The French and Dutch "NO" votes seen as a new beginning
by Andreas Theophanous, Professor of Political Economy and Director General of the Center
Both the French as well as the Dutch “NO” in the two recent referenda for the European Constitution
may have been expected; the high percentages of the “NO” votes, however, were a surprise. A new
situation has been created which needs to be evaluated. For years now, one of the issues discussed
at various levels in the EU – both in Brussels as well as in member countries – was the fact that EU
citizens felt somewhat alienated from the decision-making process of the EU. The other side of the
same coin was/is the sense that a democratic deficit exists in the EU. At the same time, a degree
of skepticism posed serious questions regarding the credibility of the EU. Euro-skepticism was being
expressed in various ways all these years. Recently, in the June 2004 elections for the European
Parliament, which were held after the latest enlargement, the level of voter participation was notably
low. One of the headlines – if not “the” headline – regarding these elections was the high percentage
of abstention.
Both in France as well as in the Netherlands, participation percentages in the recent referenda were
quite high. This fact by itself constitutes a significant political development. And therefore, the
reasons for the French and Dutch resounding “No” votes will be the object of serious debate. The
citizens of France and the Netherlands wished to convey certain messages both to their respective
governments as well as to Brussels. There are various factors that contributed to these results. For
years now, the socio-economic conditions in the EU – conditions of low economic growth and of
semi-stagnation – have been leading to unemployment, relatively high prices, the questioning of the
viability of the welfare state, as well as to the creation of a situation of uncertainty. At the same
time, while the EU has not been able to address efficiently the problems of its citizens, it has not yet
managed to achieve satisfactory integration of immigrants from Muslim countries.
The issue of Turkey should not be overlooked. While all polls showed that the majority of Europeans
were clearly against the accession of Turkey to the EU and that probably the best possible development
would be a special relationship, on December 17th the European heads of state accorded Ankara a date
for the start of accession negotiations with the EU, despite the democratic and human rights deficits in
Turkey and despite the fact that this country still occupies European territory and continues to refuse
to recognize a member state of the EU, namely, the Republic of Cyprus. It would be an exaggeration to
say that the issue of Turkey exclusively led to these results. It would, however, also be a serious
mistake if one did not take into account the fact that the controversial question of Turkey’s accession has
tipped the scales decisively in favor of “No”.
All these factors created or rather contributed to the creation of a gap between expectations and reality.
The referendum results are such that they will inevitably lead to a broader debate regarding the future of
the EU. However, we should not think that we have reached the end of the road. It is not the first time
that the Union has faced problems, which led to brave decisions that, in their turn, paved the way for
important steps forward.
Research & Development Center - Intercollege
Copyright © 2005. All rights reserved