Nonpartisan political forums. Political blogs. International news.

According to polls collected by Sofres, the largest polling organization in France, voters gave the following reasons for voting no:

• 46% -- feared that unemployment would worsen under the constitution
  
• 40% -- were discontent with the current situation in France
  
• 35% -- believed a no would permit the constitution to be renegotiated
  
• 34% -- found the constitution too economically liberal and difficult to understand
  
• 19% -- thought the constitution threatened the identity of France
  
• 18% -- wanted to prevent the entry of Turkey to the EU
  
• 12% -- followed certain politcal leaders who asked them to vote no

You can read the entire proposed European Constitution at Wikisource.

Arguments of the "No" vote

Proponents of the "No" vote, both on the left and right, argued that the proposed constitution enshrined what they claim is an undemocratic Europe, with much of the responsibilities granted to a body of unelected political appointees, the European Commission and not enough checks and balances. They also point out that it vests much legislative power in the European Council, representing the executives of the various countries; this is seen as a bad arrangement with respect to Separation of powers. While the treaty adds supplemental powers for the directly elected European Parliament, many opponents, particularly on the left, consider that they are still insufficient in order to provide checks and balances.

Much criticism was directed at the length of the proposed Constitution. The real treaty submitted to French voters is about 80 pages long, which many argue is too long and complex for a constitution. It is followed by 100 pages of appendices, declarations and protocols, some of them dealing with matters such as oil refining in the Dutch West Indies or specific nuclear power plants in Eastern Europe.

Opponents of the treaty argue that the proposed constitution will largely hamstring the French government and prevent it from leading its own policies in matters as diverse as social services or foreign policy.

Much of the opposition was targeted at Part III of the proposed constitution, which sets the policies of the European Union. Opponents point out that the constitutions of most countries, including France, do not specify policies explicitly, except for a limited number of fundamental rights, but rather are limited to specifying the core principles and procedures of how governmental institutions work. Part III, they argued, sets in stone a number of economic and social choices, while these should be a matter of political choice depending on democratic votes.

Both left-wing and right-wing opponents consider that some of these policies, already applied and enforced by the European Union, are disastrous for France's economy and society as well as European's economy and society. One primary target is the free trade policies with countries having less expensive workforce and social protection, which, they argue, drive French workers out of work (2,7 millions french peoples are out of work).

This was recently exemplified by the so-called "Bolkestein directive", which would have enabled service providers in the European Union to work anywhere in the union according to the legislation and social practices of their own country, not of the country where they'd work: this was caricatured as the example of the "Polish plumber" coming to work for a meager fraction of what French plumbers demand.

Much is made of délocalisations -- that is, the transferring of industries and, now, services to countries with lower production costs, depriving French workers of jobs at a time when unemployment is high.

As a consequence, both left-wing and right-wing opponents of the treaty and of current and proposed European Union policies argue in favor of some sort of protectionism.

In the field of international relations, many opponents contend that the proposed constitution would make the European Union largely subservient to NATO, an institution dominated by the United States of America.

A factor in the opposition to the constitution is the recent enlargement of the European Union, a major move which was not approved by a referendum. Opponents consider that open border concurrence with much poorer economies is bad for French economy; many express uneasiness at subsiziding and collaborating with governments that they consider subservient to the interests of the United States, such as Poland's (Poland chose to buy warplanes from the United States after receiving some European Union subsidies, a movement which resulted in many questioning the financial and diplomatic priorities of their government).

Finally, many seized the occasion to express their discontent at France's political elite and to president Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin's government. While unemployment had receded under the rule of center-left former prime minister Lionel Jospin, it has climbed against under Raffarin's administration despite his and Chirac's promises.

Left-wing arguments

Much opposition was directed towards what many on Left considers is the "ultra-liberal" character of the Constitution: that is, they argue, the proposed constitution makes permanent economic policies which they consider disastrous for French society:

• the destruction of public services, with forced scaling-down and privatization (some groups tied the closure of post offices to the European Union);
  
• the vesting of much power in the European Central Bank, governed by political appointees, with the sole goal of ensuring the stability of the markets whereas, opponents argue, a major objective should be the reduction of unemployment.

Left-wing opponents argued that the Charter of rights included in the constitution was largely indicative, not prescriptive. They questioned the say that other members of the union may have in matters such as the right to abortion and the separation of Church and State, which they consider threatened by certain governments from Catholic countries, which, during the negociation of the treaties, had insisted on adding references to the Christian heritage of Europe.

Another argument from the left was that the Constitution called for member states to strengthen their military forces. Opponents argue that this would be wasteful spending, would result in an arm race with the United States, China and others, and would result in wars and more instability.

Many leaders of the opposition to the "No" also simply called for a blow to Chirac.

Right-wing arguments

Many right-wing opponents on the right argue that Turkey, which has applied for European Union membership, should not become a member, and that acceptation of the Constitution would pave the way for this. They point out that the new Eastern European members, whose joining many of them opposed, were accepted without a referendum; they also point out that Turkey is for the most part not located in Europe, but in the Middle-East, and that it borders countries such as Iran and Iraq.

In additon, many right-wing supporters any are opposed to a union with countries whose culture they consider too far from France, and are concerned about unchecked immigration from these. They also consider that the direction the European Union is heading will only reinforce unchecked immigration from poor Muslim countries, which they think is bad socially and economically for Europe. This point of view is disputed by many economists, who point out that due to aging of France and other European countries increasing immigration is the only viable option for boosting the existing economies.

Such arguments are likely not to have much impact on many French voters. The results of this referendum, as well as those of the 2002 presidential election, show some deep distrust of the population for the political class as well as for "experts". There is high skepticism against economists and politicians who promote what they consider to be necessary reforms, whereas despite those reforms unemployment has remained high and standards of living have lessened for many.

Related News

• "Exit poll: 55% of French voters say no to EU constitution". Wikinews, May 29, 2005
  
• "Bundestag approves EU Constitution". Wikinews, May 13, 2005
  
• "German Parliament votes yes on EU constitution; French referendum may vote no". Wikinews, May 28, 2005
  
• "Spain says Yes to EU constitution". Wikinews, February 21, 2005

• John Leicester "French Voters Reject First EU Constitution". ABC, May 29, 2005
  
• Elaine Ganley "France Deciding Fate of EU Constitution". The Guardian, May 29, 2005
  
• Will Friedman "In Referendum, French Reject Constitution". Latte, May 29, 2005
  
• Reuters staff "France rejects EU treaty, Europe faces crisis". Reuters, May 29, 2005

• Gateway to the European Union - Official EU website
  
• Reader-friendly edition of the EU Constitution -- Highlights and commentary (PDFs).
  
• European Yes Campaign - Official website
  
• European No Campaign - Official website