France and the EU Vote

[Annie]

Thought it time to put up a round-up:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1588754,00.html

The leaders of Germany and Poland joined French President Jacques Chirac in lobbying French voters to approve the EU constitution, during their three-way summit in eastern France on Thursday.

The chances that French voters will reject the document that plots out the direction the future Union will take have increased in the past days. Recent polls put the "no" camp, made up mostly of left wing voters, winning with between 51 and 54 percent of the vote.

The constitution, which aims to simplify decision-making in the expanded EU, must be approved by all 25 EU member states. A rejection in France in a few weeks would have enormous repercussions, both within the country and across the European Union.

"France assumes a big responsiblity, the responsibility not to let down us other Europeans over the constitution," Schröder told a news conference in the city of Nancy, France. [...]

And appealing to French visions of 'glory':

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.168414872&par=0

Paris, 18 May (AKI) - Less than two weeks before France's referendum on the EU constitution - Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso on Wednesday broadcast an impassioned radio appeal for a 'Yes' vote "in the name of French and European values". The three most recent opinion polls have shown the 'No' camp currently in the lead, with up to 53 percent of support. The treaty entails closer European political ties and aims to streamline decision-making in the 25-member bloc.

Speaking on the major French commercial radio station Europe I, Barroso cautioned: "A 'No' vote on 29 May would be perceived as a failure for France." "Really it would be very bad news for the economy in France and Europe, because investors want a scenario of confidence, many want certainties and security," he emphasised.

"Pessimism is bad for the economy. There would be more uncertainty, and uncertainty in the economy is bad for consumption, it is bad for investment," he continued. France was a central country in the European project - and without France there would not have been a European Community (as the EU was formerly called), Barroso stressed.

"Everyone would be looking at the result of the referendum in France - both inside and outside Europe," he said, adding that it was unlikely the treaty would be renegotiated if there was a French 'No'.

The EU constitution has to be ratified by all 25 EU member states, only some of which are holding referendums. Much is at stake in the French referendum and the Dutch one taking place a few days later on 1 June, as a single 'No' vote from an EU member-state can veto the treaty. The latest Dutch polls show the 'No' camp ahead in the Netherlands too.

Barroso warned of how the world outside Europe would perceive a 'No' in France's referendum on the EU constitution: "People would say: there you go, the Europeans are not able to agree on a constitutional treaty ... It would be very bad for the perception of our Europe, for the signs of confidence in it," he said.

The EU constitution and Barroso are unpopular with many French voters, as they fear the treaty and Barroso's plans to make the EU more competitive are a threat to France's generous welfare state. Until a few weeks ago, the 'No' campaign was well ahead, but the 'Yes' side has considerably narrowed the gap, helped by a heavy-duty media campaign that mobilised the topguns of France's political establishment.

In March, France's president, Jacques Chirac - one of the EU constitution's strongest backers - reportedly intervened on several occasions to prevent Barroso campaigning for a 'Yes' vote on French television, on the grounds that this would be counter-productive.

Barroso's appearance on Europe 1 could be a sign of Chirac's eagerness - or desperation - to secure a victory for France's 'Yes' camp on 29 May.

http://afr.com/articles/2005/05/19/1116361669127.html

UK to follow French lead on EU
2005/05/20

The British government was preparing to ditch its plans to hold a referendum on the new European constitution if France and other countries rejected it, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw signalled yesterday.

As opponents of the constitution launched a cross-party campaign for a No vote, he indicated that ministers were having second thoughts - despite earlier promises to hold a referendum whatever happened.

The British referendum, due to be held next year, would be the first popular test of opinion on the EU since a referendum 30 years ago confirming British membership of the then Common Market.

Tony Blair promised to hold a referendum in an attempt to neutralise Europe as an issue during the general election. But there is growing concern in the government that voters remain largely Eurosceptic and that it will be difficult to secure a Yes vote.

An ICM poll for the Vote No campaign showed that the public was nearly two to one against the constitution: 54 per cent to 30 per cent.
[...]

 

[Annie]

The machinations around the EU vote give me a headache and it's not even my vote!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...2204.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/05/22/ixop.html

Now it gets perverse: Yes want a Non vote, and No want a Oui
(Filed: 22/05/2005)

With a week to go before the French referendum, something strange is happening. Many British Euro-sceptics are praying for a "Oui", while Euro-enthusiasts are crossing their fingers for a "Non".

Both sides have a point. The sceptics have been slavering at the prospect of a British referendum. They believe it offers the prospect of catharsis after 30 years of pent-up frustration with the EU. A British "No", they argue, would be a rejection, not only of the constitution, but of every successive transfer of power to Brussels since the 1975 referendum. Pro-sovereignty campaigners were delighted when Tony Blair declared that the vote would really be about Britain's wider relationship with the EU, and mean to hold him to his word. In their ideal scenario, most or all the other countries would proceed with ratification and push ahead without Britain, thus catalysing a long-overdue renegotiation of our membership terms.

A French "Non", they fear, would deny us this opportunity. Although it might prevent the constitution's formal adoption, it would not prevent the implementation of the constitution's main provisions. The matter would be referred to an inter-governmental conference which would then re-adopt 95 per cent of the constitution's contents using the existing treaty structure.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch, a restless campaigner for British independence, made this argument explicitly in the House of Lords on Thursday: "Eurosceptics must hope that the French vote 'Yes'," he told astonished peers. "Then we will have a referendum, and we will win it. Only thus can we be sure of starting the process of disengagement from the project."

His Lordship, as usual, is onto something. The idea that the Euro-elites would react to a French "Non" by tearing up the draft is absurd. We have, after all, been here before. When Denmark voted against Maastricht, when Ireland voted against Nice - and, indeed, when the markets voted against the ERM - Europe's leaders responded by carrying on regardless. There is no Plan B in Brussels; Plan A is simply resubmitted over and over again until it is accepted. Indeed, this process has already begun: large chunks of the constitution - notably the creation of an EU diplomatic service and the harmonisation of criminal justice - are already being implemented now, in anticipation of the referendum results. In other words, a French "Non" would not change anything: the project would trundle on, and Britain would miss a once-in-a-generation opportunity to alter its relationship with the EU.

Much of this reasoning applies, in reverse, to the other side. Euro-enthusiasts can read the polls as well as anyone else, and fear that a British "No" would de-legitimise their cause. At the moment, they are able to claim some kind of mandate from the fact that pro-Brussels parties tend to win general elections. But a large "No" vote would demolish that argument...