The_2005_Referendums_of_France_and_the_Netherlands

Ratification of the European Constitution: An Analysis of Results From The Netherlands* and *France The French Referendum on a treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was held on the 29th of May 2005 to decide whether France should ratify the proposed Constitution of the European Union. The result was a victory for the "No" campaign, with 55% of voters rejecting the treaty on a turnout of 69%. France was the first country to reject the treaty and the second to go to the polls. The Netherlands were close behind with 61.6% of Dutch voters saying no to the constitution on the 1 June 2005, these where the only two member states of the European Union to reject the treaty. To identify the reasons behind the “no” votes for each referendum, we will need to take a closer look at some of the contextual and determining factors proposed by political theorists. This will be done through analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. Before a European Union treaty can enter into force, it must be ratified by all member states. Ratification takes different forms in each country, depending on its traditions, constitutional arrangements and political processes. Most member states traditionally ratify EU treaties following parliamentary votes, while some also hold referendums. As a reaction to what was seen as the novel nature of the Constitution, many advocates and opponents of the Constitution argued that it should be subjected to referendums across the European Union. The results of the Referendums can be found on this table through this link: “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_constitution#National_processes_at_a_glance” This table shows that the majority of member states voted yes, however two member states voted no and had above average turnouts of participation, France, with a 54.68% to 45.32% against, and the Netherlands with 61.54% to 38.46% against. To understand these results we will first take a closer look at the stipulations of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE). The TCE would have reiterated several key principles of how the Union functions: the principle of conferral- that all EU competences are conferred on it voluntarily by member states; the principle of subsidiary- that governmental decisions should be taken at the lowest level possible while still remaining effective; the principle of proportionality)- that the EU may only act to exactly the extent that is needed to achieve its objectives; the primacy of EU law- in areas where member states have made legally binding agreements at EU level, they may not then pass national laws incompatible with those EU laws. Some of the arguments against the treaty include the claim that it will make Europe a state without democratic legitimacy although democratic legitimacy is supposedly guaranteed through the elected members of European parliament; this is seriously undermined by the European Court of Justice. This point closely ties into the belief that the constitution marks yet another step in the creation of a supranational Europe, where European rights and decisions supersede those made by member states. In terms of effects on the economy, supporters of the “no” vote believed the EU constitutional treaty enshrines a US-style free-market economic model by calling for budgetary discipline and confirming the over-arching power of the European Central Bank. Perhaps the most prevalent reason for the votes against the treaty would be the widely held assumption that a "no" vote is a viable way to express discontent with the government's policy of economic and social reform. In order to fully comprehend the context and reasoning behind these beliefs we must look at both France and the Netherlands individually. Some of the key points pertaining to reasoning behind the “no” vote in France are present in the article “Beyond France’s 2005 referendum on the European Constitutional Treaty.” This article explains that the political dissatisfaction with the incumbent right-wing Government and President Chirac was regarded by many commentators as a key explanation to the vote on the European Constitution Treaty, particularly in the light of the high level of mobilization on the left side of the political spectrum and the clear indication that a majority of the traditional left-wing electorate had voted against the Treaty. Despite the many efforts and calls by EU-officials, national and European leaders of the “yes” vote, the contribution by the undecided voters did not significantly alter the balance of forces between the “yes” and “no” voters. Nor did the personal interventions by President Chirac on three occasions during the campaign suffice to curb the rising tide of opposition to the European Constitution. The personal involvement by President Chirac in negotiating the European Constitution Treaty and proposing its ratification to popular vote, were clear incentives for voters to seize the opportunity to send yet another message of discontent to the current head of State. The whole period of the referendum campaign was also characterized by the high level of pessimism in French public opinion and the many concerns expressed by voters with regard to an anticipated deterioration of the national economy. This qualitative data is supported by quantitative data presented in the article “The European Constitution: Post-referendum survey in France.” The