[Transatlantic Perspective]France says `No` to Chirac, not to Europe

Voting No on the EU Constitution would not constitute a French No to Europe, as some believe; it would merely be a vote of no confidence in Jacques Chirac`s presidency. Anything that diminishes Chirac - who has weakened the EU by pushing a protectionist, corporate state model for Europe, and telling the new smaller members to "shut up" when they disagreed with him - must be considered good news for Europe and European integration.

So those desiring a stronger integrated EU should be rooting for a French No, knowing full well that some voting No would be doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Even before the May referendum, there have been indications that France`s ability to mold the European Union to its interests has been waning.

Just recently, Romanian President Traian Barescu signed a treaty to join the European Union. In the period preceding the signing, however, the French foreign minister, Michel Barnier, chastised him for lacking a "European reflex." The reason? Barescu plans to align Romania with Anglo Saxon liberal economic policies, and wants a special relationship with Britain and the United States to improve security in the Black Sea region. Rather than buckling to France`s will, the Romanian president warned French leaders to stop lecturing his country.

This is Europe`s future. Even those with close historical ties to France, like Romania, are standing up to France, because Chirac and his colleagues do not offer them the type of "European reflex" they want and need.

The Netherlands - a traditionally pro-European country - also may vote No on the Constitution in its own referendum (which takes place after the French one) - not only as a protest against the conservative and moralistic policies of the Balkenende government, but as a rejection of a corporatist Europe dominated by French and German interests.

The corporate state simply has not delivered the goods in continental Europe, and polls are showing voters may take it out on the proposed Constitution.

Certainly the Yes camp is concerned, with some arguing a French No will stall EU enlargement and sink the euro.

"What prospects would there be for constructive talks with Turkey, or progress towards entry of the Balkan states if the French electorate turned its back on the EU?" asks Philip Stephens in the Financial Times. True enough. But a No will not mean the French electorate has turned its back on Europe. What`s at stake is not enlargement, but whether enlargement takes a more corporatist or market-based form.

Wolfgang Munchau of the Financial Times thinks French rejection of the EU Constitution could sink the euro. "Without the prospect of eventual political union on the basis of some constitutional treaty," writes Munchau, "a single currency was always difficult to justify and it might turn out more difficult to sustain... Without the politics, the euro is not nearly as attractive."

But French rejection of the constitution does not imply political fragmentation of the EU. If the European Constitution is not ratified, the Treaty of Nice becomes the Union`s operative document. There is no reason whatsoever why the EU should fall into chaos - and the euro wilt - now under the Treaty of Nice when it did not do so before.

The truth is that not only will the euro survive a No vote; it will prosper. Britain`s liberal economic principles are more conducive to European economic growth and prosperity than France`s protectionist, corporate state ones. The market realizes this. With the polls forecasting a No vote, the euro remains strong in the currency markets.

Finally, not only will a French No serve to marginalize Chirac in Europe, but it will also help undermine the Franco-German alliance that has served France, Germany and Europe so badly in recent years. Europe, in fact, might be on the verge of a major political realignment if the French vote No and Tony Blair wins big in the forthcoming British election. With Chirac down and Blair up, an Anglo Saxon-German alliance might well replace the present Franco-German one. That would be progress indeed.





Melvyn Krauss is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. - Ed.



Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2005

www.project-syndicate.org