EU Politics

Here the full text of the concession speech in English. Please pardon any mistakes. I am not fluent in French, so I have based my translation on the bablefish translation and my intuition as a linguist, plus comparison with the original French text. Admittedly, it's a bit rough. If someone else can offer a more accurate translation, I would be happy to post it.

My dear compatriots of the cities, overseas and abroad,

France has democratically expressed itself. A majority of you has rejected the European Constitution. It is your sovereign decision. I take note of it.

In spite of this, our interests and our ambitions are deeply related to Europe. France, a founding member of the Union remains, naturally, in the Union. I make a point of saying to you, to our European partners and to all the people of Europe that France will continue to maintain it's place in the regard to its engagements. I will take care of it.

Processes of ratification are currently underway all of the Convention countries. So far, nine countries have already decided in favor. Our other partners will express themselves in their turn. Until then, the European Union will continue to function on the basis of current treaty.

We have in front of us important deadlines. On June 16, the European Council will meet in Brussels. I will defend the position of our country there by transmitting the message of the French women and men.

But let us not deceive ourselves, the decision of France inevitably creates a difficult context for the defense of our interests in Europe. We will have to answer it by uniting around a common purpose, that of the national interest.

My dear compatriots,

During this debate, you also also expressed your concerns and your expectations. I intend to answer them by giving a new and strong impulse to official action. I will let you know in the next days of my decisions concerning the government and the priorities of it's action.

source: Le Monde

As I write, ballots are still being counted. However, exit polling has made it clear that Chirac probably doesn't have a chance of winning. How he's taking the loss tells us a lot about the man.

According to the CNN story, Chirac has signaled defeat. Le Monde has published the full text of the concession speech.

Why does this guy give up before the votes are counted? Because he was afraid that the real numbers were worse than the exit polls? Perhaps. However, basing your concession on exit polls is rather wimpy by my book. According to the current version of the CNN article,

With 92 percent of votes counted, the treaty was rejected by 56.14 percent of voters, France's Interior Ministry said, according to The Associated Press. It was supported by 43.86 percent.

So indeed this appears to have been his tactic. Several commenters on this LGF post seem to agree with me.

In addition, it is interesting to note that apparently they're going to rerun the "no" referendums until they get a "yes". That's the really great thing about the EU - they work off peer pressure. </sarcasm> It's like a kindergarten class. They are about as effective as the UN, which they try to hard to please.

In all fairness, it must be said that US history also records a failed attempt to unify the colonies - well, failed in that it was scrapped in favor of something better - the Articles of Confederation. In a sense, the EU is at that stage right now. The constitution is supposed to better this, but don't believe it. All it does is create a top-heavy beaurocratic beast that answers to no one. You can see evidence of this in the fact that even though the European Parliament has rejected software patents, the European Council and European Commission are trying to ignore the voice of the only democratically elected body. (More details can be found on FFII's software patents website.) Whether or not you agree with software patents (as an open source developer I violently disagree), the attempt to ignore the voice of the people is typical of dictatorships.

As a parting thought, the French are now on their fifth republic. With such an unstable democracy supposed to lead Europe, can we wonder that things aren't working out? Can the EU ever be a stable democracy? I doubt it. Only time will tell.

UPDATE: Le Monde is saying that the numbers have gotten slightly better for our friend Chirac: 55,18 % of the votes are opposed, versus 44,82 % for the measure. The turnout was a little less than 70 %. This is a pretty high number, when you consider that many EU elections only have a turnout of about 25%.

Captain Ed posted today about the upcoming referendum on the EU constitution that will be held in France on Sunday. It looks like it will be a strong non. As a German-American living in Europe, this is not really troubling, but perhaps I can shed some light on it.

A substantial number of Frenchies have actually read the constitution. It's 265 pages of garble that is virtually impossible to understand. The conservatives hate it because it will let Turkey in. What's the big deal, really? France has a very high Moslem population. They don't need Turkey to turn Europe Moslem. The socialists are against it because it would force a free economy. It seems that both sides will shoot it down.

George Irvin, a research fellow at the International Centre for Economic Research in Turin, Italy, wrote an opinion piece for the EU Observer in which he opines that it is a matter of economics:

Economists may agree the Eurozone’s record has been dire, but they disagree about why. The orthodox explanation, popular amongst many US-trained economists and often echoed by the OECD, is that Europe suffers from bloated budgets, inflexible labour markets and high taxes. Remove the welfare state everyone will get back to work. The alternative explanation, favoured by post-Keynesians, is that the balanced budget corset imposed by the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) is paralysing the Eurozone.

In contrast to Britain and the US where growth is fuelled by rising asset prices, private debt and public spending, in Germany, France and Italy, both government and household savings have risen over the past decade. Public and private frugality not only depresses aggregate demand, but under conditions of very low inflation it leads to ‘deflationary expectations’; ie, the darker the economic climate, the more one must save for a rainy day. In short, the Eurozone suffers from deficient aggregate demand. A devalued dollar, enabling the US to postpone its adjustment, makes European prospects even bleaker.

The article is thoughtful. Go ahead and read all of it. It presents the economic arguments against the EU constitution even while Irvin himself thinks a defeat of the constitution would be a disaster. Additionally, it seems that Irvin aligns himself with the infamous NYT economist, Paul Krugman, if the links on his site are to be believed. However, what he says in this article seems to make sense - at least as to why the left isn't supporting the constitution.

There are more opinion pieces on the EU Observer website from people on different sides of the political spectrum. A visit may be enlightening.

No matter whether you consider the EU constitution worth adopting or not, I don't think there's a chance that the constitution will be approved by the French electorate. Which leaves Chirac with a quandry: either he ignores the vote (which isn't unthinkable) and calls for a revote or simply approves it like many other countries, without another referendum, or they'll need to rewrite the whole thing. I think they could do worse than condensing it down to maybe 20 very consise and readable pages.

From what I've heard, the Netherlands will reject it, as will the UK. Since all countries must accept it for it to be valid, I think you'll see the whole thing implode or stop being a democracy. The latter is more likely than the former. But let's wait and see.