most notable figures in this article are the ones on page 18 depicting the reasons why people voted no on the referendum, as well as The Figure on page 19 portrays the motivations of the “no” vote by socio-demographic variables. The top 4 reasons are as follows: It will have negative effects on the employment situation in France/relocation of French enterprises/loss of jobs- 31%; The economic situation in France is too weak/there is too much unemployment in France- 26%; Economically speaking, the draft is too liberal- 19%; Opposes the president of the Republic/ the national government /certain political parties- 18%. The correlation between the points raised in these articles allows us to speculate an adequate level of validity. In the Netherlands the rejection of the treaty was a remarkable result, considering that the vast majority of the Dutch political elites, the governing parties as well as the major opposition party, and all major news media were in support of the EU Constitution. According to a poll (https://n10.noties.nl/peil.nl/ ) by Maurice de Hond a Dutch Pollster, 30 % of the Constitution's opponents used the referendum as an opportunity to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the government, instead of confining their deliberations to the contents of the treaty that was put before them. At the time of the referendum, the Netherlands' centre-right coalition government, led by Jan Peter Balkenende, was unpopular at the time because it tried to push through cuts in public spending. Although citizens complain about the lack of information on the Constitution and the fact that debates started too late, the reasons for the overwhelming rejection of the Constitution (at 61.6% p.16 of “The European Constitution: Post Referendum Survey in the Netherlands”) are more complicated than a simple lack of information. As far as the consequences of the “No” victory are concerned, a clear majority of Dutch respondents (65%) agree that the rejection of the Constitution will allow for its renegotiation in order to place greater emphasis on the social aspects. A majority of those who supported the Constitution at the polling stations share this opinion and believe in a renegotiation as well. As shown by the figures on page 15, 16 and 23 of “The European Constitution: Post Referendum Survey in the Netherlands” It is important to note that some factors behind the “no” votes were present in both the French and Dutch referendum such as the use of the vote to send a message of discontent to the current head of state, and the other key elements that determined the direction of peoples votes in the Netherlands and France as depicted in the figures on pages 19 and 20 of the corresponding Post Referendum Survey articles. The renegotiation of a more social constitution is a belief that is also held in majority by both France and the Netherlands as shown in the figures on pages 26 in the Post Referendum Survey in France, and page 24 of the Post Referendum Survey in the Netherlands. Some of the factors exclusive to each state were the opinions held of European institutions. Majority of French people had positive images of these institutions while majority of Dutch people did not (as shown in the figures on pages 24 and 23 of the corresponding Post Referendum Survey’s, respectively.) Political leaders also differed in their perception of events to come after rejection of the treaty. The President of France pledged to renegotiate and ratify the constitution while political leaders in the Netherlands went on record saying that they believe the Constitution has been put to rest, this may be a result of the general view held of European institutions by the Dutch. In Conclusion based on the empirical data, survey research, and analysis of online articles, the reasons behind the “no” votes for the European Constitution ratification from France and the Netherlands have been adequately assessed due to the converging claims of the data we can assume validity. Through further analysis one may be able to obtain more information regarding the diversity of reasons and the division of these reasons among the population; however the statistical information attained to date is sufficient grounds to make claims on. Bibliography Retrieved March 11, 2010, from this website: http://en.euabc.com/upload/pdf/pres/pres_en.pdf The European No Campaign: Arguments against the EU Constitution. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from this website: http://www.europeannocampaign.com/10.html Beyond France’s 2005 referendum on the European Constitutional Treaty: Second-order model, anti-Establishment attitudes and the end of the alternative European utopia. (July 11, 2005) Retrieved March 12, 2010 from this website: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/09/02/33/PDF/Ivaldi_WEP2006.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl172_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl171_en.pdf Dutch European Constitution referendum, 2005: Reasons for rejection. (March 3, 2010)Retrieved March 14, 2010, from this website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_European_Constitution_referendum,_2005#Reasons_for_rejection Schuck, Andreas, De Vreese, Claes. The Dutch No to the EU Constitution: EU Skepticism, Proxies, and the Campaign. (March 24, 2007) Retrieved March 14, 2010, from this website: http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/1/7/4/pages171747/p171747-1.php