Ah, it will pass. The Europeans are such passive twits. If they can accept appeasing islamic fascism on their front door, they can accept an elitist supra-state.

If someone tried to build a McDonald's next to the Eiffel Tower then maybe they would riot..but otherwise they're the same old sheep.

What will take the least effort?

Dit Oui,ou dit Non?

I think Napolean was not a genius and effectively weeded out any Frenchmen genes for guts.

So actually which vote takes the least guts?

That vote wins!

Being half French though I will debate over this for weeks with myself...

Some American come up with the answer darn it!

It looks like this constitution may well fail to get approved. Don't start gloating, though: they can always go back and draft a new one that addresses the concerns of those not absolutely dead-set against passing any version. It's interesting to note that both sides of the debate are using anti-Americanism in their arguments ("Europe will drag us into a global, American-dominated Market," v. "Europe will be able to act as a check on the Hyperpower.")

As for the French, the attitude of some of us toward them was inherited directly from the English, but was intensified by resentment of the fact that if it weren't for those effete autocratic frogs in the 1770's and '80's we'd be speaking...well, "English"...now.

To Brian:

I'd be careful what you wish for. This constitution, what with the dilution of the national veto and other things, will be extremely useful for paving the way for Turkish membership of the EU. Now, what would you rather have? The biggest Muslim power welded to the west, or the biggest Muslim power snubbed by Europe? Because the constitution at least increases the possibility of Turkish membership while the opponents to the constitution also tend to be implacable opponents of Turkish membership, often on highly sectarian and/or nationalist grounds.

Since I am living in the Netherlands, I know quite a lot about the varying reasons why people in Holland, traditionally very pro-European, might vote no.

Many people will vote no because they fear a pro-market, pro-American, individualist tendency in the EU. Those no-people are led by the socialist SP.

Some people will vote no because they think that the constitution is not democratic enough and tilted in favour of the big countries. These people do not trust the big countries, especially the French, to act with an eye for Dutch concerns. This feeling has been strengthened by continuous German and French breaching of the Growth and Stability Pact.

Quite a lot of people will vote no because they believe that the changes in Europe is going too fast; internal market, euro, expansion, now the constitution and perhaps Turkey ... where does it end??

Of course many people will vote no as a general protest against policies of the Dutch government.

But most interesting, my feeling is that a big block of moderate voters will vote no because they feel like they are treated as children by the Dutch and European elites. Time and time again politicians have told us to vote yes, otherwise Europe would derail, stagnation would ensue, and even (i kid you not)that we must remember Yugoslavia, World War II and the Holocaust. And any fears which voters might have (won't we end up with a European superstate?) are dismissed as "very stupid " or likewise.

Combine this sort of reasoning with a lack of enthusiastic campaigning by almost all politicians, except the SP, who is dead-against the constitution, and you get a good idea why the Netherlands might vote no.

Daniel rightly calls attention to the role of calculations regarding Turkey's future membership in the EU. For what it's worth, note though that Chirac has promised that there would be a separate referendum on Turkish membership, in an attempt to take it out of the equation this time. But of course the issue is still floating around and de Villiers (cited in Dan's post) has been scoring applause points that Turkey would have to acknowledge the Armenian catastrophe before they would be let in. It may also be a cheap promise for Chirac to make, since any referendum is probably still 10 years down the road.

Harmen, wouldn't Dutch voters resentful of being treated like children doubt themselves, fearing that they were falling victim to an individualist tendency? Surely the collective good mandates acceptance of guidance from Brussels and Paris, the twin hearts of culture and civilization in Europe. Such a blessing is worth occasionally, or somewhat more than occasionally, being condescended to, is it not?

"It looks like this constitution may well fail to get approved. Don't start gloating, though: they can always go back and draft a new one that addresses the concerns of those not absolutely dead-set against passing any version"

More likely they will just keep voting until they get the 'right' answer.

Or even more likely not bother to have a referendum next time.

I am rooting for a oui vote for one reason only -- just as the Soviet Union's veto and UNSC permanent seat went pretty seemlessly to Russia, the French affectation of superpower status should be passed on to the EU if they decide to sign on.

