Wow. Preliminary results of the Dutch vote: 63% voted No in a turnout of 62% of voters. That is a deeper and broader rejection than most commentators expected.
I'll add my analysis here shortly after I wrap up some other obligations. But this is a Big Deal ..... I'll be back in an hour or so with some links and commentary about where we might be headed with this.
UPDATE: Here are some first thoughts on the implications of the French and Dutch 'no' votes against the EU constitution. The ramifications will play out over the next few years, so this is inherently very preliminary. But here are the things I plan to watch carefully.
First, it's not clear that these votes will kill the proposed constitution in its current form. Of the 9 countries that have approved it, 8 did so in their parliaments without a public referendum. The Dutch leadership said they would abide by the popular vote - but it is not binding on them. And while Chirac is wily enough not to directly go against public sentiment, he is also more than willing to attempt to shape that sentiment for another try.
Which makes his selection of de Villepin as prime minister of some interest.
Villepin has never been elected to office - he is a party appointee dependent on Chirac and others for power. He has earned that power by being the point man on a variety of issues, among them a nasty anti-U.S and anti-Israel stance.
Which brings us to the second thing I plan to watch carefully: arms and technology sales by France to China and the moslem world. Chirac pushed hard this past year for removing the EU ban on weapons sales to Beijing. Such sales would bolster his desired leadership role for France in foreign affairs.
But it would also - and more immediately - address the economic bind that France is in, and which led to the 'non' this past week. France's generous welfare state is stagnant. Her unions have made it perfectly clear they will not accept any welfare or pension reforms. And with the EU project in chaos, at a minimum, the income transfers from other EU countries that have kept her economy limping along are certainly not going to increase.
The solution? Sell arms and nuclear technology. It's no accident that immediately after the vote France indicated her interest in selling nuclear know-how and technology to Libya. It's worth noting, in that vein, that Sec State Rice just announced that the US and unidentified allies have been intercepting defense-related technologies bound for Iran. No word on the origin of that shipment, but it demonstrates the danger.
By the way, one reason France needs to sell arms and nuclear technology is that they have encountered market and technical difficulties with selling Airbus planes for commercial use.
I also expect at least the threat of trade and custom wars as the EU adopts an increasingly protectionist stance in a short-term attempt to keep their economies going and fend off US and Chinese competition. This won't work - European consumers will bear the consequences of a Eurozone manufacturing sector that is in a serious doldrum - but it will appeal to politicians as a way of showing they're "doing something" about voter concerns.
However, the Dutch are angry about the unfavorable terms on which they entered the Euro (due to faked numbers in some other countries) and to other EU proposals that would harm them economically.
Finally, we will all watch to see how much support there is, or will become, for strong anti-immigrant feelings in EU countries. Both France (Le Pen) and the Netherlands (Fortuyn) have had politicians raise this issue well before 9/11 or the current economic doldrums on the Continent. Things have only gotten worse since then, as immigrant populations expand rapidly but fail to assimilate or to significantly contribute economically to the welfare states from which they benefit (for both demographic and cultural reasons).
While I hope that European countries are able to adopt a realistic assessment of their problems, the size of the 'no' votes raises the whispered question of whether conditions are ripening for a more xenophobic reaction against the immigrant communities, some of whom include minorities that vocally support jihad. And it probably means that Turkey will not be invited to join the EU any time soon - which may mean an increasing influence for the Islamacist fundamentalists in that country. Other countries' bids will also be on hold, potentially undermining fragile democracies in the former Soviet states of eastern Europe.
For these reasons, I have very mixed feelings about Sunday and today's votes. We'll see how things play out over the weeks and months ahead.
NOTE: Those who are sanguine about military sales to China might want to consider what the Chinese have done with the Lavi technology sold by Israel and based in part on the US' F-16. (h/t Phil Fraering of Notes from the Fridge, who passed along the Strategy Page link)
It is worth remembering that there is another 18 months before the constitiution has to be ratified. That's the beginning of 2007. A lot can change before that happens.
I'm not quite sure why that is. Presumably a deviation from that would be unconstitutional? Except...
