La vue de France

This is probably a little belated; nevertheless it is still a discussion very much vibrant in foreign affairs.

For most Americans it was rather comical watching the French “Non” vote on the European constitution. The debate, however, is anything but a joke. The ramifications of a failed Europe have extreme consequences for America. Over 350,000 American soldiers have died on European soil to guarantee the future of a successful democratic Europe. Any debate about the future of Europe is dually an American one.

The European constitution was a poorly written confused document. Its drafters should retire with the deed that they have accomplished very little with its text. My analysis is but also a confused Americanist second-hand approach at federation, which means I am by no means an expert in the field of drafting constitutions. Therefore, I have sought the first hand account and analysis of a fellow blogger from France.

Below (click Continue Reading) is a 7-question interview with Le-Plume, who voted “Non” on the ratification of the European constitution along with 55% of everyone else that voted.

1. What was your main motivation for voting NO?

The proposed constitution was the reason. I think this text was very poorly written and included many dispositions that were of legislative or even regulatory nature. I couldn't imagine myself in 20 years time explaining to my kids why I voted for it in '05...

Moreover, this text was a grab-bag of incoherent dispositions - the idea being that governments were going to market the bits that were sure to be popular in their countries and that people were not going to look at the rest. Obviously, it worked the other way round.

2. Was your vote a vote against the current French government?

No. As a matter of fact, it also happened to be a vote against my own political party, the Parti socialiste. It was a vote against the text and also a vote of no confidence against the current policies of the Union- which were embedded in the text.

3. Did the EU Constitution do too much or not enough for economic reforms?

Much too much: I don't see why economic reforms should be addressed by a constitution at all. A constitution should lay out the checks and balances between the various governing bodies and assert a few fundamental rights, nothing more.

4. Did the membership of Turkey play a large role in the French vote?

Not in mine, but I can't speak for the rest of the country. What I think is that people were also opposed to the previous enlargement (Poland etc.), but nobody asked them... The Turkish problem is probably a part of the feeling that European institutions were doing whatever they pleased without taking into account the popular opinion.

5. Do you view the EU as too elitist?

Elitist? I'm not too sure what you mean by this. There's a lack of accountability, that's for sure.

6. Is this the end of Europe?

Of course not! Why would it be?

As far as I'm concerned the loss of momentum towards European integration happened not right now, but more than one year ago, when Europe ridiculously failed to end the partition of Cyprus. That event was vastly overlooked by political commentators but I think it showed that Europe as a political power with a real vision didn't actually exist. Europe is, and stays, a more or less tight confederation of independent nations-states that chose to work together instead of fighting each other. This is no small achievement, and it still works.

7. Where does the EU go from here?

Can't help you here; future will tell...

My sincere appreciation towards Le-Plume for his time and cooperation. Thank you.