Two current posters (sort of) from the streets of Paris at http://www.justabovesunset.com/id812.html

When the US constitution was written, the different interests of the various states compelled the framers to keep the document short and to the point- so much so that the bill of rights was added as an amendment, not part of the core document.

The EU constitution seems to take the opposite approach- instead of being a minimalist document that only touches on matters on which a consensus exists, there seem to be many, many examples of pandering to various lobbies and ideologies in an attempt to secure their support for it's passage. The result is an unwieldy behemoth of a document better suited to squishing insects than running a nation.

The amazing thing is that very few people seem to have read it, and I can detect no debate over the various points.

What is a bit unfortunate about this whole issue is the way that national political trends - particularly dissatisfaction with incumbent governments - is blurring the issues.

This is the case in both France and the Netherlands. Though of course, disentangling this impact from other effects is not too easy. Chirac and Balkenende are both very unpopular though.

A second problem is that a lot of latent fears about "the nature of Europe" are surfacing here -even though the issues and concerns featuring in the discussion are not new, and have little to do with the constitution itself.

For example - competition laws. EU competition law has been around for a long time and limits direct state subsidies to companies - something that many people consider too "free market". Well - one can debate that. But it is not a new issue.

One could come up with other examples - the recent Bolkestein directive on liberalisation of services. Good or bad? Too free market or not free market enough? One can debate that. But again - nothing to do with the Constitution.

The reality is that, terms of substantive policy issues, the constitution changes rather little - except in the domain of foreign policy. Here it sets up a more streamlined machinery for foreign policy coordination.

But note - in foreign policy the reality is that you will only get an "EU position" on the less controversial issues. There is still a national veto on foreign policy issues. Just as there is for tax, social security, defense, energy policy and some others.

So what does the constitution actually do?

It is important mainly because it tidies up the way the EU institutions work, and simplifies the voting mechanisms and procedures (this is rather important for an EU with ten new member states, soon to add another 2)

Without the constitution we have to stay with the Treaty of Nice - messy, and commonly considered "disastrously bad" by insiders who have to work with the procedures it institutes.
Life would go on though.

My own feeling is that just calling the draft Treaty a "constitution" was a mistake. It is a Treaty - just like all the other Treaties underpinning the EU. Constitution is too loaded a word.

By the way Dan, not sure which particular weaking of vetoes you mean in the context of Turkey. Article I-58 makes it clear that a single member state can block accession of a new member. So any country could block Turkey under the new constitution.

Europeans on the whole don't have quite the same reaction as Americans when foreigners suggest they should vote one way or the other. First and foremost because this is after all a European constitution, so other countries obviously have a legitimate interest in how France votes. But it's always been this way. There was enormous rhetorical pressure put on Austria and its voters when the far right Jörg Haider rose to power, and similarly with Le Pen in France. Europeans by and large have a healthy interest in other people's politics.

That's why the Guardian did the stupid thing it did with Clark County. It just didn't occur to them that Americans would take such offence at well meaning letters from its readers.

The question of whether or not the voters will require the bureaucrats to work up another draft doesn't seem to me to be very important in the long run.
Given that we already know which side is going to count the votes in France, it's unclear to me how this could leave the outcome of a plausibly close contest subject to doubt?

I have great faith that if the French vote is not "yes", the French elite will keep putting it forward until their clients/citizens get it right....

Daniel:

Interesting. That might explain the otherwise irrational hostility in France to the Constitution (given the amount of power France & Germany will have in the EU).

Still, perhaps another way of stating your hypothesis would be this: Would it be better to have Turkey wedded to the EU and against America, or an ally of the US, spurned by Europe?

rjw reckons it is a shame that national political trends are blurring the issues; isn't that what the constitution is about? Blurring national political issues, taking power away from the member states and handing it to an unelected body? I do like the way he/she claims that all it will do is "tidy up the way EU institutions operate", as if a) it is really not important, and b) there is nothing wrong with the way Europe is run. I hope the French vote yes, because if they do then we, the Brits, get to put the boot in good and proper, and stop it in it's tracks; if they vote no, there will be a fudge, and then one day we'll wake up and it will just be there. Too many politicians rely on the EU for this issue to be knocked on the head easily.

It will fail. People who say "No" are more likely to feel strongly about it than people who say "Yes."