There's any question? People I've spoken to who don't have much interest in politics, and some who don't even vote, have made clear their feelings about Muslim immigration. It doesn't need prompting, either.
The disconnect between people and politicians is growing ever wider. On the E.U., Turkey, Islamic immigration, crime... It might not be a majority, but a large number of people are getting sick and tired of their governments.
Colt, the question is whether this will translate into a direct scapegoating of all immigrants. If it explodes in that direction, rather than against the leaders who facilitated it, then things could degenerate into open domestic violence quickly.
There are already racist attacks out of the French immigrant slums against ethnic French ... when the attacks also go the other way the blood could run deep.
increasingly protectionist stance in a short-term attempt to keep their economies going and fend off US and Chinese competition.
That should be Eastern European and Chinese competition. The only thing the US makes is overpriced crap.
European consumers will bear the consequences of a Eurozone manufacturing sector that is in a serious doldrum
So why do i believe that the Eurozone has a large growth in exports, unlike the US.
to significantly contribute economically to the welfare states from which they benefit
Difference between US and America is that immigrants are for the US a positive in there first generation. The same can't be said of Europe, but they make this up in the second and third generation.
Turkey will not be invited to join the EU any time soon
The plan is admission after 2014 so you are absolutely right.
And now Less than Zéropa.
The only thing the US makes is overpriced crap.
Riiiggghhht. Uh huh.
So why do i believe that the Eurozone has a large growth in exports, unlike the US
Because you don't read the financial press, including the Financial Times article linked above.
The choice of reknowned backstabber of Colin Powell De Villepin as Prime Minister shows Chirac learned nothing from the vote.
He is going to play his cards to the end God willing and the creek don't rise, perhaps go to jail for his crimes prior to PM.
My love to the French and Dutch is here:
Non! Bravo- Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys
Cordially,
Uncle J
Military Matters
The two "no" votes from two of the original 6 EU members does not bode well for future integration in the near to midterm. The reaction against the 200 page EU Constitution from the left and right of the political spectrum coupled with the roughly 70% voter turnout is the deathknell of the document. Regardless of clever Presidents or Prime Ministers, the loss is a watershed moment in European politics. People who were less interested in politics suddenly are now and the fate of their common union is now of interest where before it was less so.
While French arms sales to China would surely be profitable, Mr. Chirac's motivation, IMO, is more guided by his desire to counterbalance the US, something he referred to during his visit to Asia late last year. China issued a statement today, through their foreign ministry, restating their desire to see a more integrated EU. While trade issues could become cleaner, the Chinese motivation is more strategic in nature.
However, France and Mr. Chirac and Mr. Schroeder are now in serious political danger. The UK is set to take the revolving 6 month presidency as luck would have it. The French left and Dutch left reject the Blair-Thatcher mode of capitalism (even though they enjoy a mid 4% unemployment rate to France's 10.2%). Mr. Blair, surviving his own election battle, now has the opportunity to pull Europe out of its freefall and find common ground that is more acceptable, and limited in scope, to interested nations. This was the best deal France will have ever seen and their citizens rejected it.
All of this leaves the US in a much stronger position internationally, as countries interested in real security guarantees and economic trade agreements will view America as the more reliable and stable partner. Our Constitution has stood the test of time.
This vote is symbolic of the opening of another American Century. Whether we can take advantage of it and build strong alliances with countries in and out of Europe that share our principles of democracy, freedom and property will be seen.
"Zéropa-Land and its zero: it's America minus the Declaration of Independance, minus the Constitution, minus the conquest of the West, minus the Oval office, minus the Pentagon, minus Hollywood, minus World War II, minus Vietnam, minus the Cybercoast which now stretches well beyond the Silicon Valley of its beginnings, minus Apollo and minus the Gulf War. In other words... Zéropa-Land, precisely. - Maurice Dantec
And now Less than Zéropa."
The above post is proud ignorance (tho I assume it is tongue-in-cheek). So much of the democratic tradition in the United States comes from Europe (Greek democracy, Roman Republic, French Revolution, British Common Law, etc.,etc.).
