Open ‘non’ thread
Well, the French said no to the EU constitution, and they said no with a pretty firm voice. Jacques Chirac said in response to the vote: France has democratically expressed itself. You have rejected the European constitution by a majority. It is your sovereign decision and I take note of it. Nevertheless, our ambitions and ...
Well, the French said no to the EU constitution, and they said no with a pretty firm voice. Jacques Chirac said in response to the vote:
Well, the French said no to the EU constitution, and they said no with a pretty firm voice. Jacques Chirac said in response to the vote:
France has democratically expressed itself. You have rejected the European constitution by a majority. It is your sovereign decision and I take note of it. Nevertheless, our ambitions and interests are profoundly linked to Europe…. [L]let us not be mistaken. The decision of France inevitably creates a difficult context for the defence of our interests in Europe. We must respond to this by uniting around one requirement – national interest.
Yeah, good luck with that, Monsieur Chirac — it’s not that the French don’t want to act in their national interest — it’s just that the French are quite split about defining that national interest The BBC analysis by Kirsty Hughes provides four reasons for the rejection:
Dissatisfaction with the current French government Worries (mostly misplaced) that the constitution moves the EU in an “Anglo-Saxon” direction economically General concerns at the development of the EU, especially a perceived reduction of France’s influence in the enlarged Union Concerns at possible future membership of Turkey in the EU.
Given reason number two, I’m skeptical of the Christopher Adams’ speculation in the Financial Times that, “Britain is likely to use the result, particularly if the Netherlands also votes against the treaty on Wednesday, to push its case for economic reform across the EU more vigorously.” Or, rather, Britain can try, but I doubt their efforts will fly. In advance of the referendum, Greg Djerejian and Henry Farrell had very good analyses about the politics and prospects of the European Union in a post-‘non’ environment — so go click on them and then come back here and post your comments. And check out Glenn Reynolds’ collection of links. UPDATE: Wow — go check out the Ipsos breakdown of exit poll questions on the referendum. It makes for fascinating reading. [But it’s in French–ed. Then enter the URL in Babelfish and read it anyway.] Two things stand out immediately:
1) The only employment category that supported the constitution were Professions lib?rales, cadres sup?rieurs — i.e., the French elite. 2) 40% of the “non” vote thought the constitution was too economically liberal
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