Did you notice the information about the French Oil company helping Saddam to drain the marshes in Southern Iraq so that they could drill for oil easier when the sanctions were lifted. You can see it at my permalink below

This treaty is such a nightmare. The lights are going out all over Europe. I can't believe this is actually happening. Democracy and freedom are abolished in Europe; a corrupt oligarchy tightens its grip. In the comments above a 'Daniel' (I certainly hope it's not Dan Drezner) mumbles complete nonsense about the reaction in Turkey if the new treaty is rejected. Turkey! A bunch of backward muslims living in an authoritarian state that can hardly keep fundamentalism under control. Turkey, whose prime minister has already threatened European politicians for not being forthcoming enough in the negotiations exploring Turkey's EU membership. Really, the terms in which the debate on this nightmarish treaty are conducted lead to despair. If you want to have a good take on what's going on and what's at stake check out Stuttaford in NRO's Corner. He has useful links. The lights are going out in Europe and once again few people seem to realize it.

Ye gods!

"Many people will vote no because they fear a pro-market, pro-American, individualist tendency in the EU. Those no-people are led by the socialist SP"

It seems the Dutch (and the socialists in general), seem determined to drive towards a system of government and control that has produced untold misery, suffering, and draconian state controlled hell holes the last 150 years. There are exactly ZERO successful socialist/communist systems ever in the history of the world, but this the leftists promise they'll get it right, and EUtopia will be theirs!

Imagine, a 16 hour work week, an infinite supply of government supplied health care, employment, recreation, housing, transportation; all needs and wants satsified by the benevolent "civil servants" who graciously agree to simply serve the people...

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. Europe goes beyond farce however...

It should pass. I suspect these polls are taken in metropolitan France. But all the remaining parts of the French posessions and dependencies amounting to 1.4 million votes will be included in the final tally. Somehow, I suspect the rulers in Paris can count on the late arriving overseas votes to provide the necessary margin.

Richard-

I was under the impression that metropolitan France was more liberal and therefore would be more pro-EU?

I thought that rural France was somehow more conservative.

Madawaskan:

Richard is being facetious. He refers to the widely believed (including by the then British Cabinet, as former Cabinet Minister Michael Portillo recently wrote) rigging of the French vote on the Maastricht Treaty: with the outcome uncertain, supposedly the powers that be stuffed the ballot boxes of the overseas territories. That's the EU for you.

Francis,

Don't be too negative about the Netherlands. I did say that "Many people will vote no because they fear a pro-market, pro-American, individualist tendency in the EU. Those no-people are led by the socialist SP".

But ... this group is still a minority in the Netherlands. The socialist SP does not get more than about 6% of the votes in national elections. Right now we have a centre-right coalition of the Christian Democrats (centrist), the VVD (conservative slightly libertarian people) and D66 (small centre-left intellectual pro-education and reform party). This coalition has some good ideas about the economy, but onfortunately a lot of stupid ideas about how to handle a democratic referendum.

I just returned from 11 days in France where I often watched the nightly political ads by the various parties. Many of those opposed seem to be expressing opposition for Chirac more than any substantive argument about the constitution.

It's a simple and quite durable rule that people will tolerate gross mis-government by their own kind for decades whilst furiously opposing more sensible external powers. One would think the French would understand this above all given Napoleon's experience in Egypt, among other things. To the extent that part of the EU is about reducing internal trade barriers, it is a good idea, and the world is probably better off with Turkey inside it than out.

However, this all elides the fact that it's been quite some time since any of the decisionmakers asked their subjects what they thought of this whole enterprise. If the French want to have 35-hour work weeks and subsidized wine for truck drivers, they have a right to make that choice and live with the consequences. Likewise, I tend to think that the current order reduces the opportunity cost of anti-Americanism while a more democratic and robust internal debate would engender a more balanced approach.

The French public grasps what most of the elites do not ie the contradiction between the elites' grand vision of an EU superpower that can stand up to the US and the fact that this can only happen if the EU becomes more like the US. Specifically, for the EU to seriously challenge the US on the world stage (as opposed to Turtle Bay), a core requirement is further liberalization so as to generate 3-4% growth range and a diversion of resources to new high-growth technology companies and the military.

