economies in the East or "Anglo Saxon" concepts of ruthless competition, or even the demands of increasingly global markets. They come instead from the fixed idea that they can somehow cling to their protectionist social welfare systems unmodified in the face of new demographic and economic facts, which will ultimately compel them to change, like it or not.
The United States has its own far less severe versions of these problems. However for us the salient issue is the development of the energy and economic policies needed to address our chronic trade imbalances. We also have a political establishment that prefers bickering about peripheral issues to addressing the main ones. Unfortunately a crisis of some sort is usually required to rouse them out of their torpor.
In their political elements the two situations aren't particularly different.
