Home | CONTACT US

As expected, the French people soundly defeated a referendum on ratifying the European Union constitution. The “Non” campaign won nearly 56% of the vote in France, delivering a humiliating defeat to French President Jacques Chirac and a crippling blow to both the constitution and efforts to forge a "United States of Europe."  

French rejection of the 260-plus-page document has thrown the EU into a self-described crisis—after the vote, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder raced to Luxembourg for “emergency talks” with the current EU president—with fears that the vote in France will fuel anti-EU sentiment across the continent. These fears are legitimate. After all, keeping a close eye on France, Dutch opponents of the behemoth constitution rejected the document three days after the French vote. (The message was even clearer from the Dutch, as almost two-thirds rejected the treaty.) And the Blair government in Britain announced that it wouldn’t even hold a referendum if France failed to ratify the document, which addresses everything from fisheries to occupational hygiene.   

This may be a crisis for EU bureaucrats. And it is definitely a defeat for those, like Chirac, who want to forge a political-economic counterweight to the US. But it is neither a crisis nor a defeat for the European people. As the constitution goes down to defeat in France and the Netherlands, and as other nations set it aside altogether, EU leaders are finally recognizing that they have pushed too hard and too fast and too deep for many Europeans. It is not a crisis when the people deliver such a message to their government, whether that government is a nation or “nation of nations.” In fact, if there is a crisis in the EU, it is the entity’s own democratic deficit, which it is only now beginning to deal with, thanks to the emphatic statements in the Netherlands and France. (It’s worth noting that until this week, the Dutch never had a chance to vote on the European Union.) 

But one cannot convince the EU’s true believers that the double-negative from two founding members is not the end of the world—or at least the end of their union. They argue that the process of European integration is like riding a bike—that if they stop peddling and stop moving “forward,” they will fall and fail. But they’re wrong. Europe is rather like a neighborhood, where we are still refurbishing the homes, reworking the landscape, refining the rules of membership and commerce, and revitalizing certain corners.   

In other words, failure of the EU constitution does not mean failure for Europe. The two are not dependent on each other. In fact, I would submit that the European project is more of a success without an unwieldy governing document, without a faux foreign minister, without a Euro-army.  

Of course, I do not have a vote in the matter. This is Europe’s union. How Europeans choose to govern themselves and how many layers of government they lard onto the continent is their prerogative and problem—not America’s. But how Europe’s government or government of governments behaves and interacts with the rest of the world is very much America’s problem.

With or without a constitution, Europeans must figure out if they are a union of semi-sovereign regions or a vibrant neighborhood of nations. With or without a constitution, they must decide if they are one or many. With or without a constitution, they must decide if they really want to become a counterweight to America—and they must consider all the dormant dangers and divisions that would reawaken.

And with or without a constitution, Europeans should realize that Europe is already a resounding success. After the French vote, Britain’s Tony Blair called for "a time of reflection" in Europe. EU leaders would do well to take his advice. If they do, they will notice that Europe is freer, more peaceful, more united and more open than it has ever been. A decade ago, it was hemorrhaging with ethnic warfare. Twenty years ago, it was teeming with tanks and bracing for World War III. Midway through the twentieth century, Moscow divided it with an iron curtain and then scarred it with a wall. And in the first half of that blood-soaked century, Europe spawned two wars that slaughtered uncounted millions.  

Indeed, when I have traveled to Europe and walked on peaceful streets, in bustling cities, on a continent concerned about culture, commerce and constitutions, I have been reminded of the dreadful journeys my grandfathers had to make to Europe. They went across the ocean not for business or pleasure, but for war.

In short, Europe has come a very long way. This week didn't mark the end of Europe or even the end of its union. To the contrary, perhaps it marked the beginning of something better: a more realistic and more responsive EU.