Clearly, most Europeans would prefer to look inward now and address Europe's massive social and economic problems rather than try to play a leading role on the world stage if the latter requires, as it surely does, a reduction in social protection. As to Turkey, the average French laborer or farmer is still struggling to understand how he's supposed to compete with Poles and Czechs, let alone Anatolian Turks earning a fraction of what East Europeans earn.

Declinism is rampant in France now. Most Frenchmen today are miserable and disgusted with continuing stagnation. Chirac is seen as having Nixon's honesty and Carter's skill, and he's due for a drubbing. One should never discount the mystical ability of overseas votes to appear in great quantities, but I'm not convinced the vote will be as close as the polls suggest.

Can anyone tell me why Americans should care about the EU vote?

That's not a facetious question: I'm serious. I care about a lot of things, like Darfur, Iraq, and the Oil-for-Food Scandal, but try as I might the EU Constitution just doesn't seem to register.

Our allies are going to be our allies EU or no, as are our rivals. Whether or not France would sell out Taiwan just to spite us seems to me to have little to do with whether or not they are part of the EU.

In terms of trade, we'll still buy the same stuff we like from Europe and sell whatever we're allowed to. Will the EU Constitution, yay or nay, substantively change this?

Will America be blindsided 1970's-style by the sudden emergence of a cartel more powerful than OPEC? A cartel controlling what, exactly?

Will increased trade within Europe create a "ripple effect" of either more or less trade for us?

Could increased EU bureaucracy and regulation of American imports depress trade and have a significant negative impact on our economy?

I can't begin to guess.

A "Constitution" needing more words than Tolstoy seems an ill omen, but then Tolstoy is considered a genius, so perhaps the EU Constitution is a masterpiece.

Somebody help me out here: is the battle over the EU Constitution vital to American interests or just good theater?

Somebody help me out here: is the battle over the EU Constitution vital to American interests or just good theater?

It's mostly good theater. However, there is some justifiable apprehension about the possibility of a number of friendly governments being subsumed into a superstate where two nations generally opposed to the US's foreign policy wield significant influence. With regards to the US's foreign policy objectives, it is better for us to be able to form coalitions with whatever european states decided to join, than for that cooperation to be subject to veto by a third government.

It is possible that France and Germany may be the ones subsumed into a mildly pro-American superstate... but I think that is less likely than the alternative.

It will be interesting if the French Overseas Territories(Djibouti,New Caledonia etc) will shift the vote to yes.They live at expenses of Central Governement...

Back from a business trip south of the digital divide, I find a serious post by Daniel Drezner and mostly ridiculous, ignorant, xenophobic comment on this thread. It looks like the European issue exercises the worst in american minds. With just a tiny bit more effort, these people will become perfect twins of Stalinist era Soviets.

bernard-

Would you care to actually argue that point? As far as I can see you are the only person ranting in this thread. And if you're really in France, as your email address suggests, let me ask you: are you looking forward to being governed by foreign bureaucrats from Brussels?

Bernard, we Americans have been a bit down on Europe, perhaps unfairly so, ever since the Oil-for-Food Scandal broke and we discovered that Europe's "principled pacifism" was in reality a sellout to Saddam Hussein. Our reaction isn't xenophobia so much as it's disgust.

That said, judging Europe by Oil-for-Food is as unfair as Europe judging us by Abu Ghraib.

I do think I asked a legitimate question, based on honest curiosity, and all you offered in return was a pointless rant.

Not that you have any credibility at this point, but might you deign to offer a serious answer, or otherwise meaningfully contribute to the conversation?

In no particular order, a few excerpts to illustrate my point:

"Ah, it will pass. The Europeans are such passive twits. If they can accept appeasing islamic fascism on their front door, they can accept an elitist supra-state."

This one is an insult to both Europeans and Muslims.

"I think Napolean was not a genius and effectively weeded out any Frenchmen genes for guts."

This one is an insult to French people.

""It looks like this constitution may well fail to get approved. Don't start gloating, though: they can always go back and draft a new one that addresses the concerns of those not absolutely dead-set against passing any version"

More likely they will just keep voting until they get the 'right' answer."

"I have great faith that if the French vote is not "yes", the French elite will keep putting it forward until their clients/citizens get it right...."

