The Dutch are voting on the EU Consitution amid reports that the outcome will be closer than originally expected. We'll know later today, but it doesn't look as if the Dutch will reject the constitution by a large margin, although they are expected to do so by a small margin.
Why would Dutch opinion become more ambivalent, especially after the French rejection? The answer is complex, but it suggests that those in the US who are rejoicing in the potential unravelling of the EU project are missing the larger picture.
One clear signal being given is that neither the French nor the Dutch believe their political elites are representing their concerns well:
The FT article suggests:
The gulf between public and political opinion in the Netherlands appears to mirror the French experience, according to opinion polls which show that fewer than a fifth of the Dutch people have confidence in their government.The vote also carries echoes of events three years ago in the Netherlands, when Jan Peter Balkenende was elected prime minister. He benefited at the time from a protest vote that expelled from power the centre-left parties that had been seen as elitist and distant from the electorate.
Mr Balkenende's Christian Democrat Alliance led a government appointed amid a national wave of angst and insecurity that had fuelled the rise of the List Pim Fortuyn party - named after the murder of its founder, the populist Pim Fortuyn.
After that shortlived government fell apart, Mr Balkenende won a second election and rebuilt his cabinet. This administration has weathered problems, not always of its own making, including the social turmoil caused by two murders by extremists and a deep economic recession that forced unpopular austerity measures.
But Mr Balkenende's government now stands accused of the central charge that was levelled against the administration of his predecessor Wim Kok. De Telegraaf, the Netherlands' biggest selling national newspaper, on Monday branded the current government elitist. It wrote in an editorial that, like the Kok government, Mr Balkenende's had ignored the public, in this case by not explaining "what it was busy with in Brussels".
However, there are different concerns in the two 'no' countries:
A senior European diplomat in The Hague said that, while there were parallels with France, the issues informing the Dutch No vote were different. "The angst in France is to do with the Anglo-Saxon model, globalisation and liberalisation. Here it is about social policies and financial issues [such as the single currency]," he said.
What was striking about the 'non' campaign in France was the agreement by the hard left and the hard right that the constitution as written did not embody the correct economic/political model sufficiently. The left wanted a harder socialist policy; the right, a more liberal approach to markets. But both sides in France want strong integration at the EU level; the moderates who dislike strong control in Brussels not only were a minority, they look back at the results of their vote with some concern as they do not want to embolden the extremists on either side of the spectrum. And both sides are, for the moment, casting this in economic terms - the left, fighting the need to reform the generous welfare state in France and the right, who will point out that there are millions of Muslim immigrants on welfare in France who are not assimilating into French society.
The Dutch, on the other hand, are concerned that their social welfare state is eroding under demographic pressures and amid welfare reform. And they are angry that, because of faked numbers on the part of other countries in the runup to the launch of the Euro, they entered the single currency at a financial disadvantage. Note that they do not reject the Euro - they are simply unhappy about the way it was implemented in their case.
Beneath this surface issue, however, also lies the explosive potential for major social unrest due to massive immigration by uneducated non-Europeans, mostly Muslim by religion but of equal or greater importance, tribal in culture, who have little interest in assimilating or adopting Dutch tolerance and openness. Note the reference above to gay politician Pim Fortuyn, who was murdered by an ethnic Dutch activist updated because he called for tightening immigration controls - and because his party was gaining strength. The murder of van Gogh has only heightened that issue, although it is simmering below the surface at the moment.
In both France and the Netherlands, we can expect politicians to respond to a 'no' vote by finding ways to address the public discontent and specifically, in economic terms. The ways they do so may prove both short-sighted and not to the liking of the U.S. More on the international - and security - concerns I have about these events in part 2 ....
Let me propose a much simpler answer: never underestimate the lengths the Dutch will go to to be unlike the French.
With regard to Pim Fortuyn: his party was named 'lijst Pim Fortuyn' before his murder (and not afterwards as the FT article claims). His murderer was an ethnic Dutch environmentalist, but not gay.
adopting Dutch tolerance and openness
I assume you never have experienced the real Holland.
who was murdered by an ethnic Dutch gay man
Pim Fortuyn was gay, his killer was not. He was a animal right terrorist with a girlfriend and a small baby at home.
Am I misreading you? Are you saying that the hard right want a more liberal approach to the economy? I'd always thought Le Pen was something of a statist, even if it was along ethnic lines.
Colt,
I think that you're right. The French right has nothing to do with liberalized markets and everything to do with a statist, top-down, controlled economy.
Also, while Fortuyn's murderer was not gay, he was quite sympathetic to Muslims and that was the reason for which he assassinated Fortuyn.
Re: Fortuyn and his killer - yes, it was Fortyn who was gay and his murderer was indeed a strong animal rights activist. I've corrected that above. The motive for the murder was, however, Fortuyn's stance on immigration and Islam.
Re: economics, as I noted above, both extremes in France want a powerful government apparatus. The left wants that apparatus to support a more strongly socialist economic system and in particular does not want any erosion of what looks to me to be unsustainable social welfare benefits. The hard right wants that state to impose cultural norms and to prevent immigrants who do not assimilate from receiving those benefits.
Robin, like many commentators on the EU constitution, concludes that both the French and the Dutch feel that they are poorly represented by their elites, and that the constitution embodies social choices with which they do not agree. The irony is that their respective social choices are antagonistic.
