Gavin's Blog

Mark Steyn, I am somehow inclined to agree, at least in part, with him on this occasion.

Following Sunday’s vote in France, on Wednesday Dutch voters get to express their opinion on the proposed ”European Constitution.” Heartening to see democracy in action, notwithstanding the European elite’s hysterical warnings that, without the constitution, the continent will be set back on the path to Auschwitz. I haven’t seen the official ballot, but the choice seems to be: “Check Box A to support the new constitution; check Box B for genocide and conflagration.”

Alas, this tactic doesn’t seem to have worked. So, a couple of days before the first referendum, Jean-Claude Juncker, the “president” of the European Union, let French and Dutch voters know how much he values their opinion:

“If at the end of the ratification process, we do not manage to solve the problems, the countries that would have said No, would have to ask themselves the question again,” “President” Juncker told the Belgian newspaper Le Soir.

Got that? You have the right to vote, but only if you give the answer your rulers want you to give. But don’t worry, if you don’t, we’ll treat you like a particularly backward nursery school and keep asking the question until you get the answer right. Even America’s bossiest nanny-state Democrats don’t usually express their contempt for the will of the people quite so crudely.

The IAI website appears to be down, but there was a very interesting document located there, that I have managed to find elsewhere (PDF) .

It all boils down to Declaration no. 30 in the annexes which states:

Declaration no. 30 annexed to the CT reads: “The Conference notes that if, two years after the signature of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter will be referred to the European Council.� This statement is important for various reasons.

The first concerns the convening of the European Council: if at least four fifths of the member states (that is twenty) have ratified the Treaty within two years of signature, the European Council is obliged to meet to examine the situation. Of course, the European Council can meet even if this quota is not reached, however the meeting must take place if it is. Therefore, twenty ratifications of the CT are an important threshold. Reaching it does not mean that the Treaty enters into force, as some would have liked. It does however oblige member states to meet and work together loyally and in good faith towards a positive outcome.

Second, the Declaration does not make a distinction between which states ratify the CT and which do not. It simply refers to the four-fifths threshold. Therefore, each member state has the same weight, regardless of its size or seniority in the European Union. These factors will undoubtedly come into play when trying to find a way out of a ratification crisis, but in terms of the procedures provided for in Declaration no. 30, all member states have
equal standing.

The third consideration concerns the two-year deadline. A twofold
obligation for the member states stems from the Declaration. First of all, member states must plan internal ratification procedures so that they are completed within two years of the signing of the CT. Secondly, and this is the point that interests us most, no member state may decide to stop the ratification process because, for example, another state has chosen not to ratify. The Declaration requires that the process go ahead.

In fact, this is the only way to see whether or not the threshold of 20 ratifying states has been reached within two years. The only exception would be if more than five states had already rejected ratification. In that event, since the twenty state threshold could no longer be reached, a state would be entitled to suspend the ratification procedure. In all other cases, the obligation
outlined above remains valid.

Read the whole document, its short and worth a read.

Javier Solana, the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, wrote a piece in the IHT the other day. He gives two reasons why we should accept the Constitution.

First, the constitution offers a massive improvement in our ability to tackle old and new security threats. Think of the solidarity clause which will cover both terrorist and natural or man-made disasters. Then add enhanced cooperation on civil protection and structured cooperation on defense.

Second, in terms of effectiveness, the constitution inaugurates a new way of taking decisions. The EU will have a foreign minister to serve as central interlocutor for our partners.

And who wants to be that Foreign Minister, Mr Solana? That unelected Foreign affairs representative? I wonder.

He went on:

Let us be clear. Neither Europe nor the world could afford the self-inflicted wound of a rejection of the constitution.

Seven countries have already ratified the constitution with two more countries well on track.

I fully count on the voters in France and the Netherlands to play their part in Europe’s renewal.

As one might say, stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Solana.

So the French have said Non. It reminds of the day the news came out that Ireland voted No – I remember at the time some French commentators slating us for our ‘anti-European’ stance. Looks like we weren’t the only ones to have reservations about the deepending of powers in the EU.

Chirac’s comments are interesting:

France has democratically expressed itself. You have rejected the European constitution by a majority. It is your sovereign decision and I take note of it. Nevertheless, our ambitions and interests are profoundly linked to Europe.

He ends his speech with:

In the coming days I will announce my decisions on the government and its priorities.

It is interesting that immediately after noting the democratic decision of France, he talks about how the situation can be resolved. In Ireland the reaction was, very quickly, that another unchanged referendum would be held, with enough time to scare the Irish people into not rejecting it again.

John Vinocur had an interesting article in the IHT yesterday.

Basically, what I’d say, based on conversations last week, is that America doesn’t see the probability of a shift in European strategic attitudes as a result of the referendums. Indeed, like the Europeans, the day after a negative vote the Bush administration would be faced with insisting that everything in Europe was fine, nothing had changed, and that the EU’s trans-Atlantic relations were a brilliant example of mature continuity.

He continues:

This week, Burns [Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns] will be in Brussels for what is the start of a so-called regular senior-level “strategic dialogue” between the United States and the EU. It’s not supposed to supplant NATO’s “core” function, but to get political Europe talking to the administration in a way that will flatter the Europeans’ notions of their unity and importance, while bringing them into real consultations on things like American policy on Asia.

Obviously, for the Bush folk, this sharing, attentive, out-reaching, Europe-sensitive America couldn’t be one to revel in or look for profit from the implosion of a major Europe project like the constitution.

Just as obviously, there are hopes that in exchange the Europeans would be attuned to assisting the administration on Iran, perhaps the most pressing of the nuclear issues.

Perhaps wishfully, the Europeans (specifically, Britain, France and Germany) are now described locally as tired of being played for patsies by Iranians – which means the Americans believe that they not only will go along with referring the Iran matter to the United Nations but very possibly vote for sanctions in the Security Council.

Two other Council members and sworn supporters of the European constitution and the European Union – China and Russia – may not find these sanctions close to their heart. The issue is what the Europeans will do, loved to death these days by the Americans as well.

James Steinberg, a former National Security Council official under President Bill Clinton, said, “China and Russia are counting on the Europeans not to go for sanctions. They want the Europeans to hide. If they’re put on the spot, though, they won’t defend Iran.”

So the American yes on the EU referendums is not only coherent good sense, but also an investment. An official, sitting in his office here, couldn’t have been clearer on the European constitution: “If they think it would get them a few yes points, we’ve told the French we’re ready to condemn the thing in minutes.”

The French vote will be interesting, but I really do think that at least one country, if not two or three, will vote down the Constitution. The question is, what then? Will they do a ‘Nice’ on it like they did here?