Having spent plenty of time in Europe, I would say it is the US... minus World Champion Obesity, minus fast food grease, minus SUV/stripmall/parking lot hell, minus the ugliest cities&suburbs on the planet,... plus 6 week min vacation,plus 35 hour work weeks, plus La Dolce Vita, plus infinitely better wine/cheese/food of all kinds, plus better/much cheaper healthcare, plus longer life expectancy,plus lower infant mortality, plus freedom to ski, fly and climb however/wherever you want without lawsuit paranoia
I am kind of wondering how anyone could say that Europe is "minus World War II" since that war primarily took place in Europe and European fatalities were many times US losses but maybe common sense was not applied in the rush to attack the Cheese-Eating-Surrender_Monkies.
#3 Robin Burk
I expect it would be against the immigrant communities first. Taking Malmo as an example, setting up vigilante groups to prevent your daughters being gang-raped, and those groups taking offensive action, is a likely progression of events. It is very unlikely violent action would be taken against the government initially.
Mark Steyn had a good line on the future of Europe: bet on form.
#8 Bill Rice
Every government in Europe, plus the European Union, want the constitution. Versus who? The people? I'm not allowed to own a baton, let alone a gun. I don't think European governments are ready to stop pretend being representative quite yet, though. The E.U. will trim down the offending articles, and institute them anyway, and European governments will commence re-education where appropriate.
Zacht Ei made an interesting point: 85% of the Dutch parliament supported the constitution, while ~63% of Dutch people opposed it.
What China has done with the J-10 Lavi derivative (start with an airframe, replace the rest, make lots of mistakes, change the airframe, repeat) is not exactly confidence-inspiring. Slot it in under "learning experiences," and their own purchases of SU-30 aircraft as their mainstay tells you all you need to know.
The day may come when the Chinese have a domestic industry that can produce advanced weapons reliably. That day has not arrived yet, which means they must import the technology. At present, the vast majority comes from Russian fire sales. See this analysis for a breakdown.
I'm sure they'd like a European option, but as I've noted on DID, that won't happen in the near future. U.S. pressure on Israel to cut its own ties, meanwhile, ups the pressure against lifting the embargo even further.
France, who never tires of supporting the Mugabes, Saddams et. al. of the world, can be expected to keep pushing, however.
Perhaps the most fruitful avenue forward for America is to use the EU's crises to quietly isolate and divide France from the rest of Europe at every turn. Since much of its current agenda conflicts with other countries' economic interests and political sensibilities, it should be easy to keep the pot on a low boil for a long time.
The key rule: America doesn't have to win, France just has to lose.
Tom Volkhausen: plus 35 hour work weeks
Of course, Europe doesn't have 35 hour work weeks. France is going back to 38 hours after suffering much ridicule from their fellow Europeans.
As for whether Dantec is being proudly ignorant or tongue-in-cheek, you can go figure the French for yourself. I don't understand them.
85% of the dutch parlement claimed to support the constitution but the yes campaign was so incredible badly run that conspiracies are believeable in this case. They used images of Auswitz.
ps. There is in Holland a tax rule, the hypotheekaftrek. This rule is according to every economist bad and unfair but it is a real taboo for politicians. Anybody who suggest it will be excommunicated by their party because the voters really like it. Guess what the EU suggested today that Holland should cut?
a, I presume you mean the tax break for house mortgages mentioned in the link I provided above? I know a good many economists who emphatically do NOT consider that either bad or unfair. Those of us who live in countries where the majority of people want to and are able to own their own homes know how important that is to promoting participatory democracy and a stable middle class. No wonder the Dutch public likes that rule - and no wonder the controlling EUrocrats dislike it and want to destroy it.
Robin,
The New Man will live in a Corbusier designed barrack/prison provided by the beneficent State. Mortgages will be as superfluous as freedom or liberty. You've sure got some bourgeois ideas. Watch it or you'll be on the list for reeducation.
Le Monde has a good interactive map breaking down the oui and non vote by region. This comes to me via Window on the Arab World which is by itself a good read.
Unfair because most of the subsidy money goes to the rich and if you earn a lot of money and you have the same house and mortgage you get more money back then if you earn less
ps. The Dutch goverment has a policy to build as few houses as possible. That is why housing is so expensive in Holland.
