French Referendum on the treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe

The Référendum French on the treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe is a popular consultation which took place the May 29th 2005. With the question “do you Approve the bill which authorizes the ratification of the treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe? ”, 54,68% of the voters answered “not”.

Reasons of this referendum

The “Traité establishing a Constitution for Europe” was adopted by the heads of state and government of the 25 Member States of the European Union the June 19th 2004 with the European Council of Brussels and formally signed with Rome the October 29th according to. Its possible coming into effect is conditioned with the ratification by the totality of the members of the Union. Each State carries out the ratification according to the methods in force in its own constitution: either by a Referendum, or by the parliamentary way .

On the 25 countries, 10 chose to ratify this treaty by the means of the referendum: the Denmark, the Spain (advisory referendum follow-up of a parliamentary ratification), the France, the Ireland, the Luxembourg, the Netherlands (advisory referendum follow-up of a parliamentary ratification), the Poland, the Portugal, the Czech Republic and the the United Kingdom.

In France, the President of the Republic, Jacques Chirac, after consultation of the political parties, chose the referendum and issued which it would have place the May 29th 2005.

Progress report of the process of ratification

At the end of May 2005, 8 of the 25 Member States had already ratified the treaty: Austria, Spain (by referendum), Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia.

Since the French and Dutch referendums, 7 other countries (Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Luxembourg (by referendum), Malta) ratified the treaty. What at January 1st, 2007 changes to 17 out of the 27 (either approximately 2/3; to see the brought up to date interactive chart) the number of countries having ratified the treaty since the beginning of the process: the last widening of the European Union to the Romania and the Bulgaria had supposed the preliminary ratification of the Treaty by these two countries.

Organization of the official countryside

To be entitled to take part in this referendum campaign, the parties were to count at least 5 Député S or 5 Senator S, or to have obtained at least 5 % of the voices to the European of June 2004. Eight formations were thus retained: the PS (with PRG), the PCF, the Greens, the UMP, the UDF, MPF, RPF and FN.

The competent formations could obtain State the refunding of their expenditure within the limit of 800.000 euros. Each one of these parties profited from at least 10 minutes from antenna, within the framework of the official countryside, over the 140 minutes offered by the national companies on television as to the radio. The remaining duration (60 minutes) was distributed between the organizations for half according to the number of their deputies and senators, for half according to their results with the European elections of 2004.

Fifteen days before the referendum of May 29th, the 42 million French voters received in their letter-box a fold containing the entirety of the European treaty and their ballot papers, as well as a letter of twelve pages (explanatory memorandum of the bill authorizing the ratification of the treaty).

Various advanced arguments

The majority of the parties represented at the Parliament (UMP, PS, UDF, the Greens) supported the treaty. The Socialist party, the Greens appeared divided, certain their leaders preaching not (thus some of UMP, very minority).

The other parties (FN, MPF, RPF, LCR, LO, PC) rejected it.

The advanced arguments for the treaty in particular were:

need for adapting the European institutions to the widening of the EU with 25, for an operation much more effective than the treaty of Nice (voting system to the very complex Council, source in the long term of paralysis; Plethoric European commission (to 25, including 6 only for the most populated States); practical impossibilities of so much reinforced co-operations the parapets are numerous, etc);
a president for Europe and the end of the Rotating presidency (change every 6 months of the country chairing the union), and a Foreign Minister of the Union;
More democracy by a better balance of power between the various institutions, in particular by a significant reinforcement of the European Parliament: power to control of the Commission, extension of the field of the Joint decision (with the Council of Ministers);
the collective possibility to weigh on the decisions and orientations of the Union thanks to the “initiative citizen”: petition of a million European citizens asking a legal document for better filling an objective of the Constitution. Without obligatory function, to prevent that certain very minority, but very given groups (néo-Nazis for example), do not oblige to study their proposals;
the integration of the Charter of the basic rights to the level of the European right, thus conferring constitutional value and range to him, whereas the treaty of Nice confined it with a simple declaration of intents;
the prospect thanks to articles 86,87 and especially 122, as well as the Stop Altmark and the report/ratio Int' Veld of a law tallies guaranteeing the supply and the financing of the public services by the national authorities. See Public service in the European Union;
the absence of a “Plane B” and improbability that negotiations with 25 lead to a very different treaty since the text concerned an extremely fragile balance, after more than 18 months of negotiations;
illusory character, with the eyes of any objective European observer, of the hope to cancel one day the reference to the “open market” in the treaties of the Union, omnipresent in the treaties and decisions since the the Treaty of Rome of 1957;
the possibility of making evolve/move the text, even to 25,27 or 30: the other treaties have been modified and supplemented many times for 50 years, in spite of the requirement of the unanimity, necessary until now to the essence of the construction of Europe;
character of compromise of the treaty, taking account of the many parts, in opposition to those which claimed “social” Europe, synonym in their eyes of anti-liberal;

