Battleangel

Magpie points out something fairly interesting …

If you’re like us, you’re finding that the stories in the US press about the French (and now the Dutch) rejection of the European Union constitution are pretty thin in their explanation of why anyone would vote ‘No.’ They do a great job of telling who voted no, but other than providing some quotes from voters, US press coverage doesn’t give any sense of what was so wrong about the constitution.

I previously talked about the dignity wording, the flaws of the constitution and the absurdity of referendums. Now from someone who has actually bothered to read some more of the document comes a new line of criticism (as well as something older and more established). Namely European influence and democracy.

The new European Constitution was not a step toward a stronger Europe, and would have actually lessened European influence on the world stage. In it, subordination of European security and military policy (and thus foreign policy) to NATO was set in concrete. And, as the former socialist defense minister of France, Jean-Pierre Chevenement (who resigned in protest over France’s support for the first Gulf War), repeatedly pointed out during the referendum campaign, under the Constitution the crucial role France played at the United Nations in opposing the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq would no longer have been possible. The Constitution would have restricted the ability of any member of the U.N. Security Council that is also an EU country (like France — or, as in proposals for Security Council enlargement now being considered, Germany) to take a position contrary to that adopted by the European Commission. And any single EU country could veto a position contrary to Washington’s. Thus, one would only need to buy a corrupt little country — like, say, Bulgaria — to block any EU action that would counter the American imperium.

Moreover, the Constitution was anti-democratic, for it kept real power in the hands of the unelected European Commission (whose members are appointed by their national governments) rather than giving it to the elected Europarliament in Strasbourg. The EU’s presidency, currently a rotating one, was given a longer term — but the president, too, would have been appointed by the commission. The 300-page (it’s actually more like 500 /editor’s note) Constitution — the longest ever in the world’s history, and written in obscure legalese incomprehensible to the average voter — would have irremovably enshrined matters of policy, including conservative economic policies, that would normally be decided by democratically elected governments. And it could only have been amended by a unanimous vote of all 25 EU countries — another boon to the multinationals, which also easily could have purchased a veto from a small country’s government-for-sale.

Source: Doug Ireland, LA Weekly

In addition, Carl Bildt notes America’s Misdirected Glee.

The humiliating political defeat inflicted on French President Jacques Chirac on Sunday—when 55 percent of voters rejected his appeals to support a new constitution for the European Union—has left more than a few Americans beaming with satisfaction. Even before the referendum, The Weekly Standard’s William Kristol speculated that a no vote could be a “liberating moment” for Europe. After the ballots were counted, the American Enterprise Institute’s Radek Sikorski concluded that the result would be “quite good for transatlantic relations,” because it weakened “the most anti-U.S. politician in Europe.”

But Americans should hold their applause, which they may soon come to regret. That’s because the eclectic group of angry French leftists, populists, nationalists, and nostalgics who opposed Chirac and the constitution had very different—in fact, precisely opposite—reasons for doing so than the Americans who cheered them on. In other words, if you didn’t like French policies before Sunday, you’re going to like them even less now.

Source: Philip H. Gordon, New Republic Online - Why The French Vote Was Bad For America

Gordon points out that the new political winds could make it difficult for America’s eastern allies to do their trojan entry into Europe. Which is essentially the same looming danger that Doug Ireland warns us about. Having bought support within the EU that could lobby policy and veto unpleasantness.