So much of the democratic tradition in the United States comes from Europe (Greek democracy, Roman Republic, French Revolution, British Common Law, etc.,etc.).
Perhaps should have stopped at 1792. What the U.S. learned from the French revolutionaries was that their foreign policy operated on system of bribes.
Don't be so pesimistic, please.
The rejection of that Treaty called Constitution is the oportunity to build a better Europe, closer to the citizens.
Prominent classic liberals, such as Mr. Aznar, hardly opposed it. In fact it was approved thanks to the 3/11 attacks. The Economist called it the Constitution of Al Qaeda.
Don't forget either that the UK, with 55 million souls, has to hold another referendum on it. A rejection by two of the four biggest countries will clearly mean that it is over, no matter the manipulative behaviour of the Socialburocrats from Brussels.
Therefore I disagree profoundly the dicotomy: Constitution-openess, Rejection-protectionism. Robin, check that it would not work with the UK position.
It is true that the worse of Europe has voted NO, sometimes on grounds of defending their own culture (Holland) or privileges (France), but those process they are against are motivated by globalization, and therefore will go on. What those people didn't want is those process being managed by burocrats beyond any democratic control in Brussels. I agree.
It is also true that the best of Europe, the classic liberals, as Mr. Aznar, has voted NO. It is a great result.
Aircraft are rarely delivered on time.
I worked on the electrical power system of the 747-400 and as I recall it was delivered about two years late.
Desperate measures were taken to speed up delivery. We had a bad hardware design on one of the boxes. To patch it we had to do a reset of some of the parts every 10 milliseconds. Very bad.
I'm sure it has been fixed by now.
Still it would not be a surprise if Airbus lost one or two of those suckers in the first couple of years of operation.
Rule of thumb: never fly on a plane whose production is just beginning. Compromises will be done to meet schedule. Wait until the aircraft fleet has a million cumulative hours of operation. That is about 100 planes in the fleet operating for two years.
If you must risk it 100,000 cumulative hours is probably the minimum. Ten planes for two years.
What America missed in WW2 was being a German Nazi or a French collaborator. As the allies were conquering France the French were still sending trains full of Jews to Germany. Such lovely people. Willing to go the extra mile for their friends.
What Europe has missed is the American Constitution and a population who values their individual liberty.
And yes our strip malls are ugly. What we get in exchange is cheap goods. We can live better for less money. On top of that we make more money. And pay less in taxes (still too much).
BTW I worked with some French engineers on the A320. I was not impressed. The concept was very good. Execution average.
PD Shaw,
I was unaware of most of Europe (excepting the UK) having a recent common law experience.
I studied the roots of English Common Law a long time ago (high school). It does go back to the Danes and others.
I was under the impression that the anglosphere countries are the only ones still operating under a common law tradition. (with the possible addition of Israel).
Perhaps some one who knows more about the origins of law around the world could chime in.
"...While French arms sales to China would surely be profitable, "
You're missing the moral of the story regarding the Litening pods.
Israel apparently sold some to the Chinese.
Now the Chinese are making and selling cheap knockoffs. Not only are the Israelis going to be undercut in the market, China will be willing to sell to the countries likely to go to war against Israel.
(Not that we're not also dumb enough to do the same thing. We subsidize military sales to Egypt and Pakistan).
Europe was one during Napoleon. That is why the rules are alike.
M. Simon: I didn't really intend to make a comment, one way or the other about English Common law. I was merely responding to the previous assertion that the French Revolution had significant influence on American democratic traditions.
But you are right that common law is pretty much isolated to the Anglo-sphere, including countries like Israel that were once under British control. (List here) The EU Constitution will end the common law in Great Britain. That will be a loss for other common law jurisdictions.
The EU Constitution is so darn long because its based on French Civil Law, which places a greater emphasis on positive expression of law as opposed to the common law's primary reliance upon statements of principle, tradition, reason and an independent judiciary. While I believe the Common Law is superior, the EU lacks a shared culture to make this approach possible.
"We subsidize military sales to Egypt"
Yeah, and it works. No war. Also, we control the spare parts. Accepting weapons from the US means the US gets a major say in how those weapons are used.
I think by that you mean 'no conventional assault'. Not for a while now, no.