The advanced arguments against the treaty in particular were:

the difficulty in including/understanding the text for the non-specialists.
the difficulty in making evolve/move the text: the term of “constitution” let accept a text less easily modifiable than the preceding treaties. However the unanimity of the 25 is necessary only for the TCE but also for all the other treaties, including the current treaties.
the inscription called “in the marble” of certain economic policy options and, and in particular of the economic liberalism: the inscription even of any economic principle or political orientation in a constitutional treaty was criticized. The “open market” reaffirmed in a text entitled “constitution”, took a value stronger symbolic system making fear impossibility of forever obtaining the unanimity of the States to withdraw it objectives of the Union and solidified the economic policies.
the fact that the text took again the preceding treaties which all had not been subjected to referendum.
the doubt that the initiative citizen is a projection, since it does not have any constraining role on the Commission beyond the obligation to translate it by a legislative proposal.
the Charter of the basic rights, considered to be like step constraining enough (abortion e.g.), or on the contrary too (“freedom to express its religion” e.g.).
the hope which the rejection of this text would bring to a new negotiation (known as Plan B).
the “status quo” (institutions of Maastricht - Nice in particular) seen like a less evil, in particular because it rather stresses the intergouvernementality than supra-nationality.

The question of the public services was the subject of a terminological debate (“public services” vs. “services of general interest” vs “services of general economic interest”) as well as radically opposite interpretations. Many of the adversaries of the treaty denounced it as a danger to the French public services which according to them would have been opened with competition, frequently quoting the beginning of article 166, however already into force (article 86 EC). Contrary, the essence of the European left saw there the result of its battle in favor of the various national forms of public services, with article 122 which allowed the the European Parliament and the Conseil to legislate, reinforcing the position of the public service providers (local, regional, national) vis-a-vis the court of justice and the European commission by an obligation to guarantee them (“conditions, in particular economic and financial, which enable them to achieve their missions”) and by a recall with the principle of subsidiarity (“without damage of competence which the Member States have, in the respect of the Constitution, to provide, make carry out and to finance these services”). For more details, to see the article Public service in the European Union.

Apart from these topics, subjects external with the treaty like the Directive Services (known as Bolkestein directive) and the “Polish Plombier” made much speak about them, including out of France.

Controversies on the referendum

Certains partisans of “not” on the left estimated that the conditions fixed by the government to take part in the countryside are arbitrary: thus, on the left, only the PCF could take part in the official countryside, while on right-hand side, three parties could make countryside for “not” (FN, MPF, RPF). LCR, MRC, however very active for the countryside for “not” will not have been entitled to the word in the official countryside and could profit from no refunding of the expenses caused by this consultation. For this reason, the PCF opened its official spaces of countryside to him, as RPF helped médiatiquement the souverainists of the UMP. In the same way, on the right, MNR it was excluded from public finance on this occasion.

Generation ecology, MRC and Cape 21 had thus required cancellation at least partial of the decree opening the access to the audio-visual countryside of the only parties having obtained at least 5 deputies or 5 senators or 5% of the voices to the last European elections. What excluded them de facto. The Constitutional council judged that the disputed decree “retained objective criteria which (…) do not carry not reached to the equality between the political parties or groupings”.

