With the British elections over, France's upcoming May 29th referendum on the EU Constitution is Europe's next big story. While the US press seems to have hardly got wind of it, the referendum is in fact the most important European news story of the year -- and perhaps the decade. For however the vote goes -- and, in at least two countries, victory for the Constitution is anything but certain -- it will have a hugely important impact on the EU's 25 member states, not to mention the course of European-American relations.
Public attitudes to mass immigration may play a decisive role. In both France and the Netherlands, which will be holding its referendum on June 1st, the polls are running neck and neck. And, in both countries, a significant portion of the 'no' vote -- around 35%, in the French case -- seems strongly motivated by hostility to ongoing mass immigration and the prospect of eventual Turkish membership.
The latest polls put opposition to the Constitution at 54% in France, 58% in the Netherlands.
Like most things in Europe, the issue is more complicated than it needs to be. In the first place, the Constitution does not directly touch upon the Turkish question -- though unlikely, Turkey could in principle join the Union even if the referendum fails. And, as I noted in an earlier post, open borders between member states mean that the immigration policies of each member directly effect the rest. That will remain the case even if the Constitution is defeated.
Depending on your point of view, this is either a very good argument for giving Brussels yet more power to shape common policy or an equally good argument for returning to the bad old days when nation states were still, you know, sovereign...
The latter is not an option, at least for the moment. So what to make of the former?
In a front page story for today's Le Monde (translation here), ex-Foreign Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, now leader of Chirac's ruling UMP Party, is quoted arguing for further centralization:
Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the UMP, is opposed to Turkey's entry to the EU because, he says, "Europe can't welcome every country in the world". And yet Sarkozy maintains that the increased cooperation envisionned by the constitutional treaty will allow the country's of Europe to better fight againt illegal immigration. The former Foreign Minister thus hopes to convince those on his Party's right -- a priori, the most hotile to the European construction -- to vote 'oui' in the referendum.
But there's a catch: if EU immigration policy is a mess, it's because the EU made it that way. Since 1995, Europe has allowed the free movement of residents within its borders. What it has not done -- but promised to do beginning with the 1995 deal -- is enforce its external ones. Indeed, with key member states like Poland refusing to cooperate in joint enforcement efforts, it's not clear that it can, whatever happens with the referendum.
Ten years and many broken promises later, European elites are asking the public to give their stamp of approval to a Constitution in which they had no say and which, apparently, they can never change (at least if the Charter of Fundamental Rights has anything to say about it). And all that in the vague hope that, this time around, Brussels keeps its word.
As an unnamed staffer at the Dutch Finance Ministry told the UK's Telegraph:
"There should have been a referendum on the euro, there should be a referendum on Turkish entry [...] I'm voting against the constitution because politicians cannot tell me why I should be voting for it."
So what makes the best political sense here? Granted, from the point of view of immigration reform, voting 'no' is largely or entirely symbolic. But, in politics, symbolism can go a long way. For years, the EU has told voters that, if they just stayed the course, things would work out in the end. They've stayed the course, and things haven't worked out. In fact, they've gotten much worse.
Brussels' most recent gamble may prove one too many.
However things turn out, none of Europe's problems will be solved on May 29th. But since many of these problems, especially in immigration, are the direct product of EU "leadership", European voters may well decide that the time has come to give Brussels a black eye.
They would be right to do so. Whatever else it is, a 'no' vote will be a victory for democracy. And that, at least, is something worth voting for.
