People's Democracy

REFERENDUM ON EU CONSTITUTION

European Union In Turmoil

Sukomal Sen

THE European Union (EU) Constitution was drafted with neo-liberalist projections, seeking to impose a neo-liberal State and social structure in the member countries. It has been decisively rejected by the French and Dutch voters in the recent referendum in these countries. This has created such panic among European rulers that Germany and UK have hastily postponed the holding of referendum in their countries.

These results represent the biggest setback for the ambitious EU ‘project’ since the establishment of the European Union: it is a clear rejection of neo-liberal policies of the ruling classes. Pro-capitalist politicians across the EU are demoralised and disorientated by the votes of the French and Dutch peoples.

Reflecting the consequences of this defeat, the British Financial Times began its longer than usual editorial, ‘Crunch Time for Europe’, by gloomily stating, "Two weeks after the French rejected the European Union’s new constitution, Europe’s leaders are in disarray" (June 13, 2005). WDR – the North Rhine Westphalia public broadcasting network – concluded: "It is like being on the Titanic. The ship is sinking but the orchestra continues playing" (June 6, 2005).

Yet the revolt of the French and Dutch voters has not prevented some capitalist politicians from threatening to revive the process – if not immediately, then in the future. As one EU official put it: "We will have a language that puts the Constitution in the fridge, but not in the morgue". Almost unbelievably, the French president, Chirac, urged other countries to proceed with the scheduled referendum. This advice was declined by other European leaders, like Britain’s Tony Blair. He understands that any attempt to proceed with referendums in other countries would provoke rejection by even larger majorities than the French and Dutch results.

In Denmark, the strong ‘No’ votes of France and the Netherlands have already helped turn a ‘Yes’ majority into a ‘No’ majority. In Luxembourg support for the ‘No’ camp has increased. To have a re-run in France or the Netherlands could trigger militant mass protests of the working class on the streets.

Most capitalist commentators and bourgeois politicians expected a ‘No’ vote in these referendums. Yet the ruling classes and their representatives have been shaken by the size of the ‘No’ majorities and the class polarization reflected in them.

‘HAVES’ VERSUS ‘HAVE NOTS’

According to newspaper surveys, in both referendums the ‘No’ vote overwhelmingly comprised the ‘have nots’. The ‘Yes’ vote was overwhelmingly that of the ‘haves’. One French teacher quoted in the British Guardian newspaper summed up the attitude of the French workers: "We’re voting ‘No’. It is a Constitution for the bourgeoisie, for multi-nationals, for bosses. It is only about the economy, competition, profits, the market and capitalism, we are against all that; There isn’t any progress for workers. Most workers want to say ‘merde’, to stick two fingers up at them. We are fed up with saying yes to the politicians". (May 28, 2005).

It was a massive miscalculation by the French and Dutch governments. Both failed to foresee that the referendum would be seen as a plebiscite on neo-liberalism, the market and the anti-working class policies that both governments have implemented. The ruling elite under-estimated the overwhelming opposition that exists to privatisation, budget cuts, labour flexibility and the drastic cuts in social security benefits, which were introduced during the 1990s. In France, the rising wave of struggle by the working class during February and March of this year was also an important factor which gave an impetus to the ‘No’ campaign.

This outcome of the referendum also indicates a massive rejection of the hated ‘Anglo-Saxon’ economic model stridently defended by Blair and Bush. In response to the crisis, John Snow, the US Treasury Secretary, urged European governments to push ahead with free market reforms. He also called on them to stop using "anti-capitalist rhetoric or risk loosing US investment". Although Blair won the British general election by playing on the fear of the return to power of the Tories, ‘Blairism’ (strident support for the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ neo-liberal economic model) was rejected by the French and Dutch electorate. It was an irony of history that it was Blair who first advised Chirac to call a referendum on the constitution.

Chirac on his part has attempted to draw a line distinguishing his ‘social model’ from the programme of Blair and the British Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister), Gordon Brown, although the only difference between their policies is that Chirac favours to move in slow motion – by a method of slow poisoning death. The British Financial Times made it clear that neo-liberal policies must continue. Its editorial, ‘Crunch Time for Europe’ also argued that, "EU leaders must not abandon economic reform" and "European leaders must commit themselves to making progress on economic reform".

However, this policy will bring the capitalists into greater collision with the working class and is a recipe for greater social explosions.

Other factors also contributed to the ‘No’ vote. These included the insecurity, uncertainty and alienation that modern day capitalism now means for those exploited by it. The fear amongst workers that EU expansion to the eastern states will result in a decline of wages as employers exploit migrant workers from Eastern Europe as source of cheap labour was one element in the political consciousness of some French and Dutch workers. They also feared that jobs will move to the new member states. These fears arose, in the main, not for narrow nationalistic or racist reasons but more out of a concern that the enlargement is proceeding "too soon, too quickly" with harmful consequences for jobs and conditions, and that it is another weapon that can be used by the ruling class.

The class divide reflected in the referendum was most clearly seen in France where on a 70 per cent turnout, a decisive 56 per cent voted ‘No’. An estimated 80 per cent of the blue collar workers voted ‘No’. Paris, with its large petty bourgeois "bohos" (bourgeois bohemians), voted ‘Yes’ along with the more affluent Lyon, Strasbourg and Bordeaux. Against were the strong working class cities of Marseilles, Nice and Lille. The same was true for the youth of whom 59 per cent of 18-24 and 25-34-year olds voted ‘No’.

The same class polarisation took place in the Netherlands. In the poor districts of Amsterdam the ‘No’ vote was crushing. The turn out in the Netherlands was higher than that for the European elections. This crushed the argument that a high turnout would secure a ‘Yes’ victory.

The overwhelming rejection in France, like the Netherlands, was despite the fact that the ruling class and its institutions tried to mobilise everything to win a ‘Yes’ vote. The referendum, therefore, represents a decisive rejection of Europe’s political elite. Every conceivable threat and argument was used by the establishment. Romano Prodi threatened a ‘No’ vote would lead to the "fall of Europe".

In France, the three largest political parties, the media, and international political leaders, were all mobilised for the ‘Yes’ campaign but to no avail. All the main European leaders were drafted in by Chirac. Schröder, the German Chancellor, who is likely to be defeated in the elections to be held in the autumn, along with other representatives of European capitalism, visited France and spoke for the ‘Yes’ camp. The sole exception was Blair, whose services were not required on this occasion.

In the Netherlands, which held its first referendum in 200 years, all the main political parties, including the Dutch Labour Party, the trade unions, the media, and all the institutions of capitalism, argued for a ‘Yes’ vote only to be defeated by a massive 62 per cent to 38 per cent, an even bigger majority than in France.