It's common to hear that the EU (and its proposed constitution) has a democracy deficit. To me, the weakness of the proposed constitution is that it attempts to permanently enshrine a vast number of policy preferences, rather than structuring a government that can enact the policy preferences of its constituents. So if you are a liberal and you believe the constitution enshrines socialism, you must oppose the constitution now or lose the argument forever. Or vice versa. If the constitution instead simply vested the ability to make economic policy in the hands of elected officials, then both sides could presumably support it and continue to fight the politics down the road.
I don't think that in all the pages of commentary I've read since the French vote, I've seen anyone really talk substantively about how the EU goes about addressing its democracy deficit, or how these design problems with the constitution might be corrected.
I'm still working on part 2, but the short answer to WHY you haven't read that, Doug, is that there are several different and to some degree conflicting motives for establishing the EU ...
I agree with Doug. The EU has a democratic deficit. Let's see why:
rather than structuring a government that can enact the policy preferences of its constituents.
Well, what are the policy preferences of 25 or 28 different public opinions?
I think that the problem comes from the concept itself, the EU can hardly be democratic today, because there is not a common public opinion, and not even a common language: only 45% of the Europeans speak English. Europe is not a country, therefore it doesn't need a Constitution, just treaties to regulate common matters.
The proof is the Iraq war. Europeans split in two: the UK, Denmark, Poland, Romania, Italy, Spain and Portugal were for the US; France and Germany were against. Tell me, what would we do with a common foreign minister?
The European integration went well as long as it was economic, because the objective was common and clear: to build a big internal market as perfect as it can. The task has been, and it is, hard, but a progress like there was not seen in this world before has been made. Now comes politics, the answer is clear: NO
"But both sides in France want strong integration at the EU level"
Only because the French have never bothered to obey any law or regulation they saw as inconvenient and see the EU as a creation adn tool of French national interest.
Had the French been reqired to make a quarter of the social,cultural and economic sacrifices of,say,the Brits,they would have pulled out yrs ago.
"One clear signal being given is that neither the French nor the Dutch believe their political elites are representing their concerns well"
which is what is driving the crisis of legitimacy affecting the entire Western political class.Cheap,easy expediency isn't enough anymore,but the politicians don't seem to realize that yet.
Add the identity crisis affecting the region and the lack of any Great Idea beyond a "Europe" that is having these crises and has produced stagnent economies and high unemployment.Nationalism is illegitimate(but don't tell the French),religion even more so(except that other religion)and socialism has failed and multiculturalism is failing.
What do socialists do when there is nothing left to redistribute?
The Europeans might save their cultures and nations,but it would mean giving up their welfare checks now or they can try to keep the checks coming for a few more yrs and lose everything.
Polls say 63% NO in Holland
Come on baby do it again!!!!
25 points above the YES, although two thirds of the Members of the Parliament there were for that Treaty called Constitution.
This is today's Europe. I put the Moët Chandon in ice.
fghj (#10)
Only because the French have never bothered to obey any law or regulation they saw as inconvenient and see the EU as a creation adn tool of French national interest.
True. France has never been pro-European, just pro-french. Now Europes goes east...
Doug, I think that at least some of your concerns arise from the fact that the EU Constitution is based upon civil law (Code Napoleon) as opposed to common law. Most of the EU are civil law countries and would have a higher expectation that their policy choices would be specified or risk being treated as non-existant. The trend toward specificity could only increase given the number of countries and the uncertainty about EU governance.
The alternatives? I don't believe the European want to give a super-national body the type of flexible power of an American constitition -- I think Europeans want the benefit of nation-state sovereignty plus super-national power.
Joe A is probably most right in suggesting incremental change, mostly economical, on a treaty model. But there is only so far you can go with this, given that individual countries will opt out of some treaties (nullifying the benefit of uniformity) and many of the social policies (environment, labor, welfare) are inextricably linked to economic issues.
Van de Graaf claimed that he killed Fortuyn because of his opinion on muslims but i find that just as believable as claims by an American rednecks that they invaded Iraq to bring democracy.
The real reason Volkert killed Fortuyn was because what Fortuyn would have changed in Holland. Especially the rackets the left run.
About the only French who want a liberalisation of the economy are French business owners.
There was a BBC News report that pointed out (in BBC English) that the Polish plumber gets plenty of work because few French people are willing to get their hands dirty and do manual labour.
The business owners are lying. They would feel the brunt of the change.
...to what possible end...?
Business owners that say that they like their subsidies etc. see them cut
Again, A's inverted reality.
So, since a subsidy is the opposite of taxation, then the high taxes in Europe are a myth, they have negative taxation.
Muhahahah ... cracks me up ...
(Yeah I know I know, but still, damn funny)
You forget how the state makes the life of new competitors impossible with their complicated rules. Business loves that
A #19
Wow, convergence with this universe, a near miss with a craft and its improbability drive.
Yes, starting a new shop over there is very difficult, india used to be just as bad, just to get permission could take 5 years, and might get turned down based on some socialist opinion of its "place in society".
It was compared with pre-china Hong kong, where to file a DBA took 15 minutes, and that was it.
So your point is astute, its not all the small shops tho, but the big corps mostly.
But its also true they will often shut out a competing shop that the others fear might encroch on them.
And then there is the oppressive taxation and labor regs, that create a desert inbetween the private family shop and the leviathans that is made impossible to cross.
As for Businesses loving it all that much, that is wrong, they do work inside the system they have, its part of the bad side effects of the system and the distortions in incentives, but thats not the same as saying they wouldnt not like to be free of the whole stinking pile if they could.
You may believe that business likes competition but i reality they like to be a monopoly. It is so much easier to manage a monopoly