THE FRENCH rejection of the EU Constitution has cast serious doubt on the future of the ‘treaty of treaties’ with EU leaders yesterday finding themselves in unchartered territory.
The French people rejected the European Constitution on Sunday, registering a 55 per cent ‘non’. The vote was widely seen as a result of internal dissatisfaction with the French leadership and high unemployment. Polls suggested the majority of people were also unhappy with Turkey’s EU accession path.
The response from leaders across the union was a call for a time of reflection.
President Tassos Papadopoulos voiced his respect for the democratic French vote, but expressed hope this would not delay the pace of European integration. “The government will be considering with the other partners the ramifications of the results of the vote and the steps that must be taken,” he said.
Nine of the 25 member states have already ratified the constitution, counting for 49 per cent of the total EU population. For the constitution to be adopted, it needs the ratification of all member states. The Cyprus parliament is due to hold a vote on the constitution at the end of June.
France is traditionally a pro-European country, known for steering European policy towards integration with the help of its main ally Germany. The Netherlands, another founding member, will hold a vote on the constitution tomorrow, and is widely expected to repeat the French ‘no’. So what lies for the future of the treaty?
“Nobody really knows what will happen next,” says Phedon Nicolaides, Professor at the European Institute of Public Administration in Maastricht.
“That’s why most EU leaders said after the result that it’s time for reflection. They need to think about it.”
Nicolaides argued EU leaders had one of two choices to answer during their time of reflection.
“Do we proceed with the ratification process in the remaining member states, then go back to France and ask for another go? This is possible but unlikely.
“Or do we proceed with the ratification process but amend the constitution, and then ask France to vote on it, like we did with Denmark?”
In 1992, Denmark rejected the Maastricht Treaty in a referendum. EU leaders granted the Danes an opt out clause on adoption of the euro. The treaty was then put to vote a year later and the Danes gave it their seal of approval.
However, getting French and Dutch support is not the only obstacle to adopting the much-maligned EU constitution.
“In this scenario, the big question is Britain. (British Foreign Minister Jack) Straw said after the French result that the UK remains firmly committed to holding its own referendum. They know that if they vote tomorrow they will lose since the polls show a large majority against the constitution. So why did the British government maintain this stance after the French ‘no’ when they had a chance not to?”
Straw told reporters that if the ratification process continued, the British government would definitely put it to a vote. Given Labour’s ratings drop in the last general election, a British ‘no’ vote on Europe looks like a sure bet.
“So why did Straw commit to it?” asked Nicolaides.
“Either they don’t think there is a need for a referendum because the treaty is dead, or they want a way to kill it. They don’t like it so they’ll let the people kill it.”
Nicolaides argues that a rejection by the traditionally Euro-sceptic British was manageable but other factors would put the future of the treaty in greater doubt.
“You can dismiss a negative vote in the UK but you can’t dismiss a negative vote in the founding members France and the Netherlands,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Commission has been at great pains to separate the future of the constitution from that of enlargement and the start of Turkish accession negotiations. The fear is that the French vote could affect Turkey’s accession path, and in the process development on the Cyprus problem.
“No one can be sure how things will evolve,” said Government Spokesman Kypros Chrysostomides.
If Turkey’s EU path was affected, then one should consider what would have happened had the Greek Cypriot community had accepted the Annan plan, said Chrysostomides, adding that this was “food for thought”.
“Strictly speaking, the constitution is not related to enlargement. Will enlargement be put on hold depends on what happens up to October when Turkey is expected to start talks,” said Nicolaides.
“But the politicians have to face the reality that the public doesn’t want Turkey in. The actual link between Turkey and the constitution is tenuous, but politicians have to come out of the woodwork and explain what the EU is all about. Yes it is an economic union but it is also a union of other things.
“It’s not just about co-operating with people we like. The founding father of the EU Robert Schuman said over 50 years ago, we must lock with Germany. Why? Because they are our enemies. He was French.”
Bringing Turkey into the union would be in line with the founding principles of the EU, argued Nicolaides: “Introducing a form of co-operation to prevent conflict… the problems of one become the problems of all”.
He further argued that even if the French voted ‘yes’ on the constitution, Turkish accession would still be in doubt until it was ratified by all member states.
“The best outcome for Greek Cypriots is Turkey’s accession negotiations to start and continue uninterrupted. Keeping Turkey close and on track will ensure a conciliatory approach. If Turkey is far from accession, why would it make any concessions on Cyprus?”
Asked if the collapse of the constitution treaty signalled the end of the union after enlargement, Nicolaides replied: “It will get more difficult but it won’t collapse. The EU can avoid this problem by making the necessary changes. It’s nothing very tragic.”
EU leaders meet again at a summit in Brussels on June 16-17. Apart from the French and possible Dutch setback, leaders will have the very large and contentious 2007-2013 financial budget to discuss. No one said it would be easy…
