What are the prospects for European political and economic integration in the wake of rejection of the proposed European Union constitution by the French and Dutch voters? This question was uppermost on my mind as I began a teaching and lecturing tour in Europe earlier this month. In addition to France and the Netherlands, my travels took me to Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and Austria.
In conversations with people from all walks of life – government officials, EU diplomats and judges, business executives, university teachers and students, and ordinary folks – I found widespread agreement on the reasons for rejection, but no answers on the future direction of the EU. Overall, enthusiasm among the EU diplomats and government officials about EU institutions in Brussels and Strasbourg and their cementing European political and economic integration was in marked contrast with apathy, if not outright resentment, among the general public of Brussels’ red tape, cumbersome bureaucracy and its intrusive policies undermining national sovereignty.
The voters considered the proposed constitution too long, unwieldy, overly detailed and technical. A vast majority not only did not read it but most were not even aware of its major provisions. The leaders had failed to articulate to their citizens the merits of the constitution and the rationale for an affirmative vote.
The European Commission acknowledged general disillusionment in Europe with the EU and its institutions when it published an opinion poll of nearly 30,000 Europeans, conducted during May and June. The poll showed that only 47 percent of Europeans had a positive view of the EU.
In response, Margot Wallstrom, European commissioner for communications, has presented a plan to improve the EU’s image by taking the EU’s message to the people in their home countries and in their own languages.
Europeans by and large saw the EU’s expansion into the former East European countries, resulting in its enlargement from 15 to 25 members, as having gone too fast. This has caused considerable concern in the “old Europe” countries, several of which are already suffering from high unemployment and tepid economies. They fear that low wages among the 10 new member countries, combined with the attraction of old Europe, could lead to another wave of migration from the east.
I often heard about “enlargement fatigue” as a major reason for the results of the French and Dutch referenda. Turkey’s knocking at the EU’s door is not seen as a pleasant or even an acceptable prospect by many Europeans. I did not expect the kind of open and vocal hostility to Turkey’s entry into the EU that I found in Germany and Austria.
I met very few people who were keen to again put the constitution to a vote in the countries that rejected it. The general feeling was that there should be sufficient time for reflection and planning for the future. Several provisions in the constitution are already in place under the prior Maastricht and Nice treaties previously ratified by the EU countries. There is no consensus on what shape the EU should have: a federation or a confederation. As to a common foreign policy, security mechanism, and law enforcement cooperation, opinions vary.
There is some talk about expanding the usual French-German collaboration as the main pillar of an integrated Europe, to include Britain, Italy and Spain. How important the role of the European Commission is, or the rotating EU presidency (now under Tony Blair) will be is not yet clear. It’s doubtful whether Blair will succeed in persuading old Europe to reconsider its “social model”: lifelong employee tenure, short working hours, and the prevailing welfare system. There are some who suggest that the priority now should be on completing the European single market and strengthening the Euro zone. And there is continuing concern over whether Europe can effectively coordinate its anti-terrorism efforts, given even greater urgency by the London bombings.
Some Euro-skeptics may gloat at the rejection of the constitution and the malaise it has caused. They derive satisfaction that Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder might lose their next elections. But it is in nobody’s interest, including the U.S. (where one hears criticism of old Europe’s policies), to see a weakened Europe with fragmentary policies. A strong, integrated, cohesive Europe would be of benefit to all.
Ved P. Nanda is the Evans University Professor and director of the International Legal Studies Program at the University of Denver.
