The blow of Holland’s overwhelmingly negative response to the EU Constitution on Wednesday, just three days after France’s dramatic “no”, has thrown the union into disarray. It could now decide to move onto a much less ambitious course, diminishing the chances that the United States will face a rival European superpower in the near future.
The Constitution, which must be ratified by all 25 member states in order to be implemented, would give some form of statehood to the European alliance and lay the foundation for a political organisation of 450 million people, making up some 25 per cent of the world’s economic output.
But the citizens of France and Holland – both founding members of the EU – have clearly not yet understood the plan of a united Europe advocated by their political leaders.
The French rejected the Constitution with a 55 per cent majority, and the Dutch repudiated it with a 61 per cent score.
European leaders plan to discuss what to do next at their summit in Brussels in two weeks’ time. Their task is not only to find a legal way out of the constitutional stalemate but to rethink the entire direction of Europe, including plans for adding Romania, Bulgaria and other countries as new member states and intensifying political integration.
The debate on the EU Constitution was different in France and Holland. In France, irritation with President Jacques Chirac, and fears of an “Anglo-Saxon” Europe under US-British free-market principles, clearly influenced the result of the referendum. Many people were more inclined to send a negative message to Mr Chirac than take a rational decision on the Constitution itself.
On the other hand, Dutch liberals feared the country would lose its independence over socially liberal policies such as euthanasia and marijuana. Conservatives worried about immigration policies being decided by foreigners in Brussels.
To many of its champions, a united Europe would serve as a major pillar of a multi-polar world, capable of standing up to American power and competing economically with the Americans and rising China and India.
Following the defeat of the Constitution in France, European leaders declared that ratification should continue in countries that have not yet decided on the charter, either in their parliaments or via referenda. Latvia responded on Thursday with a strong approval by parliamentary vote, becoming the 10th nation to ratify the Constitution.
But the huge “no” vote in Holland, following a similar result in France, casts grave doubts over whether the process can continue.
There are strong eurosceptic groups in several of the countries that still have to ratify the Constitution, especially Britain. If Mr Chirac was unable to put through the idea of a European Constitution in France, despite the support of the media and most political parties, many ask how British Prime Minister Tony Blair can succeed in doing so in the most eurosceptic of the big EU members.
In theory, citizens in countries which rejected the Constitution once could be asked to vote again.
That would still be hard in France, without major alterations to the charter – something which German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has, in any event, already ruled out. Moreover, Mr Chirac’s government is so out of favour that it would take a miracle to win a “yes” vote the second time round.
EU leaders will evaluate their options at a summit in Brussels on 16 and 17 June. Rather than a firm decision, what seems likely is a time of reflection, as called for by Mr Blair, who takes over the rotating EU presidency for six months on 1 July.
Among other alternatives, the EU could postpone the November 2006 deadline for members to ratify the Constitution, buying politicians time to either try to promote the charter or decide where to go, following the French and Dutch result.