"Given that we already know which side is going to count the votes in France, it's unclear to me how this could leave the outcome of a plausibly close contest subject to doubt?"

The four above are insults to the French constitution and democracy. They are strange to say the least, coming from the country of Florida 2000 (perhaps reading Bill Clinton's excellent book would help).

"This treaty is such a nightmare. The lights are going out all over Europe. I can't believe this is actually happening. Democracy and freedom are abolished in Europe; a corrupt oligarchy tightens its grip. In the comments above a 'Daniel' (I certainly hope it's not Dan Drezner) mumbles complete nonsense about the reaction in Turkey if the new treaty is rejected. Turkey! A bunch of backward muslims living in an authoritarian state that can hardly keep fundamentalism under control. Turkey, whose prime minister has already threatened European politicians for not being forthcoming enough in the negotiations exploring Turkey's EU membership. Really, the terms in which the debate on this nightmarish treaty are conducted lead to despair. If you want to have a good take on what's going on and what's at stake check out Stuttaford in NRO's Corner. He has useful links. The lights are going out in Europe and once again few people seem to realize it."

This one ought to scrutinise his Vice=President rather than insult Europe and Turkey.

"Richard is being facetious. He refers to the widely believed (including by the then British Cabinet, as former Cabinet Minister Michael Portillo recently wrote) rigging of the French vote on the Maastricht Treaty: with the outcome uncertain, supposedly the powers that be stuffed the ballot boxes of the overseas territories. That's the EU for you."

This one is indictable under French law.

"I just returned from 11 days in France where I often watched the nightly political ads by the various parties. Many of those opposed seem to be expressing opposition for Chirac more than any substantive argument about the constitution."

And finally, at last, someone who understands what's going on. Is it a coďncidence, he was just in France and thus has some knowledge of what he is talking about.

as for William and EU cares, rest assured that I was not answering your posts, rather the entire collection of posts on this thread. Please note that I had refrained from mentioning Abu Graib nor the sadistic torturers in Afghanistan. This because I don't go around insulting people I don't know.

To answer your specific question on oil=for=food, may I suggest that you look carefully at the entire list so that you can detect companies perhaps closer to home. I personally ave nothing to do with these apparently disgusting behaviours. Now should you care about Europe ? Well, from a moral point of view, you should care about Darfour etc. From an economic or geo=political point of view, you should care about Europe and several other places.

And, yes, I am French. Sorry about that.

This because I don't go around insulting people I don't know.

If more people followed your example, online discussions would be a much more enjoyable experience. Suffice it to say that there is no shortage of harsh and poorly-founded accusations on either side of the Atlantic.

Would you happen to know if the books claiming that the CIA orchestrated the 9/11 attacks are still on the bestseller lists over there?

""Richard is being facetious. He refers to the widely believed (including by the then British Cabinet, as former Cabinet Minister Michael Portillo recently wrote) rigging of the French vote on the Maastricht Treaty: with the outcome uncertain, supposedly the powers that be stuffed the ballot boxes of the overseas territories. That's the EU for you."

This one is indictable under French law."

How convenient. I better warn Portillo to go into hiding.

A small updae on the Netherlands. This referendum is constitutionally very important for us. Why? It is the first time the Netherlands hold a national referenfum (well, at least the first time since 1797). So any experiences we have with this particular referendum will definitely have influence on possible future referenda.

Interesting note: this particular referendum is officially only "advisory", not legally binding. Most parties have committed themselves to respecting the outcome, but with a few caveats; if the turnout is low (

So ... if the no-camp wins marginally, with a low turnout, then expect some interesting debates in the Netherlands about the validity of referenda, the role of parliament in decisionmaking and especially about the "mutual lack of understanding" between politicians and citizens. And expect in a year time or so a lot of interesting final theses from ambitious law students on all this.

To be continued.

Sorry, part of my text, about the caveats, has not shown up. The paragraph concerned should read:

Interesting note: this particular referendum is officially only "advisory", not legally binding. Most parties have committed themselves to respecting the outcome, but with a few caveats; if the turnout is low (smaller than 30%) and/or if the margin of victory for the no-camp is small (smaller than 60-40, according to the centrist CDA), then the parties uphold their rights to renege on this commitment and make up their own (mostly pro-European) minds.