The "Nee" and "Non" aftermath

Both the French and Dutch voters soundly rejected the European Constitution this past week. France voted "Non" by the margin of 55 to 45 percent, while the Netherlands overwhelmingly voted "Nee" in a 62-38 percent landslide. Both referendums had relatively high turnout of over 70 percent.

I'm, of course, a little disappointed by this drastic turn of events but as the French would say, "c'est a vie." It seems for now that the European constitutional project has suffered a catastrophic setback since the Constitutional Treaty has to be unanimously ratified by all 25 member states. The fact that it was rejected by two of the six original members of the EU adds insult to injury.

What explains this obstinate opposition to a deeper regional integration? Some of the reasons are well-worn such as fear of erosion of the generous social welfare system, fear of the influx of cheap labor from the East, fear of the Muslim barbarians flooding the West (tied to the possible accession of Turkey into the EU), and fear of unchecked capitalism. What do all these reasons boil down to? FEAR and fear-mongering by the opposition to this regional project.

These are the same excuses being ferreted out every time Europe faces a new challenge. A mere cursory look at the history of the EU from the signing of the 1952 Paris Treaty to the 2001 Nice Treaty has witnessed the employment of the same old tired counter-arguments. Every time, these fears were laid to rest and were proven to be unfounded.

In both countries, an unholy alliance exists between the far-left and far-right groups. In France, the Communists and some of the Socialists (led by former French PM, Laurent Fabius) formed a strange bedfellowship with the far-right groups led by the likes of the fascist Nazi sympathizer and failed Presidential candidate, Jean-Marie Le Pen of the National Front. I saw Monsieur Fabius on PBS a few months ago explaining his opposition to the Constitutional Treaty; while I do agree with him ideologically, but for the sake of pragmatism, it's akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. I share his contention that the Constitution is not as far-reaching as he would have hoped for, but to derail the whole project in the name of preserving ideological purity is simply irrational and counter-productive for Europe as a whole. Not much can be said of the ultra-nationalists on the far-right other than the defense of their cultural purity from the corrupting influence of diversity and cosmopolitanism takes center stage, however narrow they define it and how often it's used as a thin cover for all sorts of bigotry--namely, preserving the European "Christian tradition" and keeping the Muslim hordes at bay.

On the bright side, there are already "big thinking" chatters among the editorial pages and the "cheerleaders" of Europe, that is, to use this political setback as an opportunity to revamp the Constitutional Treaty into a much simpler, more significant, idealistic, people-oriented document. It'd do one of the founding fathers of the EU, Jean Monnet, proud if this perceived disaster can be turned into an opportune moment for an even deeper integration in Europe--Monnet was well-known for his diplomatic dexterity in converting disaster into success. Perhaps a person of Monnet's caliber will rise up from the ashes of the failed Constitution and will again propel the EU forward. Will the real Monnet please stand up?