Certains partisans of not estimated abnormal which the government sends at the same time as the text of the constitutional treaty a letter of 12 pages which according to them presented only the positive aspects of the constitutional treaty. But, seized, the Constitutional council estimated on the contrary that the explanatory memorandum, “in accordance with the republican tradition, accompanies a bill and presents the reasons for which its adoption is proposed” and “is inseparable from this project”.

Certains partisans of not considers that there exists a risk concerning the perenniality of the result. Indeed, if a positive vote would contribute to the ratification of the constitutional treaty, a negative vote could be cancelled by a second referendum or a vote of the Congrès.

Certains partisans of “yes” considers that the constitutional treaty did not constitute any more true the Enjeu referendum, many voters having voted “not” in reaction to the policy of the government or on topics (like the directive known as Bolkenstein) which were not juridically related to the referendum.

End result

do you Approve the bill which authorizes the ratification of the treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe?

source: Ministry for the Interior

The direction of the vote

Participation

Motivations

According to a survey IPSOS, the vote “not” was especially turned against the degradation of the current living conditions (one of the reasons called upon by 52% of “not”) and the too great liberalism contained in this constitution project (one of the reasons for 40%). It was also justified by the hope of best treated (one of the reasons for 39%).

The vote “yes” was felt like a vote for Europe. The reasons were to build Europe able to face in China and the United States (one of the reasons called upon by 64% of “yes”), and also for the difficulty in managing Europe with 25 with the current treaties (one of the reasons for 44%). The purpose of the voters of “yes” were also to prevent “not” which would be likely to put a crushing argument at European construction (one of the reasons for 44%) and to weaken the weight of France in this Europe (one of the reasons for 43%).

All confused tendencies & votes, except the extreme right-hand side, the French express an favorable opinion with the continuation of European construction (72%).

Independently of the European Constitution, the question of the accession of Turkey in Europe perhaps also directed the results of the referendum, some having seen in “not” with the referendum, a means of saying not to Turkish adhesion (one of the reasons called upon by 35% of “not”).

Detail of the survey

Sociology and opinions

According to this same survey IPSOS, the easiest and graduate classes of the population generally their votes granted to the vote “yes”, whereas the vote “not” is rather the prerogative of the middle-classes and popular with a less level of studies. In addition, the result is primarily a victory of “not” of left: two thirds of “not” correspond to the left, and a third of “not” is of extreme right-hand side.

In comparison with the survey on the Referendum of Maastricht, “not” progresses whatever the sociological category (age, sex, profession…), except at the pensioners, and significantly at the voters feeling close to the right-hand side

the limit between “yes” and “not” is confused side of the left: the PS and the Greens were shared, their electorates have both mainly voted “not” (respectively to 56 and 60%) in opposition with their directions.

the caesura is much clearer side of the right-hand side where 80% of the electorate UMP voted “yes” and 75% of that of MPF for “not”.

It should be noted that, rare thing, a significant proportion of libertarians (low number) took part in the vote, reinforcing “not”.

Results by geography

Results by department: to see the article Results of the French referendum of May 29th, 2005 on the European Constitution

Results according to the trade-union proximities

According to a survey SCUMS realized for the weekly magazine social Connections , 74% of the sympathizers of the CGT voted not, like 70% with the FSU, 65% with CUS, 64% with Working force, 46% with the CFDT, 37% with the CFTC and 35% with the CFE-CGC.

Consequences of a victory of not

In the event of victory of not in France or in one of the 15 other remaining countries, the whole of the European treaties of which the Traité of Nice, signed in December 2000 and come into effect the 2003, it was expected that this treaty regulates the operation of the European Union after November 1st, 2006.

However, declaration 30 of the final act precise: “The conference notes that, so at the conclusion of a 2 years deadline as from the signature of the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe, the 4/5 of the Member States ratified the aforementioned treaty and that one or more Member States have difficulties in carry out the aforementioned ratification, the European Council will seize question. ”

Juridically, if one of the 25 countries does not ratify the treaty, this one cannot come into effect. The European governments then have the choice between remaining with the treaty of Nice, renegotiating a new constitutional treaty or a center gate, that of the adoption unanimously of certain measurements of the constitutional treaty, like the presidency of the European Council or the common Foreign Minister, which would also require a process of ratification.

References

Random links: